Perhaps you're right about the future. Photonics based radars in the coming decades certainly will make current LO technology obsolete. But the fact that many airforces around the world including China's are investing heavily in stealth, goes to show that it is extremely valuable and effective today and in the near future. It will be at least a decade before aerial warfare is again revolutionised by new missiles, sensors, jammers, drones, and AI. For now, if stealth is truly as obsolete as you suggest, why would Russia, India, USA + JSF countries, be pursuing stealth? Not to mention, Korea wants to start its own program with a few partners. Their LO fighters will be at least a decade away from LRIP.
Russian Su-57 Aircraft Thread (PAK-FA and IAF FGFA)
- Thread starter A Bar Brother
- Start date
No for range approx. the radar of the Su-57 detect F-22 to 30 -40 km i let's you imagine for Mig-29 etc... with a radar much less capable.
The Su-57 remains much less detectable Su-35 have a RCS of 3 m2 ( Su-27 10 -15 m2 as F-15) vs about 0.1 or more, 0.1 m2 is identical to F-117.
Last edited:
In terms of radar signature, F-22 will be detected first as it has to use radar to have hope of BVR detection, while PAK FA can stay passive and use IRST and RWR to keep track of the F-22. Average (not frontal!) RCS is 0,5 m2 for PAK FA compared to 0,3 m2 for F-22. Frontal RCS is 0,0014 – 0,025 m2 for PAK FA (tennis/golf ball to 1/40 of Su-35S) and 0,00018 m2 for F-22. Most likely RCS for PAK FA is 0,01 m2, as estimated by Air Power Australia. AN/APG-77 has range of 193 km vs 1 m2 target, whereas PAK FAs radar may achieve range of 350-400 km vs 3 m2 target; lower range is more likely as Irbis E achieves 425 km vs 5 m2 target. Using radar, F-22 will detect PAK FA at 37-77 km, while PAK FA will detect F-22 at 30-35 km.
b787
Captain
b787
Captain
the reality is stealth is too expensive, specially when this has TVC nozzles, Supercruise and advanced avionics.
Just consider 20 F-22 will spend in one hour a million two hundred thousand american dollars in just a single flight hour each one.
So this limits the number of flight hours besides they break all the time and need maintenance.
F-16s, Su-27s or J-10 are not going to be phased out and being retired any time soon.
Add that you can detect stealth aircraft, people have this fantasy they can not be
detected, but very likely by airborne means they can be detected in ranges of 120-180 km.
true, it is harder and much more expensive, but possible! these aircraft are a lot propaganda.
I can assure that aircraft like F-16 and drones will fly more hours, have better maintenance and practically have not much different losses than F-22s in big war, by big war i mean superpower versus superpower.
Is good to have stealth? yes of course, it forces the enemy to revamp and upgrade all the air defense network, thus it creates economic losses and in times of economic crisis social unrest.
Plus versus small nations with a few of obsolete aircraft are effective but more by sheer numbers and electronic jamming.
As economic items allow the industrial military complex more money and internal prestige in the propaganda war for both internal and external purposes.
If you do not believe it, in 1999, Serbia shot down a F-117 with an obsolete SAM, and the F-117 was escorted by F-15s and one time almost one MiG-29 shoot down a F-117 but it was prevented by the escorting F-15.
more of the 105 anniversary of the VVS aka Russian air force 2017
Yes VLO and fifth gen is a lot of marketing but they are also improving on the abilities of legacy fighters. You cannot deny the massive advantage a VLO fighter offers. Especially true against a lesser adversary. For example, if PLAAF employed J-20s against the best India has to offer, there won't be much of a fight. India has not heavily invested in countering LO platforms so they don't have the radars, missiles, or fighters that can effectively counter J-20s at the moment. This example is between countries that are supposedly not too far off each other in capabilities. Stealthy planes are well worth it if the economic costs can be offset by correct application e.g. minimising risks and used as force multipliers to knock out strategic targets.
Dizasta1
Senior Member
Although it is a compelling and convincing argument regarding the F-22 Raptors excruciatingly expensive costs to operate. There things that have either been chosen to ignore or have been eluded to. Yes, the Raptor is too expensive to operate. Yes stealth is not invincible and can be defeated. And yes, the Raptor cannot claim to be the king of the skies just based on its stealth capabilities.
