Countering LO capability in air sup platforms

[guppy]

Does anyone know if there is any current research and development of land or aircraft based systems to target LO aircraft? What I really mean is how to have an appropriate system/sensor with enough fidelity to provide tracking quality information to engage LO aircraft.

Now, if assuming that the above is not possible in the next 30 or so years and an adversarial nation is able to develop LO aircraft with similar qualities to the F-22 and F-35, what do you think the face of future air combat will look like? ie certain ground or airborne sensors are able to provide localisation of the threat aircraft, but no sensor is available to provide adequate tracking and weapons cueing at BVR weapon ranges. What would future air combat look like? Theoretical question, so pls do not bombard me with answers like it is not possible for Russia/China to acquire such technology etc. Exclusive availability of LO technology will certainly provide an immense advantage to the possessor. But, what if both sides have this capability, which IMV, is only a matter of time.

Guppy

[Aussie Digger]

Does anyone know if there is any current research and development of land or aircraft based systems to target LO aircraft? What I really mean is how to have an appropriate system/sensor with enough fidelity to provide tracking quality information to engage LO aircraft.

Now, if assuming that the above is not possible in the next 30 or so years and an adversarial nation is able to develop LO aircraft with similar qualities to the F-22 and F-35, what do you think the face of future air combat will look like? ie certain ground or airborne sensors are able to provide localisation of the threat aircraft, but no sensor is available to provide adequate tracking and weapons cueing at BVR weapon ranges. What would future air combat look like? Theoretical question, so pls do not bombard me with answers like it is not possible for Russia/China to acquire such technology etc. Exclusive availability of LO technology will certainly provide an immense advantage to the possessor. But, what if both sides have this capability, which IMV, is only a matter of time.

Guppy

I expect in a conflict where BOTH sides operate capable LO aircraft and "assuming everything else is equal" (which of course is unrealistic) that air to air combat will somewhat resemble submarine combat at present... Short ranged "knife" fights, little long ranged combat and plenty of effort on ISREW functions to attempt to locate the difficult to locate enemy...

I expect that A2A combat instances will probably reduce and even greater efforts to develop air to surface strike capability will be made, as the "surface" where LO jets leave from is a known quantity that CAN be relatively easily attacked...

Airbases will require extraordinary "hardening", camouflage and concealment and "dispersal" capability if Air Forces are to continue to operate "conventional" take off and landing aircraft.

Hypersonic weapons might spell the end of 2 mile runways and encourage the use of STOVL aircraft from dispersed areas...

Fighters that are in the air and passing each other within 50kays or so and never knowing they were there is decidedly possible...

Of course, I could be speaking utter shite too. I firmly believe that anyone who attempts to "take on" a force equipped with a significant proportion of LO aircraft, with legacy aircraft, is going to be in a world of hurt...

[weasel1962]

Deleted

[Feanor]

The USAF learned their lesson with the F-4's over Vietnam. On a side note are there currently radars that can effectively engage VLO at BVR?

[guppy]

I expect in a conflict where BOTH sides operate capable LO aircraft and "assuming everything else is equal" (which of course is unrealistic) that air to air combat will somewhat resemble submarine combat at present... Short ranged "knife" fights, little long ranged combat and plenty of effort on ISREW functions to attempt to locate the difficult to locate enemy...

I expect that A2A combat instances will probably reduce and even greater efforts to develop air to surface strike capability will be made, as the "surface" where LO jets leave from is a known quantity that CAN be relatively easily attacked...

Airbases will require extraordinary "hardening", camouflage and concealment and "dispersal" capability if Air Forces are to continue to operate "conventional" take off and landing aircraft.

Hypersonic weapons might spell the end of 2 mile runways and encourage the use of STOVL aircraft from dispersed areas...

Fighters that are in the air and passing each other within 50kays or so and never knowing they were there is decidedly possible...

