Canada's New Fighter?

[Alias72]

3 minutes ago, pyrosheep said:

Existing drones (predators style ones) that are only useful for COIN and reconnaissance  , or futuristic ones that don't exist yet?

 Why would having a more survivable, reliable and Capable aircraft kill more Canadians?

 

Simply put the F 35 presents an inadequate increase in survival against modern weapons. 

There are 2 types of opponents that we may face.

1. Insurgencies. These forces are using highly outdated weaponry and our current arsenal has sufficient capabilities against them.

2. Intervention against a developed/developing nation. These forces can by semi-modern equipment on the market.

Improvements in stealth will help against the first group, however, they are not a major threat to airpower anyway. The second threat poses the greatest risk to aircraft and can purchase systems that are indifferent to many of the features of newer fighters.

The following two links are to weapon systems which the F 35, and in particular its stealth capabilities, are vulnerable.

The first is a Heat Seeking SAM. The weapons intermediate range limits the defendable targets however you cannot fire an anti-radiation missile if the target has no radar. A system like this offers little warning to the targeted aircraft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K35_Strela-10#Associated_systems_and_vehicles

This is a modern SAM system. The weapon has a long range and fires a hypersonic missile. The F 35 has front aspect stealth. Systems like these are arranged so that they cover each other. An attack on one site will likely reveal the side aspect of an aircraft to another SAM. Additionally the high power RADAR of this SAM may be able to burn through the F 35's stealth. What this means is that an opponent with this system will have to be dealt with slowly and methodically. While the opponent has contested the airspace they are free to conduct ground operations.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Grumble-Gargoyle.html

As for drones I generally agree. We can, however, use them as expendable ground attack vehicles. Better to throw a drone at a SAM site then an F 35 if you feel the SAM might destroy you.

[Sandworm]

There are in fact many systems out there to detect incoming IR missiles, even the tiny shoulder-fired ones.  Some are based on IR cameras.  Any missile at speed is a very distinctive IR object.  Others look for higher frequencies, UV, from the burning embers in the rocket exhaust.  And in low-sophistication environments even low-power doppler radar can be used.  These are not-cheap addons for most airframes but they are not rare.  the most well known is probably Saab's MAW-300, which I think is available for commercial civilian aircraft.

[pyrosheep]

1 hour ago, Alias72 said:

The first is a Heat Seeking SAM. The weapons intermediate range limits the defendable targets however you cannot fire an anti-radiation missile if the target has no radar. A system like this offers little warning to the targeted aircraft.

The F-35 can detect IR missiles in a 360° radius thanks to it's DAS system, this combined with the general situational awareness advantage and better maneuverability/Kinematics of a loaded F-35 thanks to it's internal weapons carriage and large internal fuel load, enables it to have a better survivability to both A2A IR weapons and SAM/MANPAD style IR systems than basically any other Aircraft.

The DAS is also able to detect missile launch sites by their own IR signature and automatically gives the pilot accurate targeting information to destroy them.

It's worth mentioning that to engage in BVR combat with IR missiles you need to actually know where the enemy is, and to do that you need Radar.

Quote

The following two links are to weapon systems which the F 35, and in particular its stealth capabilities, are vulnerable.

I think you have this the wrong way round, these are the situations where the F-35, in particular it's stealth capability, really sells it's self.

Quote

This is a modern SAM system. The weapon has a long range and fires a hypersonic missile. The F 35 has front aspect stealth. Systems like these are arranged so that they cover each other. An attack on one site will likely reveal the side aspect of an aircraft to another SAM.

The F-35 is an all aspect stealth aircraft, so while turning away from a SAM site may increase it's RCS, it won't balloon up orders of magnitude like a front aspect stealth aircraft might.

Quote

Additionally the high power RADAR of this SAM may be able to burn through the F 35's stealth. 

 Allot of people seem to misunderstand how low Radar observability works in this respect.

Yes you can just make a more powerful RADAR that will be able to pick up the F-35, simply by pumping out more radio waves to get a higher resolution; The same method works against Jammers. Does this mean Jammers were made rapidly obsolete by stronger radar? No of course not; Jammers provide a hard advantage for aircraft because any advantage that enables the enemy to detect and lock you sooner will also make a non jammer equipped aircraft be detected sooner.  