Let's get straight to the matter of "Stealth" superiority first. For starters, Raptors won't be deployed on lone-wolf missions where they are working entirely on their own. Without satellites, solid intelligence, AWACS, UAVs (UAS or whatever else they are referred to these days) or other assets. You won't see Raptors venture into any sort of "unforseen" danger zone. The idea is for Raptor to operate in an environment where there isn't any threat that hasn't been accounted for and intelligence already acquired about. Raptors would always be employed from a position of strength, not one of weakness. And when there is such a threat foreseen by gathering evidence against adversary state and it's assets. Then that state would face the full weight of American Economic anesthesia. Rendering the enemy incapable to building up a counter with military systems that can possibly undo the advantage America may have over it.
The 187 Raptors aren't sitting around with overwhelming odds stacked against them. That is a misrepresentation of how the Raptors would be employed. So to say that if you can find a way to defeat stealth, that the Raptor can be rendered useless. That's not something people have given much thought to. Because besides stealth, the Raptor has the ability to command segments of air components in an Air War, and/or act as mini-awacs to provide a larger picture of the theater of war. A concept originally conceived by the Russians with their very capable, MiG-31s and Su-35s. The biggest advantage that the Raptor is touted to have, is Sensor-Fusion. That gives the pilots in the cockpits the ability to make quick decisive decision. The only thing remains to be seen is whether this Sensor-Fusion actually works in war. For as far as I have researched, to this very day, the Raptor cannot share it's "God's Eye" picture with the rest of the USAF or NATO. Whether that has been addressed already, remains to be seen.
For China and Russia, it's necessary not only to modernize their respective militaries. But more importantly, they need to insulate their economic progress from the damage of any potential sanctions. And as any political science student would tell you, sanctions are tool wielded by power hungry nations who do not like their narrative to be challenged.
Regards,
KHAN
Let's get straight to the matter of "Stealth" superiority first. For starters, Raptors won't be deployed on lone-wolf missions where they are working entirely on their own. Without satellites, solid intelligence, AWACS, UAVs (UAS or whatever else they are referred to these days) or other assets. You won't see Raptors venture into any sort of "unforseen" danger zone. The idea is for Raptor to operate in an environment where there isn't any threat that hasn't been accounted for and intelligence already acquired about. Raptors would always be employed from a position of strength, not one of weakness. And when there is such a threat foreseen by gathering evidence against adversary state and it's assets. Then that state would face the full weight of American Economic anesthesia. Rendering the enemy incapable to building up a counter with military systems that can possibly undo the advantage America may have over it.
The 187 Raptors aren't sitting around with overwhelming odds stacked against them. That is a misrepresentation of how the Raptors would be employed. So to say that if you can find a way to defeat stealth, that the Raptor can be rendered useless. That's not something people have given much thought to. Because besides stealth, the Raptor has the ability to command segments of air components in an Air War, and/or act as mini-awacs to provide a larger picture of the theater of war. A concept originally conceived by the Russians with their very capable, MiG-31s and Su-35s. The biggest advantage that the Raptor is touted to have, is Sensor-Fusion. That gives the pilots in the cockpits the ability to make quick decisive decision. The only thing remains to be seen is whether this Sensor-Fusion actually works in war. For as far as I have researched, to this very day, the Raptor cannot share it's "God's Eye" picture with the rest of the USAF or NATO. Whether that has been addressed already, remains to be seen.
For China and Russia, it's necessary not only to modernize their respective militaries. But more importantly, they need to insulate their economic progress from the damage of any potential sanctions. And as any political science student would tell you, sanctions are tool wielded by power hungry nations who do not like their narrative to be challenged.
Regards,
KHAN
Raptor's biggest enemy is its own age. Nowadays chips and sensors are developing fast, you can't compare Chinese/Russian tech with 20-year old American tech. Old age brings maintenance problems. It is not just hardware but also software. As people get older and retire, less and less people are familiar with the software. While I still believe F-22 brought new concepts, and the mechanical hardware is still superb, we have to face reality that the piece of weaponry requires constant maintenance and upgrade, and weapons tend to have a shorter life than before.