Of course, I could be speaking utter shite too. I firmly believe that anyone who attempts to "take on" a force equipped with a significant proportion of LO aircraft, with legacy aircraft, is going to be in a world of hurt...

Aussie,

Your thoughts on the impact on airbase hardening is insightful.

By the way, what is ISREW? I am not familiar with submarine warfare.

As alluded to by Weasel, I am actually thinking that one of the main reasons the F-22 still retains the gun is that the US believes that "the other side" will eventually acquire LO fighters, and that phone booth knife fights are still inevitable, which also explains why the F-22 is an extremely capable BFM machine.

If phone booth fights are going to be the order of the day (in the future), then it looks like air to air UCAVs are even further away then it seems.

I am imagining future LO planes that can take off vertically, with laser weapons, and strangely looking like Decepticons...:)

cheers

guppy

[guppy]

Aussie,

By the way, what does submarine knife fights look like? What are the technical and operating characteristics of a good submarine knife fighter? And the weapons?

Guppy

[Aussie Digger]

Aussie,

Your thoughts on the impact on airbase hardening is insightful.

By the way, what is ISREW? I am not familiar with submarine warfare.

Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconaissance and Electronic Warfare. The primary measures used to detect "enemies". It is not specific to submarine warfare, but rather ALL military operations.

As alluded to by Weasel, I am actually thinking that one of the main reasons the F-22 still retains the gun is that the US believes that "the other side" will eventually acquire LO fighters, and that phone booth knife fights are still inevitable, which also explains why the F-22 is an extremely capable BFM machine.

If phone booth fights are going to be the order of the day (in the future), then it looks like air to air UCAVs are even further away then it seems.

I am imagining future LO planes that can take off vertically, with laser weapons, and strangely looking like Decepticons...:)

cheers

guppy

As to my earlier comments, weapons and sensors will continue to improve and perhaps "new" methods to detect LO aircraft will be discovered. I don't think radar systems, EO/IR systems and EW will improve to the point that they will make LO aircraft "obsolete" over the life of type of current LO aircraft types however.

The reason is because these aircraft, like every other aircraft has done, will continue to evolve as threats become apparent.

F-35's and F-22A's possess outstanding levels of "passive" stealth. Other measures such as "plasma stealth" systems are reportedly being developed and who can say for certain that future systems won't be developed that improves the LO aircraft capability?

That person would be very brave, if not foolish...

[Aussie Digger]

Aussie,

By the way, what does submarine knife fights look like? What are the technical and operating characteristics of a good submarine knife fighter? And the weapons?

Guppy

A good quiet boat, a good sonar system, a good crew... :)

GF could probably expand further on that topic. My point was, LO aircraft v LO aircraft is probably going to resemble a situation where NEITHER fighter can reliably detect the other at long range and therefore the most likely "fights" (IMHO) will occur within visual range. These were the "knife fights" I referred to earlier.

It has to be remember that active radar guided air to air missiles have small and relatively low powered radar systems guiding them. If LO can reliably "defeat" much more powerful radars at useful distances, the effect on smaller, less powerful radars is going to be increased exponentially.

Despite this, nearly all nations with BVR air to air combat capability aspirations are pursuing active radar guided missiles as their primary air to air weapons...

Another reason why I don't see LO being "obsolete" any time soon.

[guppy]

Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconaissance and Electronic Warfare. The primary measures used to detect "enemies". It is not specific to submarine warfare, but rather ALL military operations.

Thanks. I am quite familiar with ISR and EW, but have never seen the term used as ISREW before.


As to my earlier comments, weapons and sensors will continue to improve and perhaps "new" methods to detect LO aircraft will be discovered. I don't think radar systems, EO/IR systems and EW will improve to the point that they will make LO aircraft "obsolete" over the life of type of current LO aircraft types however.

The reason is because these aircraft, like every other aircraft has done, will continue to evolve as threats become apparent.

