Ask anything Thread (Air Force)

[AsuraGodFiend]

Wouldn't trust GPT, also if it doesn't matter in the slightest then why go through the trouble?

Exactly why go through the trouble putting it internally when externally it doesn't affect it f22 has it yet it claims to have smaller frontal stealth just because they dont do everything that f35 do doesn't mean they can't or they want to and for the exposed tiny holes on the j35 in the parade it's because the final coat isn't applied. Anyways back to lurking if I'm wrong it does affect stealth negatively then imma be really disappointed at shenyang but I genuinely believe it doesn't affect stealth negatively because they obviously have taken the strips into consideration and decide to go with it.

 

[Mearex]

kind of a question for the whole forum, but do we have some sort of discord server where we can chat more informally? If not we should make one

 

[Tomboy]

How stupid would the idea of a unmanned tanker fleet be? PLAAF would be operating thousands of fighters and UADFs in 2030s, IMO It'll be difficult to keep up with current tanker procurement for sustained deployment at and beyond the second island chain.

Also as a side question, will air brigades in the future have mixed units? Like 24 manned fighters along with a squad of UADFs/loyal wingmans or will these drones be based in delicaded unmanned units?

 

[4Tran]

How stupid would the idea of a unmanned tanker fleet be? PLAAF would be operating thousands of fighters and UADFs in 2030s, IMO It'll be difficult to keep up with current tanker procurement for sustained deployment at and beyond the second island chain.

Also as a side question, will air brigades in the future have mixed units? Like 24 manned fighters along with a squad of UADFs/loyal wingmans or will these drones be based in delicaded unmanned units?

Unmanned tankers are very important; not so much for the air force, but it makes all the difference for carrier operations. It's not practical to operate manned tankers from carriers, but aerial refuelling is still a crucial capability. Unmanned tankers are the best solution to this problem, and that's what the USN is doing as well. In general though, the bigger the tanker the more effective it is, and there's no point in making really big unmanned tankers. So for PLAAF aircraft, there just isn't as much need for them.

 

[tamsen_ikard]

Unmanned tankers are very important; not so much for the air force, but it makes all the difference for carrier operations. It's not practical to operate manned tankers from carriers, but aerial refuelling is still a crucial capability. Unmanned tankers are the best solution to this problem, and that's what the USN is doing as well. In general though, the bigger the tanker the more effective it is, and there's no point in making really big unmanned tankers. So for PLAAF aircraft, there just isn't as much need for them.

I think unmanned planes still have a problem that since they are unmanned, they can be hacked, controlled and then maybe enemy might steal them. So, I don't know how much a military should rely on them for something as critical as a tanker.

Maybe a fully AI controlled tanker could be less vulnerable to hacking but we are not to that sage yet.

 

[TheWanderWit]

Does anyone by any chance know where I can find or has this one paper I stumbled across quite a while back? I can't find it, was basically a paper or something on an air launched cruise missile that housed small drones inside.

 

[thingymabob]

This is something I've been thinking about for some time, but is there a point in obsessing on placing very powerful and capable radars on stealth aircraft? From my understanding, turning on your radar in a stealth aircraft effectively negates your stealth advantages or significantly increases your detectability. With modern datalinks alongside very powerful radars placed on AEW&C, wouldn't the majority of the searching, tracking of targets and guiding of missiles be placed upon these, rather than the stealth aircraft themselves? I know that modern AESA radars by their design and physics are LPI, but emissions are still emissions which can still be detected and identified.

The only thing I can think of is turning on your radar within ranges where you can no longer escape detection and hence there is no issue with emitting as much as you want to attain more accurate locks for your missiles and also jamming if necessary. But doesn't that just negate the advantages people tout about how say the J-20's radar has many more T/R modules than the F-35 and also how it is a generation ahead in material science and hence should be able to detect targets much further out? I don't know if I am underestimating modern algorithms/methods in which emissions can be masked and made more LPI or that detection from emissions is not too important as long as a weapons-grade lock is still difficult to attain from the inherent RCS of the plane. I would much appreciate it if someone could enlighten me if I have a gap in my understanding in the technology or doctrine involved.

 

[siegecrossbow]

This is something I've been thinking about for some time, but is there a point in obsessing on placing very powerful and capable radars on stealth aircraft? From my understanding, turning on your radar in a stealth aircraft effectively negates your stealth advantages or significantly increases your detectability. With modern datalinks alongside very powerful radars placed on AEW&C, wouldn't the majority of the searching, tracking of targets and guiding of missiles be placed upon these, rather than the stealth aircraft themselves? I know that modern AESA radars by their design and physics are LPI, but emissions are still emissions which can still be detected and identified.

The only thing I can think of is turning on your radar within ranges where you can no longer escape detection and hence there is no issue with emitting as much as you want to attain more accurate locks for your missiles and also jamming if necessary. But doesn't that just negate the advantages people tout about how say the J-20's radar has many more T/R modules than the F-35 and also how it is a generation ahead in material science and hence should be able to detect targets much further out? I don't know if I am underestimating modern algorithms/methods in which emissions can be masked and made more LPI or that detection from emissions is not too important as long as a weapons-grade lock is still difficult to attain from the inherent RCS of the plane. I would much appreciate it if someone could enlighten me if I have a gap in my understanding in the technology or doctrine involved.

Force multipliers like AWACs are very vulnerable and what are you gonna do if they get taken out? Also, AWAC radar doesn’t provide the same resolution as fire control radar on fighter aircraft.

 

[ougoah]

This is something I've been thinking about for some time, but is there a point in obsessing on placing very powerful and capable radars on stealth aircraft? From my understanding, turning on your radar in a stealth aircraft effectively negates your stealth advantages or significantly increases your detectability. With modern datalinks alongside very powerful radars placed on AEW&C, wouldn't the majority of the searching, tracking of targets and guiding of missiles be placed upon these, rather than the stealth aircraft themselves? I know that modern AESA radars by their design and physics are LPI, but emissions are still emissions which can still be detected and identified.

The only thing I can think of is turning on your radar within ranges where you can no longer escape detection and hence there is no issue with emitting as much as you want to attain more accurate locks for your missiles and also jamming if necessary. But doesn't that just negate the advantages people tout about how say the J-20's radar has many more T/R modules than the F-35 and also how it is a generation ahead in material science and hence should be able to detect targets much further out? I don't know if I am underestimating modern algorithms/methods in which emissions can be masked and made more LPI or that detection from emissions is not too important as long as a weapons-grade lock is still difficult to attain from the inherent RCS of the plane. I would much appreciate it if someone could enlighten me if I have a gap in my understanding in the technology or doctrine involved.

What you say is correct but the understanding and therefore conclusion is somewhat off.

You're sort of attributing radar emissions to the aircraft's signature as equal to the aircraft's RCS. While radar emissions do "give away" the presence of the aircraft, it is not in the same capacity as its RCS. Anti-radiation missiles would home in on radar emission but with AESA LPI, anti-radiation missiles are probably much less effective against at those longer ranges. It also doesn't have a solution if the radar gets switched off. RCS is basically stuck with the aircraft.

Most fighters just have radar warning receivers that let them know they're painted by adversarial search and track and/or fire control. It doesn't tell them the adversary's precise location. A stealth aircraft can still be painting a target without the target knowing where exactly the stealth aircraft is. This would be particularly true for AESA I would think as the beam forming is far more flexible/adjustable. It might give away general presence if the radar warning receiver is capable enough to intercept LPI signals but it won't be comparable to a non stealth aircraft's RCS.