The same is true for Stealth: even if future radars can pick up the F35 at longer ranges, it will still have a large advantage over High observable designs because they will also have their detection and lock range increased by the same radar.

Quote

 

Better to throw a drone at a SAM site then an F 35 if you feel the SAM might destroy you.

 Like this

•  
•  

 

Today, Drones need to be controlled remotely by an operator, this makes them very susceptible to jamming, you can't use these kinds of drones against a well equipped opponent. 

In the future, improvements in AI may lead to autonomous drones, however this is basically the stuff of science fiction ATM. 

•  

 Like this

•  
•  
• Quote

Edited January 10, 2016 by pyrosheep
typos/grammar

[Alias72]

It can detect IR missile ONCE FIRED. That is the key point. RADAR battery's give away their position before firing through their scan and search radars. But you are right about being able to detect a launched missile (those systems will detect any incoming missile). As for detecting an IR system by its IR signature. You can detect an aircraft far easier than a ground system. The ground system can hide amongst its surroundings and is not as limited by weight (and so can carry better detectors and longer range missiles).

As for BVR Infrared engagements you can use mobile search radars located a distance from the target. And if you have set up your IADS properly you can use systems like the S 300 to funnel aircraft into predictable lines of engagement which you can cover with LOS Infrared.

 Against an integrated air defense network like the kind employed by ex WARPAC forces I am worried that the stealth characteristics of the F 35 will be inadequate (because multiple SAM batteries cover each other and can detect aircraft from their side aspect). NATO underestimating opposing SAM systems wouldn't be new.

I am not trying to say that stealth is worthless (though it tends to become rapidly obsolete). I am saying that the F 35's stealth is not as prominent a factor as, say, the F 22 (which was designed for systems like the S 300). It helps but against modern SAM systems employed properly in an integrated defense network I am skeptical about its performance.

 

Note* In general I agree with your posts. I replied here to early. But I do feel that NATO has been complacent about SAM systems and the risks they pose. I am worried that they are overselling their EW capabilities and selectively learning from examples. Allied Force, for example, was labelled as a success. The lessons the US took away was the need for allies to have PGM's and otherwise similar capabilities (part of what lead to the desire for everyone to adopt F 35 I imagine).

Russia learned very different lessons. They learned that Mobile SAM systems are survivable even in an environment filled with PGM's. They learned that their deception strategies do work, and that the general philosophy behind their SAM thinking can lead to a large amount of virtual attrition on attacking combat aircraft. In a war (as the soviets had envisioned in the 1980's) there would be no time to fly many sorties with PGM's to hit a target. Either the target survived for its useful life or NATO would learn to lose more aircraft on missions.

Edited January 10, 2016 by Alias72

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, Sandworm said:

There are in fact many systems out there to detect incoming IR missiles, even the tiny shoulder-fired ones.  Some are based on IR cameras.  Any missile at speed is a very distinctive IR object.  Others look for higher frequencies, UV, from the burning embers in the rocket exhaust.  And in low-sophistication environments even low-power doppler radar can be used.  These are not-cheap addons for most airframes but they are not rare.  the most well known is probably Saab's MAW-300, which I think is available for commercial civilian aircraft.

Yes you detect the heat from the rocket engine. Smal SAM has limited operational height, this is why you prefer to operate from high attitude. 
And pure air power has major weaknesses, yes it let you hit strategic targets out of range of artillery. This won the Kosovo war, Nato was unable to target tactical target well as Serbia was good at hiding and using decoys but the cost of infrastructure was to high. 
Tactical its an insane force multiplier who let an small harassing force getting point to kill. Enemy has to hold the front, you just have to target their important positions for destruction. If enemy redraw you repeat this.
Russia has perhaps 50 planes in Syria and it shifted the balance as they support the Syrian army with close support, 
 

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, Alias72 said:

It can detect IR missile ONCE FIRED. That is the key point. RADAR battery's give away their position before firing through their scan and search radars. But you are right about being able to detect a launched missile (those systems will detect any incoming missile). As for detecting an IR system by its IR signature. You can detect an aircraft far easier than a ground system. The ground system can hide amongst its surroundings and is not as limited by weight (and so can carry better detectors and longer range missiles).