F-35's and F-22A's possess outstanding levels of "passive" stealth. Other measures such as "plasma stealth" systems are reportedly being developed and who can say for certain that future systems won't be developed that improves the LO aircraft capability?

That person would be very brave, if not foolish...

My discussion was not about whether LO will become obsolete and I have never alluded to that.

In my mind, targeting LO aircraft at BVR ranges might not be achievable in the near to mid future. I think it is a lot more possible that "the other side" acquires LO, and that will revolutionize tactical air combat . Thus, I do not follow your discussion about "that person would be very brave..."

guppy

[guppy]

A good quiet boat, a good sonar system, a good crew... :)

GF could probably expand further on that topic. My point was, LO aircraft v LO aircraft is probably going to resemble a situation where NEITHER fighter can reliably detect the other at long range and therefore the most likely "fights" (IMHO) will occur within visual range. These were the "knife fights" I referred to earlier.

It has to be remember that active radar guided air to air missiles have small and relatively low powered radar systems guiding them. If LO can reliably "defeat" much more powerful radars at useful distances, the effect on smaller, less powerful radars is going to be increased exponentially.

Despite this, nearly all nations with BVR air to air combat capability aspirations are pursuing active radar guided missiles as their primary air to air weapons...

Another reason why I don't see LO being "obsolete" any time soon.

Thanks aussie, I am very familiar with knife fights and radars in active radar missiles.

So my point would be this: When "the other side" acquires LO technology that can be applied to fighter aircraft, what will the US do to retain their edge? Or rather, what is the US doing to prepare for this eventuality?

Guppy

[Grand Danois]

If one goes by the assumption that manned fighters will still be the name of the game and that both sides have "detection parity" then at the face of it, it could look like when USAF exercises goes head to head with equal strength, ie the air is thick with missiles and organisation is a mess...

My take is that compression of the kill chain is most important - get the red air down before it detects, tracks, and fires at you. This means standoff sensors to improve general awareness and quick means of implementing the kill. Ramjet missiles that can be fired down a bearing and perhaps DEW. Saturation with hunter-killer missiles and use of decoys could also be a tactic.

Not to speak of UCAVs in off/def roles.

[Vivendi]

...
My point was, LO aircraft v LO aircraft is probably going to resemble a situation where NEITHER fighter can reliably detect the other at long range and therefore the most likely "fights" (IMHO) will occur within visual range. These were the "knife fights" I referred to earlier.

This is where I wonder how F-35 will fare in the future... For the US it will not be a big problem since they got the Air Superiority F-22. But what about all the countries that will buy the F-35 as a multirole fighter and not just for bombing? What will happen when "the bomber" F-35 meets an agile 5.gen fighter that has been optimized for a2a in WVR combat? Currently there is no competition however this will change in the future... There will be other LO fighters out there, sooner or later. Perhaps the JSF partners should worry about more than deadlines and costs...?


V

[Grand Danois]

This is where I wonder how F-35 will fare in the future... For the US it will not be a big problem since they got the Air Superiority F-22. But what about all the countries that will buy the F-35 as a multirole fighter and not just for bombing? What will happen when "the bomber" F-35 meets an agile 5.gen fighter that has been optimized for a2a in WVR combat? Currently there is no competition however this will change in the future... There will be other LO fighters out there, sooner or later. Perhaps the JSF partners should worry about more than deadlines and costs...?


V

LOAL/HOBS/HMCS. The F-35 is as agile as an F-16 and has lots of thrust, ie good acceleration, speed, adequate maneuverability.

You don't need supermaneuverability, top speed. You need pointing ability, eg the SH.

It will be a knifefight in a phonebooth, but considering 2038 weaponry it probably won't be dogfighting - it could be detect, 2D track, shoot a HOBS ramjet down a bearing inside near BVR and well inside the NEZ.

[guppy]

LOAL/HOBS/HMCS. The F-35 is as agile as an F-16 and has lots of thrust, ie good acceleration, speed, adequate maneuverability.

