Propagation of stealth technology and what this means for the US

[Chrisious]

Passive Stealth

Should imagine with improvements in computer aided design and better understanding from the designers. Passive stealth is a done deal and active stealth will be more important in the future. As regards stealthy design should imagine more important would be the equipment used to locate and track these aircraft. Will tracking system designers always be kept on the back foot or will they catch up.

 

[Pyongyang]

Pyonyang, the general consensus in the informed online community seems to find some fairly significant issues with the work of Carlo Kopp. While my depth of knowledge is by no means definitive, I can say that Kopp's constant and unchanging pro-F-111, pro-F-22, anti-F-35, anti-Hornet rant have the marks of a sort of intellectual radicalism that ignores contrary facts and tends to be illogical and rather fanatic. The way somebody argues often can tell you how credible and accurate their claims are.

Kopp has never criticized the F-111 and has advocated trying to squeeze another ten years out of them. To put it bluntly, he has no clue what he's talking about.

I'm afraid defending him puts you up against a good number of well-informed posters here, including GF, AussieDigger, etc.

I know fairly little about his [Carlo Kopp] work, however I find it rather interesting that GF never has scientifically rebounded his hypothesis, an only took in use personal attacks, even if good criticism can’t be too hard taking into account his calculations based on rather optimistic views of Russian hardware in general. However he raises the same question marks as I do, regarding the F-35 and static stealth development. But no I am not a fan of him, or anything other

 

[Pyongyang]

i suggest you lighten up a bit, do some reading and learn some more, so when you want to further talk about SM, it includes both active and passive measures
i'm a pleb but for one, the f-35/22 pumps fuel and uses it as a heat sink, i'd call that an active SM part

I know more about the F-35 than any other member of this forum, that is for sure. It is quite easy to see that theres allot of fanboys here.

Mod edit: Normally after one makes such an outrageous claim, one would be required to provide proof of the claim. However, given the banning, once it ends ]you have 72 hours to provide proof to support the claim made of knowing more about the F-35 than anyone else here at DefenceTalk, or retract the claim. Additionally as noted above, do not remove any Mod edits from posts without permission from the Mod team. Doing so will result in immediate action being taken.
-Preceptor

 

[peterfresno]

Getting back to the original thread topic;

I have been reading about asw and submarine warfare in WWII and believe that the evolution of those technologies are relevant to these discussions.

Both sides developed passive and acitve solutions for detection and countermeasures and both sides innovated new technologies that changed the game for a period of time (Radar, sonar, radar detectors, detection of radar detectors, snorkols, etc) .

Putting Ultra aside, what is key to this discussion is that the ultimate sucess by the allies was born from the integration of a number of technologies, platforms and tactics. The success of the hunter killer groups is the final result in this illustration. Here you see sonar, ship born radar, visual detection, airborn radar, and signal detection integrated into a single force and command structure. Add to this enhanced weapons, improved tactics and combat experienced crews, and the term iron coffin was accurate.

I have only worked in the assembly of parts of the technologies we are discussing here so I am not an expert by any means. What I can say is that throughout the development of a manufacturing process for a new sensor or weapon system, changes were made as testing continued and even more following fielding and use in exercises meant to simulate combat.

In regard to the US / EU defence capabilities realted to "stealth", as long as we field technologies and allow the users to provide feedback, and then act on that feedback, I think the huge research budget advantage currently held by the West will ensure that a combination of evolving systems working in tandem will maintain a distinct advantage. It is therefore irrelevant if a particular system can defeat all detection systems at any given time.

 

[Feanor]

This is granted several assumptions. That the US and EU states have common budgets and share all thei research, and that none of them will share said research with other countries. Both are clearly not the case. It also rests on the assumption that those other countries won't increase their own research budgets, and won't pool their resources. Again clearly not the case.

 

[peterfresno]

Feanor,

Thanks for the reply and the valid counter points. I readily concede that my example is specific to a particular conflict and circumstance, but nonetheless considering that technological advances are incrimental, I believe it is essential to view the advantage the US is percieved to have in this field of technology is more dependant upon multiple systems than any particular platform. I also believe that the real strength of stealth assets is only relevant within the larger systems employed.

Regarding budgets, I did not mean to imply common budgets, only cooperation when facing a common threat. I maintain that for the near future (5-10 years) that the US will retain a budget advantage and the benefit of access to a number of innovations that are conceved and developed outside of our own nation.

It will be interesting to see the fruit born of cooperation between India and Russia as well as other development partners that might emerge as the geo-political environment continues to change and motivations for cooperation and technology sharing change with them.

I also grew tired of the continued dispute over the capabilties of particular platforms, rather than the effect technological parity, which is why this thread held my interest.

Do you believe that a greater degree of parity will drive more rapid development in this field or allow a degree of stabilitiy as more nations are able to effectively defend against or at least counter the more advanced technologies currently available to the US and eventually available to the JSF artner nations?

 

[Feanor]

Well there are two paths. Either Russia will slowly fade as even a regional power, and it's technological advances will be absorbed by India, and partially China. In which case it's those two that will be offering comparable level aero-space developments, possibly in conjunction with Israel and European firms. Or Russia and India will form a relatively stable partnership. However India and China independently won't be able to match the US for decades. So your statement would hold true (I doubt the Europeans and Israel would sell the necesasry tech all that easily). On the other hand if Russia doesn't sink, Russia and India will definetly produce a competitive 5th gen. (it'll be competitive, as one article put it, simply because it's not American) The question is (and this is granted continuing and expanding Russian aero-space cooperation with Europe) whether they will be able to compete long term. I think they will. And I think technologically this is where potential lies for a serious competitor to the US in the middle-long term.