[Old Crow]

I just finished reading an interesting article in the current issue of Air & Space magazine (great issue, by the way) about the impending retirement of the F-117. What was particularly interesting was the brief discussion about the philosophy of the USAF as compared with the Navy/Marines and European air forces.

In summary, the author indicated that USAF doctrine is to design their fighters completely around stealth principles and technology. The other services and air forces, on the other hand, build fighters (i.e., Rafale, Eurofighter, Super Hornet) that use stealth technology to reduce the effectiveness of enemy radar but are essentially conventional aircraft with weapon carriages and electronic jamming pods and the like located outside the a/c. Part of the problem with stealth technology is apparently improved radar technology and tactics.

I would be interested in hearing what other members know/think about this topic. I am not interested in starting a debate about inter-service or US versus European rivalries or any nonsense criticizing members because they happen to have a different view or preference on the issue. I am just interested in different thoughts and views for my own education.

[Rush104]

Originally Posted by Old Crow

I just finished reading an interesting article in the current issue of Air & Space magazine (great issue, by the way) about the impending retirement of the F-117. What was particularly interesting was the brief discussion about the philosophy of the USAF as compared with the Navy/Marines and European air forces.

In summary, the author indicated that USAF doctrine is to design their fighters completely around stealth principles and technology. The other services and air forces, on the other hand, build fighters (i.e., Rafale, Eurofighter, Super Hornet) that use stealth technology to reduce the effectiveness of enemy radar but are essentially conventional aircraft with weapon carriages and electronic jamming pods and the like located outside the a/c. Part of the problem with stealth technology is apparently improved radar technology and tactics.

I would be interested in hearing what other members know/think about this topic. I am not interested in starting a debate about inter-service or US versus European rivalries or any nonsense criticizing members because they happen to have a different view or preference on the issue. I am just interested in different thoughts and views for my own education.

Interesting post OC. I would think that the maintenance requirements in the operating environment would play a big factor in how much stealth is designed into an airplane from the start. I don't know how true this is, but I've heard that the B-2 has to be kept out of the sun due to the damage that could be done to it's stealth skin (of course, it could be hidden away just to keep it out of view of spy satellites). But, if this IS true, this kind of approach would not work for the Navy. Any tactical aircraft they buy have to be carrier capable, and it's very tough to maintain any kind of aircraft in the at-sea environment, much less stealth ones.
Prior to the A-12 cancellation, at-sea maintenance (especially keeping the stealth signature within limits) was a big concern for that program.
Given the limit on how much hangar deck space is available, and balancing the operational tempo vs. the maintenance requirements for the aircraft, I just don't think the state of stealth airframe technology is advanced enough to allow the Navy to be able to design aircraft that are as sophisticated (stealth-wise) as Air Force planes.

[flyXwire]

Originally Posted by Old Crow

I would be interested in hearing what other members know/think about this topic. I am not interested in starting a debate about inter-service or US versus European rivalries or any nonsense criticizing members because they happen to have a different view or preference on the issue. I am just interested in different thoughts and views for my own education.

I couldn't agree more on the above! I think making disparaging and condescending remarks about fellow forum members personal opinions on issues should be outlawed.

[FormerViperDriver]

Originally Posted by Rush104

Interesting post OC. I would think that the maintenance requirements in the operating environment would play a big factor in how much stealth is designed into an airplane from the start. I don't know how true this is, but I've heard that the B-2 has to be kept out of the sun due to the damage that could be done to it's stealth skin (of course, it could be hidden away just to keep it out of view of spy satellites). But, if this IS true, this kind of approach would not work for the Navy. Any tactical aircraft they buy have to be carrier capable, and it's very tough to maintain any kind of aircraft in the at-sea environment, much less stealth ones.
Prior to the A-12 cancellation, at-sea maintenance (especially keeping the stealth signature within limits) was a big concern for that program.
Given the limit on how much hangar deck space is available, and balancing the operational tempo vs. the maintenance requirements for the aircraft, I just don't think the state of stealth airframe technology is advanced enough to allow the Navy to be able to design aircraft that are as sophisticated (stealth-wise) as Air Force planes.

...F-35C...

FVD

[FormerViperDriver]

Originally Posted by Old Crow

I just finished reading an interesting article in the current issue of Air & Space magazine (great issue, by the way) about the impending retirement of the F-117. What was particularly interesting was the brief discussion about the philosophy of the USAF as compared with the Navy/Marines and European air forces.

In summary, the author indicated that USAF doctrine is to design their fighters completely around stealth principles and technology. The other services and air forces, on the other hand, build fighters (i.e., Rafale, Eurofighter, Super Hornet) that use stealth technology to reduce the effectiveness of enemy radar but are essentially conventional aircraft with weapon carriages and electronic jamming pods and the like located outside the a/c. Part of the problem with stealth technology is apparently improved radar technology and tactics.

I would be interested in hearing what other members know/think about this topic. I am not interested in starting a debate about inter-service or US versus European rivalries or any nonsense criticizing members because they happen to have a different view or preference on the issue. I am just interested in different thoughts and views for my own education.

I happen to know a lot about this subject. However, if you are interested only in opinion not fact, I will just stay out of it. My opinion is irrelevant. Why I hold an opinion is.