You don't need supermaneuverability, top speed. You need pointing ability, eg the SH.

It will be a knifefight in a phonebooth, but considering 2038 weaponry it probably won't be dogfighting - it could be detect, 2D track, shoot a HOBS ramjet down a bearing inside near BVR and well inside the NEZ.

If you can see the target, I am quite sure that you do not even need much pointing ability anymore, just a matter of just how much your neck can turn.

The problem remains, how to detect reliably, and then how to target effectively. If not, it seems that it would turn out like a free for all WVR fight, reminiscent of WW II, except with much more advanced close in weaponry. Then it is a matter of who can launch the first attack and destroy the other aircraft first that will win the fight. However, in multi bogey environment, this all changes, and a blood bath on both sides is likely. Both air forces could be decimated in a few waves.

Now, assuming the above speculation has some basis, what would the USAF do to retain their future edge?

Guppy

[Grand Danois]

It's no problem to do blue force tracking, even with the tech today.

1) Netcentric knowledge of position of friendlies.
2) Standoff IFF.
3) IFF in missile libraries (image or radar signatures). "You can launch them into the fray."

It will be all over before a merge into dogfight.

Re: Pointing. If I should chose between launch platform characteristics I would prioritize nose pointing capability before top speed and supermaneuverability. It was just a nuance, as we agree. The nose pointing could convey some increased Pk in certain situations.

And yes, it will be an air war of attrition. You need relatively cheap UCAV-in-box concepts for this kind of battle.

[guppy]

It's no problem to do blue force tracking, even with the tech today.

1) Netcentric knowledge of position of friendlies.
2) Standoff IFF.
3) IFF in missile libraries (image or electromagnetic signatures). "You can launch them into the fray."

It will be all over before a merge for into dogfight.

Re: Pointing. If I should chose between launch platform characteristics I would prioritize nose pointing capability before top speed and supermaneuverability. It was just a nuance, as we agree. The nose pointing could convey some increased Pk in certain situations.

And yes, it will be an air war of attrition. You need relatively cheap UCAV-in-box concepts for this kind of battle.

Yes, but there are times when ppl drop off the network unexpectedly. Possible prior to first merge or if the first merge never happens. Even then it would require a massive change in mindset/ROEs allowing non-friendly tracks to be attacked ie targets IDed as non friendly, but not positively IDed as hostile.

Guppy

[Grand Danois]

Yes, but there are times when ppl drop off the network unexpectedly. Possible prior to first merge or if the first merge never happens. Even then it would require a massive change in mindset/ROEs allowing non-friendly tracks to be attacked ie targets IDed as non friendly, but not positively IDed as hostile.

Guppy

Wartime ROEs are de facto already like this.

[guppy]

Wartime ROEs are de facto already like this.

Not in every air force. During the first gulf war, positive hostile ID was in effect. In fact, for the americans, it has been so since the fratricides in the Vietnam war.

[Grand Danois]

Not in every air force. During the first gulf war, positive hostile ID was in effect. In fact, for the americans, it has been so since the fratricides in the Vietnam war.

Yes, but not in OIF. Two jets were downed by Patriots and a third nearly was. Despite the fact allied forces were the only ones up there.

Similarly ROEs for AIM-120 shoots in principle only requires it to be established that it is not one of your own, ie no visual, eg Allied Force in 1999.

Scenario specific. As it is about attrition, it is more important to take the shot, as probability of shooting a friendly is << probability of shooting a hostile.

Btw, it should be possible to relay that a friendly has fallen out of the network.

[guppy]

Yes, but not in OIF. Two jets were downed by Patriots and a third nearly was. Despite the fact allied forces were the only ones up there.

Similarly ROEs for AIM-120 shoots in principle only requires it to be established that it is not one of your own, ie no visual, eg Allied Force in 1999.

Scenario specific. As it is about attrition, it is more important to take the shot, as probability of shooting a friendly is << probability of shooting a hostile.

