Formation to go against stealth fighters like F22, and F35..

I think going after each "promising" blimp on an "anti-stealth-radar" will need a lot of such formations, since there will be a lot of blimps.
You also need to maintain those aircraft between sorties. To still have a sufficient number on alert/ in the air, you need many, wich will be expensive and complex.
Also, for the UCAVs to be able to attack planes on their own in case they are recognized and ignored, they need a good radar, sophisticated AI and so on, what will make them not so cheap any more.

Scratch said:

I think going after each "promising" blimp on an "anti-stealth-radar" will need a lot of such formations, since there will be a lot of blimps.
You also need to maintain those aircraft between sorties. To still have a sufficient number on alert/ in the air, you need many, wich will be expensive and complex.
Also, for the UCAVs to be able to attack planes on their own in case they are recognized and ignored, they need a good radar, sophisticated AI and so on, what will make them not so cheap any more.

Click to expand...

For starters, there's no sacrifice of live experienced pilots, I think that's "cheap" in a sense. Alot of those older generation fighter plane can be converted into UCAVs. Still using those older radar and weapons So, it's all about software and control.

I read the article, the supercomputers are used to analyze those blimp and make reasonable assumption whether they are stealth plane or not.

lilzz said:

For starters, there's no sacrifice of live experienced pilots, I think that's "cheap" in a sense. Alot of those older generation fighter plane can be converted into UCAVs. Still using those older radar and weapons So, it's all about software and control.

I read the article, the supercomputers are used to analyze those blimp and make reasonable assumption whether they are stealth plane or not.

Click to expand...

Super computers that are large, fixed, and can be TLAMed. There goes your super computers...

Iraq is an easy pushover, so let's not use iraq as the standard.

Click to expand...

We've had this argument before in this forum....In fact Iraq had state of the art Russian air defenses radars etc....They did not have junk. Same goes for Lybia in 1986...

I can no longer find the links...

Pointblank said:

Super computers that are large, fixed, and can be TLAMed. There goes your super computers...

Click to expand...

The receivers are passive system, they don't emit any radiation signals and they are all spread out. Also the receivers and the central computer cluster are not even in the same site. I don't not sure how you go about to find the Super computer.

^ I think we've had this discussion many times. If you are on in your own territory, multi-static radars completely nullify any advantage of stealth aircraft. A stealth airframe merely deflects radar returns away from the transmitting source. A multi-static radar doesn't have the transmitting and receiving nodes in the same place. So the receiving nodes can still get the radar returns, as long as they are in a different place from the transmitting node. Then you would need clever software and powerful computers to put a picture together.

Multi-static radars allow you (at least theoretically) to get a radar lock on the stealth aircraft and shoot it down with SAM's. Alternatively, you can simply detect the stealth aircraft (not that hard to do with existing technology), and send waves of cheap UAV's at it to make it expend its valuable missiles before sending in J-10's to finish them off.

Or if you have your own stealth fighter, you can detect the enemy aircraft with ground radar and close in -- possibly into visual range -- and dog-fight it out.

There's recent quote from bruce wright saying the US conventional planes will have difficulties in penetrating Chinese airdefense. It will requires the stealth planes. So, for those who mentions wild weasel, and planes /w ECM,I don't think they can do it.


=====================================================

Wright noted the Air Force's fleet is older than ever before.

The average age of the F-15 fighters, for example, is about 24 years, while that of the KC-135 Stratotanker, a mid-air refueling plane that is a key element in the Air Force's ability to conduct long-range missions, is 46 years.

Wright, who was at this air base on Japan's southern island of Okinawa to meet with local commanding officers, said the improvement in Chinese air defenses has made China's airspace "difficult if not impossible" to penetrate with the kind of U.S. fighters — F-15s and F-16s — now deployed in Japan.

Doing so would require the F-22 or the Joint Strike Fighter, which both have stealth capabilities. The Air Force sent a dozen F-22s to Japan earlier this year, but only for a temporary deployment. It has no plans to bring more here permanently.

The Joint Strike Fighter, or F-35, is not yet combat-ready.

lilzz said:

The receivers are passive system, they don't emit any radiation signals and they are all spread out. Also the receivers and the central computer cluster are not even in the same site. I don't not sure how you go about to find the Super computer.

Click to expand...

Someone with good satellite reconnaissance will detect the construction and possible location of such computer farms. Once you have pinpointed the possible locations, use non-penetrating aircraft to launch salvos of TLAM's at the target. You can severely degrade enemy air defence capabilities by destroying command and control.

There's recent quote from bruce wright saying the US conventional planes will have difficulties in penetrating Chinese airdefense. It will requires the stealth planes. So, for those who mentions wild weasel, and planes /w ECM,I don't think they can do it.