As for BVR Infrared engagements you can use mobile search radars located a distance from the target. And if you have set up your IADS properly you can use systems like the S 300 to funnel aircraft into predictable lines of engagement which you can cover with LOS Infrared.

 Against an integrated air defense network like the kind employed by ex WARPAC forces I am worried that the stealth characteristics of the F 35 will be inadequate (because multiple SAM batteries cover each other and can detect aircraft from their side aspect). NATO underestimating opposing SAM systems wouldn't be new.

I am not trying to say that stealth is worthless (though it tends to become rapidly obsolete). I am saying that the F 35's stealth is not as prominent a factor as, say, the F 22 (which was designed for systems like the S 300). It helps but against modern SAM systems employed properly in an integrated defense network I am skeptical about its performance.

 

Note* In general I agree with your posts. I replied here to early. But I do feel that NATO has been complacent about SAM systems and the risks they pose. I am worried that they are overselling their EW capabilities and selectively learning from examples. Allied Force, for example, was labelled as a success. The lessons the US took away was the need for allies to have PGM's and otherwise similar capabilities (part of what lead to the desire for everyone to adopt F 35 I imagine).

Russia learned very different lessons. They learned that Mobile SAM systems are survivable even in an environment filled with PGM's. They learned that their deception strategies do work, and that the general philosophy behind their SAM thinking can lead to a large amount of virtual attrition on attacking combat aircraft. In a war (as the soviets had envisioned in the 1980's) there would be no time to fly many sorties with PGM's to hit a target. Either the target survived for its useful life or NATO would learn to lose more aircraft on missions.

Agree here, however keyword is integrated air defense network. None has fought anybody who have it, Also unsure how well it handle combat damage, 
Kosovo is probably the best example and it did not cause much damage to Nato, it however prevented nato from doing much inside Kosovo itself. 

And yes if your main enemy has superior air power SAM is more useful than fighters. 
Now fast forward 20 years and everyone serious have lasers both on the plane and on ground, now an plane has to be as stealthy or fly so low you can not get an lock on it. On the other hand the plane can hit any missile fired at it. 
 

[Sandworm]

1 hour ago, magnemoe said:

Yes you detect the heat from the rocket engine. Smal SAM has limited operational height, this is why you prefer to operate from high attitude. 
And pure air power has major weaknesses, yes it let you hit strategic targets out of range of artillery. This won the Kosovo war, Nato was unable to target tactical target well as Serbia was good at hiding and using decoys but the cost of infrastructure was to high. 
Tactical its an insane force multiplier who let an small harassing force getting point to kill. Enemy has to hold the front, you just have to target their important positions for destruction. If enemy redraw you repeat this.
Russia has perhaps 50 planes in Syria and it shifted the balance as they support the Syrian army with close support, 
 

That depends on who you talk to about these devices.  Many of the IR sensors allege they can detect the heat signature of the compressed air around the missile at speed, whether the motor is still alive or not.  If they are doing mach2+ they are definitely warmer than the background.  So it seems very plausible.

 

The next level of the tech, sometimes called eyeshine or similar, claims to be able to detect the seeker heads prior to launch.  An IR light is emitted and the sensor looks for reflection from optical devices, specifically seeker heats with IR detectors.  It sounds fanciful, but consumer hidden camera detectors work on the same principal.  Handheld units can detect pinhole cameras out to a hundred feet.  Scale that up, add some computing power, and spotting a missile's seeker head at a couple thousand feet seems possible.

 

The thing to do would be to take a seeker heat from something like that hellfire in cuba to an airshow and see if anyone notices.

Edited January 11, 2016 by Sandworm

[Matuchkin]

22 hours ago, wumpus said:

I'd stick to drones and existing aircraft.  Adding something like the F-35 air inferiority target is just going to cause dead Canadians.  The others may work, but are still going to be vastly more expensive than the drone.