I sincerely hope you get your education.

FVD

[Rush104]

Originally Posted by FormerViperDriver

...F-35C...

FVD

Will be an interesting test case.

[Old Crow]

My opinion is irrelevant. Why I hold an opinion is.

I apologize for being less than precise.

I deal with qualified experts in many varied fields of expertise, some of which are highly sophisticated and technical, on a daily basis and am accustomed to their expression of opinion supported by what they perceive to be facts supporting the opinion. I say "perceive" because it is not uncommon for something held as fact to later be proved to be other than fact.

In any case, I take it as a given that a qualified expert will express his or her opinion in tandem with reference to facts. So I am interested in both your opinions and facts you use to support the opinions or, if you prefer, only what you consider facts.

[FormerViperDriver]

Old Crow,

I've been pondering how to answer you on this subject without giving out too much information, which would be easy to do.

I read the article in question a couple of days ago. It makes some good points. However, I wouldn't put too much credence in what the French or British say regarding the worth of their Rafale and Eurofighter respectively. Their argument that the US 5th generation jets (F-22 and F-35) sacrifice too much for stealth is a desperate attempt at salvaging whatever export opportunities they might still get for their 4th generation fighters in the face of the commercial beating they are taking when pitted against the F-35 (or even upgraded F-15s and F-16s, for that matter).

Most countries' Air Forces understand the stakes and are going for the F-35 versus buying other very expensive jets that are only slightly more capable than our own F-16s, F-18s, and F-15s (and then only in certain specific areas, such as pure maneuverability, which is of marginal value in modern air combat). I don't care how maneuvrable an aircraft is, it won't matter much against an SA-10b, 20, or 21. Only stealth can get you through at that point (though even then, you have to understand stealth is not a panacea and must be used wisely. But at least you it give you a fighting chance). There are other methods that might work to help you get through those kinds of defenses, but then you are talking about investing heavily in support aircraft and other systems, and hope that these actually work. The best is a combination of all of the above, because it gives you options against an enemy who can adapt and perhaps is smart enough to counter your own tactics. The Rafale and Typhoon/Eurofighter (or the Navy's F-18) don't give you the same options. And we haven't even talked about the huge advantage stealth gives you in air-to-air when facing AA-10s or AA-12s.

The Eurofighter in particular is a total joke when it comes to any claims of "reduced radar signature." No amount of RAM (Radar Absorbent Materials) can make up for a shape that's all right angles everywhere. If an engineer were given the task of designing an aircraft with the largest radar cross-section possible from all angles, but still be maneuverable, the Eurofighter would be optimal. It's all corner reflectors everywhere. Al least the British and Italian Navy (and probably Spain) will get F-35Bs (carrier based) to give them some real capability on day one of a serious war, but the Germans will be stuck with waiting for other countries to do the job for them. I guess it makes sense for them, since it's highly unlikely they will ever go to war by themselves. Still pretty weak to let the others do the hard fighting and settle for second-string. Our own US Navy will get the F-35C, so they'll be covered, eventually.

All the talk about anti-stealth radars and such is just talk. There may be ways on the drawing board to figure out that a stealthy plane is "out there somewhere" in a general area (read Aviation Week and you can find out about that), but there is no way these methods can be used to track accurately enough to guide a weapon. It's all speculation at this point anyway. The Russians are funny that way: they keep bragging about being able to defeat stealth, but they are working on their own stealth designs anyway (some of their methods are quite distinct from our own, by the way, but they are still very experimental, not operational, and their effectiveness is still to be determined. I'm speaking of plasma field shielding in particular). The F-117 shoot-down in Serbia had nothing to do with any particular brilliance on their part (though it did have to do with some buffoonery on our part).

The bit about stand-off missiles making up for a lack of stealth is incorrect. These missiles are great to have, but there are many missions, particularly Close Air Support, or interdiction against mobile targets, or Time Sensitive Targeting, or high-collateral-damage-potential targets, or deeply burried targets, etc... where stand-off missiles are either not useable or are less than optimal. Again, stealth gives you far more options.

Finally, unlike what the article would lead you to believe, the F-35 will carry at least as much armament, farther, than either of the European jets. It doesn't carry as much in its full stealth mode (due to internal carriage), but if you hang weapons on the wings, it will carry similar loads, with greater range in most cases (in other words, let's compare apples to apples).

So the bottom line is the US Air Force is doing the right thing. Stealth is not a cure-all, but it is a huge asset, far more important than maneuverability for example. Furthermore, the F-22 and F-35 incorporate stealth with practically no sacrifice in speed, maneuverability, range, and avionics. They do sacrifice some weapons load capacity when in full stealth mode, but not when they carry weapons externally. These new jets are marvels of American engineering which other countries just wish they could copy. Since they can't (at least not yet), they resort to wishful thinking. I hope that works for them...

FVD

[Old Crow]

Thanks for the information, FVD.

[Elmer]

Originally Posted by Old Crow

I just finished reading an interesting article in the current issue of Air & Space magazine (great issue, by the way) about the impending retirement of the F-117.

My how time marches on. It seems only yesterday that this bird was "new" and oh so awesome. Does anyone know the scheduled retirement date?