Click to expand...

Difficulties as taking higher casualties than normal. It can be done, but in a different manner, and you will have to accept casualties.

Roger604 said:

^ I think we've had this discussion many times. If you are on in your own territory, multi-static radars completely nullify any advantage of stealth aircraft. A stealth airframe merely deflects radar returns away from the transmitting source. A multi-static radar doesn't have the transmitting and receiving nodes in the same place. So the receiving nodes can still get the radar returns, as long as they are in a different place from the transmitting node. Then you would need clever software and powerful computers to put a picture together.

Multi-static radars allow you (at least theoretically) to get a radar lock on the stealth aircraft and shoot it down with SAM's. Alternatively, you can simply detect the stealth aircraft (not that hard to do with existing technology), and send waves of cheap UAV's at it to make it expend its valuable missiles before sending in J-10's to finish them off.

Or if you have your own stealth fighter, you can detect the enemy aircraft with ground radar and close in -- possibly into visual range -- and dog-fight it out.

Click to expand...

To down a Very Low Observable (VLO) fighter such as the F-22 and to a lesser extent the F-35 you need to a) "see" it and then b) "track it" in order to be able to obtain a firing solution for your SAM radar and then c) track the target using the SAM radar and guide the missile to it.

Passive Multi-Freq/Sensoral Suites such as Czech VERA-E on marketing brochures advertise the ability to "detect and track" VLO aircraft-yet the "track" capability has not been proven to date and VLOs such the F-22 and F-35 give off so little Electronic emissions that the "see" capability is militarily moot because you only know that a VLO has penetrated your airspace-not the vector or bearing it is approaching from unless the Raptor or -35 driver is singing "Whoops I did it Again" on his radio. I can assure you that the USAF is not the least worried about the VERA-E or its successor the BORAP to their F-22s as the capabilities of both systems have already been tested against the F-22A-with a predictable outcome.

As for your claim that existing technology is sufficient to "defeat" an F-22A-that would be US technology only Certainly the Thales SMART-L I believe managed to get an IR or visual lock on a B-2 at an airshow a few years back but we're talking 1980's LO for the B-2, the F-22A is 21st Century LO and capabilities are tightly classified.

Your "waves of UAVs" are ridculous-you simply don't know the vectors of approaching F-22s in order to scramble J-6 UAVs in that narrow time frame-the PLAAF does not have enough surplus J-6 UAVs anyway for you to station around the 40-50 in each coastal MR needed for this kind of strategy to work (this is assuming you need to cover all sectors), the F-22 driver is certainly smart enough to distinguish a swarm of drones from "real" targets-its simple to sort out datalink feed transmissions from radar emmissions, chatter etc. generated by manned fighters.

J-10s simply won't cut it. If the AN/APG-63(V)1 on the F-15Cs at Red Flag can't get a lock on that "explictive ***** aircraft" the words of an Eagle driver despite having the Raptor in visual range-what exactly makes you think a J-10's Grifo or some other PESA can do so?

"Your own stealth fighter":roll:

Dream on. Maybe in 15-20 years time.

@Lilzz: This idea is a good one if you can get around the issue of how to find the plane in the first place, which is really what is being discussed here. That is a very difficult proposition, but judged on its tactical merits your idea is as good as any I've heard when it comes to defeating the F-22. The technology of UCAVs has some catching up to do though .And that's not to mention the near impossibility of finding the damn thing in the first place.

Does anyone think it would be possible to have a twin-seater fighter, with one pilot flying it and the other controlling several UCAVs (ie taking direct control when making an attack run). That would allow one plane to counter the F-22s superior manuverabilty by atttacking it from several directions at once and taxing the pilots ability to choose which is the most pressing target, giving the opposing pilot precious time to close the range. Also if you have multiple radars pointing at the F-22, your chances of locking it rae going to improve, especially if you're datalinked.

As for the issue of penetrating air defence, the thing one must remember is that SAMs and their radars, by themselves, are a temporary solution. Any network can be degraded by hitting command and control and the using ECM to penetrate the defended area by messing up the radars then hitting the sites. Once one area has been defeated, the interlocking protection of SAM sties is gone and you can take it one by one.

The battle for the air is won in the air. Especially against an adversary like the US. Serbia and Iraq had to choose between using their SAM systems and losing them or not using them at all, because once they are activated the clock is ticking. China has the same problem; it would take much more time and casualties to dismantle its AD network but it could be done. Thus Lilzz has the right idea. A ground based network exsists to aid the intercepting planes. Otherwise all it does is force the enemy to expend more resources to achieve their goal.