20 hours ago, pyrosheep said:

Existing drones (predators style ones) that are only useful for COIN and reconnaissance?

 

I'm not quite sure you guys understand how terrible, unreliable and "WIP" drone technology is.

I'm answering to wumpus here, with the MQ-1 Predator as an example.

To start off, drone and unmanned tech started with a complete *CRASH*. Really, the idea for drone tech originated in the Vietnam War, with Task Force Alpha and an operation called Igloo White. Basically, sensors were dropped across the jungle surrounding the Ho Chi Minh Trail. The info from the sensors (troops passing, etc) was fed into an IBM computer. There were many horrible mistakes, and Task Force Alpha was disbanded by John Boyd long before the end of the war. The idea was dropped for a looooooong time, before precision weaponry started to come in production, after which practically all following drone proposals were scrapped. The Predator MQ-1 got through by some near-accident. It was even classified as "ineligible for combat" in a 60-page report on the drone. There was a test conducted on the cameras of the drone with marks ranging from 1 (ability to identify a large airliner) to 9 (ability to identify a human face). The drone was expected to score a 6, but it scored less than a 2.5. Operators were unable to identify more than two thirds of all their targets.

A reporter once commented on an accident that happened because of the camera (involving at least 20 vaporized women, boys, and children [2-5 yrs old]). The reporter talked about an image of the civilians praying and washing in a river after stopping for gas (the drone operators associated that gesture with an imminent attack, and identified all the civilians as Military Aged Males). He said that, when he looked at the drone image, "they could have been taking a [liquid]". Another man, a drone operator, was questioned on the drone camera "the SRI?!" he exclaimed, "the SRI?! Look at that rug over here, sir! That's what an SRI looks like!".

Drones are never going to be interceptors. They aren't even useful for COIN/ Reconnaisance, as pyrosheep put it.

Read this book, please. Then, you'll understand:

http://www.versobooks.com/books/1857-kill-chain

Anyway, I vote on the f-18

Edited January 11, 2016 by 073198681

[Red Iron Crown]

Of the poll options, I like the Gripen. Low upfront and operating costs are pretty important, and it's sufficiently capable IMO.

I'd like to see us investigate the SU-35 but that will never happen.

[Exploro]

On 1/10/2016 at 3:10 PM, Alias72 said:

Simply put the F 35 presents an inadequate increase in survival against modern weapons. 

There are 2 types of opponents that we may face.

1. Insurgencies. These forces are using highly outdated weaponry and our current arsenal has sufficient capabilities against them.

2. Intervention against a developed/developing nation. These forces can by semi-modern equipment on the market.

Improvements in stealth will help against the first group, however, they are not a major threat to airpower anyway. The second threat poses the greatest risk to aircraft and can purchase systems that are indifferent to many of the features of newer fighters.

The following two links are to weapon systems which the F 35, and in particular its stealth capabilities, are vulnerable.

The first is a Heat Seeking SAM. The weapons intermediate range limits the defendable targets however you cannot fire an anti-radiation missile if the target has no radar. A system like this offers little warning to the targeted aircraft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K35_Strela-10#Associated_systems_and_vehicles

This is a modern SAM system. The weapon has a long range and fires a hypersonic missile. The F 35 has front aspect stealth. Systems like these are arranged so that they cover each other. An attack on one site will likely reveal the side aspect of an aircraft to another SAM. Additionally the high power RADAR of this SAM may be able to burn through the F 35's stealth. What this means is that an opponent with this system will have to be dealt with slowly and methodically. While the opponent has contested the airspace they are free to conduct ground operations.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Grumble-Gargoyle.html

As for drones I generally agree. We can, however, use them as expendable ground attack vehicles. Better to throw a drone at a SAM site then an F 35 if you feel the SAM might destroy you.

F-35 is designed to operate in highly contested air space where advance air defense systems of an adversary would pose a very difficult obstacle to older 4th generation warplanes that such advance air defenses were designed to defeat.