Btw, it should be possible to relay that a friendly has fallen out of the network.

Visual is not required, just a non-co-operative means of ID. So, that rules out IFF and networks. That is why the USAF Eagles are often much more useful than the rest in the Counter air role.

Most of the time, Patriots can't afford to wait. The use similar non cooperative ID procedures as well if I am not wrong. If I remember correctly, the fratricides by the patriots were due to either "defective" ID procedures or equipment or both. But I believe that the two frats could have been avoided by common sense.

I am not sure any allied force pilot is willing to knowingly shoot at something that does not completely fulfill hostile criteria. That being said, it is possible for the decision makers to relax the rule and allow the "if it is not you, and it is not me, then it must be one of them" principle. ie accept the risk of fratricide.

If I am not wrong, current systems do not indicate members that have dropped off the network "temporarily". But then again, current systems have relatively low Blue Force positional update rates unless a request for specific positions are made.

cheers

guppy

[Grand Danois]

Patriots: Exactly, the IFF failed, they shot.

Operation Allied Force. I am referring to the real-life Dutch F-16 BVR kill of a MiG-29 i 1999.

And in 2038 you have to accept fratricide or you will lose more aircraft than you would otherwise have done. Because the hostiles will shoot you if you try to identify visually and it is with an extremely high probability likely to be a hostile. And you will have to let standoff platforms do the NCTR stuff as it is a bad idea to reveal your shooting platform. I refer you to 3)... let the missile library sort it out in the end. They will essentially be A2A hunter-killers.

So I have suggested 3 types of failsafes for the 2038 scenario with addendums.

1) Netcentric knowledge of position of friendlies including detection of absence.
2) Standoff IFF and standoff NCTR, but detection by forward platforms.
3) IFF in missile libraries (image or radar signatures). "You can launch them into the fray and they will disengage if friendly."

UCAVs are much better suited for this.

[guppy]

Patriots: Exactly, the IFF failed, they shot.

Operation Allied Force. I am referring to the real-life Dutch F-16 BVR kill of a MiG-29 i 1999.

And in 2038 you have to accept fratricide or you will lose more aircraft than you would otherwise have done. Because the hostiles will shoot you if you try to identify visually and it is with an extremely high probability likely to be a hostile. And you will have to let standoff platforms do the NCTR stuff as it is a bad idea to reveal your shooting platform. I refer you to 3)... let the missile library sort it out in the end. They will essentially be A2A hunter-killers.

So I have suggested 3 types of failsafes for the 2038 scenario with addendums.

1) Netcentric knowledge of position of friendlies including detection of absence.
2) Standoff IFF and standoff NCTR, but detection by forward platforms.
3) IFF in missile libraries (image or radar signatures). "You can launch them into the fray and they will disengage if friendly."

UCAVs are much better suited for this.

A AWACs provided the hostile ID allowing the dutch F-16 pilot to shoot "legally". AWACs type platforms have different means of providing ID.

Actually, you have a point. If UCAVs are involved, it does not matter too much if there is a "fratricide" because nobody would have died. Just have to make sure they don't shoot down a neutral party patrolling the border.

At the end of the day, it still depends on some future sensor able to track and identify targets.

[Grand Danois]

A AWACs provided the hostile ID allowing the dutch F-16 pilot to shoot "legally". AWACs type platforms have different means of providing ID.

Actually, you have a point. If UCAVs are involved, it does not matter too much if there is a "fratricide" because nobody would have died. Just have to make sure they don't shoot down a neutral party patrolling the border.

At the end of the day, it still depends on some future sensor able to track and identify targets.

I think the model I suggest does a bit of the same as an AWACS does... I'd also say that even if they're manned, the occasional fratricide is preferable to being completely wiped out.

But it's down to sensors, how they are used in conjunction with databases, netcentrics - and especially the compression of time from detection to kill.

Note: I hate this versioning of posts, no point in editing for spelling. It's addenda, not addendums. Grrr.