Firstly; counter-insurgency is not what the F-35 is designed for. In fact not only do you not need stealth to conduct counter-insurgency but if you want to do counter insurgency...buy Super Tucanos. (Of course counter-insurgency is historically the bane of large modern military forces and getting into such a quagmire should be avoided).

F-35 is designed operate in environments against adversaries with advanced air defenses. That is why it has RCS reduction. That is why it has Infrared signature reduction (See Low Observable Asymmetric Nozzle). And with it's EOTS and it's electronic warfare sensors; targets can be tracked and identified passively, reducing the electronic emissions.

Boosting the power of a radar transmitter does not mean increased ability to detect a L/O aircraft at any useful range. RCS is a function of an object's shape and cross section relative to the radar emitter. Simply boosting the power likely would not generate an improved return as energy is simply reflect away from the emitter or absorbed by the RAM. Furthermore such radiating sources would likely be subject to attack with stand off weapons...launched from positions well outside the effective range that a degraded emitter could detect an L/O aircraft like the F-35. Finally the F-35 has all aspect stealth as this blog points out. Is the RCS from the rear quarters the same as the front? I will concede perhaps not. But would the RCS be large enough for an adversary to detect an F-35 at any useful range? I'm willing to wager the answer is no. (It should be pointed out that high power transmitters mentioned in the article were with reference to defeating radar jamming. It was not associated with providing a means to detect L/O aircraft).

Finally heat seeking SAMs are short range weapons. Usually these are effective only with 10-20 miles. Heat seeking MANPADs are even shorter range; a few miles at most. However the EOTS of the F-35 would likely have detected such threats (such as imaging the launching platforms); perhaps with the exception of a MANPAD, long before entering into such a weapons range. This means the pilot will have either elected to destroy it or seek a course that avoids the threat all together. As for MANPAD, a L/O aircraft like the F-35 would practically have to fly over these to become a threat. With short range systems like MANPADs altitude and speed offer protection and the F-35 has IR countermeasures just like other fighters.

[Alias72]

1st. No radar cross section is zero. The greater the power sent to an emitter the larger the return off a small object (radar cross section being an effective size). Boosting power ALWAYS increases the ability for a detectable signal so long as the detector isn't damaged by that signal (though you might microwave a few birds).

2nd. I have conceded that the F 35 has all aspect stealth. an IDS is still useful as cross section is almost always larger along the sides.

3rd. The importance of heat seeking platforms is that even though they have a short range they are not readily detectable before launch (though search radars are). A true IADS will combine search radars communication systems as well as a variety of mobile SAM's. These systems are available on the market.

4th. I was expressing doubt about NATO's overall thinking. Whenever an opponent develops a new capability, or demonstrates an existing capability has been under-appreciated, NATO tends to look at how they can adjust their existing thinking to that new reality. They never seem to re-exam their thinking from a more fundamental level. The lesson NATO learned from kosovo is "well if the enemy has mobile SAM's we can't fly low and wind up using a ton of PGM's. I guess we need to build more PGM's". instead of "Well the enemy air defenses are defending the airspace. Perhaps we should rethink how we approach defended airspace". Which becomes even worse if NATO runs into an opponent who cannot be overwhelmed.

It is possible to breach an IADS, but it is prohibitive to do so. NATO developing resources to penetrate an IADS with aircraft is playing into the defenders hands. Especially because the developers of these systems are not limited by weight the way an aircraft is. And as for anti-radiation missiles. Even if you fire one at an enemy silo they can shot down the radar and relocate, fire counter SAM's, and you have wasted a sortie on suppressing the enemy air defense network. That is exactly what the defenders want. If NATO continues to think that the solution to air defense is to brute force the air defense then it will continue to have capability gaps, many of which it is unaware of. 

[Matuchkin]

I say we use the f-18 super hornet. It is a time tested jet that can do everything: Air-air refueling (mobility and range), ground attack, base and carrier landing+ takeoffs, dogfight, supersonic flight, etc. It will probably start off with a higher cost, but that problem will dissapear as we gain a sufficient fleet of them.

[Alias72]

You could make the same argument about the CF 104 starfighter. We do need to buy modern aircraft. The question is which modern aircraft best fits our requirements.