Good post gf,
well what I repeately see is that many people think that aircraft like the F-22, F-35 are just invincible, but undefeatable. My point is that the theoretical scenarios which are/were often proposed by LM or the USAF might not work.
LM and USAF often proposed an operational scenario for the F-22 which is like that: The F-22 pilot is aware of the enemy at a long distance, the F-22 approaches the enemy supercruising at high altitude, the pilot launches a missile at maximum range and turns away without being detected by the enemy due its stealth characteristics. The enemy pilot is not aware of the incoming threat before it is to late, meaning the seeker going active. I don't think it will work out that way.
Why not?
As mentioned LPI reduces proberbility of detection but doesn't eliminate it and I'm a little bit sceptical about how effective LPI will work against latest RWR/ESM.
1. LPI is very effective in the current threat environment and is becomeing more complicated in its technique. Its a measure countermeasure race and i doubt it will become obsolete.
2. In any realistic scenario said F-22A can take a shot cued from annother sensor via Link 16 (i.e. an AEW&C platform), rendereing RWR/ESM useless, therefore even if LPI is compromised in package level engagements the F-22A wont have to use its radar.
IRST sensors are becoming more and more effective and in the future it might be that they gather a similar amount of data as a radar, though not as accurate.
As i understand it IRST's have generic limitations such as wether and reliance on target emmitions which will allways make them inferior to contemporary radar. In order for an IRST to act in the manner you sugest, i.e. to counter the scenario you outlined above, then the IRST would have to be able to do a volume search (it could be cued by ESM but if the attacking platform is emmitions cold then your stuffed), in all wether and then detect the F-22A at 150km+ (that would be the launch range for the AIM 120D). Mind you even if such an amazing feat was feasible it would only counter the curent gen AESA's and AIM 120's, which will be superseeded shortly. IIRC the USAF/USN trialed an ESSM equiped with an AIM 120 seeker which had a maximum range in excess of 300km's. Your IRST is going to have to compete with that shortly, which again can be targeted by AEW&C.
Basically i doubt an IRST, no matter how advaned would ever acheive detection ranges comperable to contemporary AAM's let alone contemorary radar.
I don't want to speculate to much about anti-stealth, new stealth techniques, but it is at least certain that radar technology will be further developed as well. The main question is, does stealth really works that effective against the latest possible threats?
VLO is evolveing too, USAF VLO sassets have been getting smaller and smaller in terms of RCS, and AFAIK there are no, microwave (or soething with similar capabilities) radars that are makeing any significant headway against VLO platforms apart from greater power output. Longwave stuff is not acuurate enough to track, and anyway if longwave stuff became a serious threat then HF absorbing RAM would be included.
Even if the VLO a/c pilot detects/tracks the enemy first, that's still no guarantee not being detected early enough by a non VLO a/c to react.
This is the major problem with you analysis IMO, your only looking at this in a platform v platform perspective (a sin i have been guilty of too). Which pilot tracks who first isnt relevent, you cant look at this from a pilots perspective. In terms of battlespace management VLO is truely a game changer. The fact is that any airforce with VLO platforms are going to have a comprehenseive air combat system, with AEW&C and other C4ISR assets. Therefore the non VLO platforms will be operateing with the AEW&C's sensor footprint and will be detected and tracked as soon as they entered the battlespace when the VLO platforms remain undetected, organic radar capabilities are alot less relevent in realistic scenario's (apart from ECM).
Where is the guarantee that a missile can be launched, if the enemy is using advanced CM?
Like what???? Are we being realistic here or just nameing stuff that if it was invented could have some effect? AFAIK slammers home-on-jam means legacy ECM is a liability. Anyway for the ECM to render the AAM shot useless the countermeasure would have to leapfrog the missiles ECCM totally makeing it irelevent. Such an event has never occured in the history of modern missile technology.
Let alone that incoming missiles can be detected before they go active using MAWS, which are increasingly fitted to a number of types.
MAWS are drastically limited in range, and allthough the missile may be detected outside of its seeker activation point it would mosty likely be within the AIM 120's NEZ, meaning its too late.
Maybe the non VLO a/c pilot can avoid the incoming missile, and other members of the flight not being attacked might be able to force the VLO aircraft into a WVR fight if no BVR shot is possible.
So the legacy pilot dodges 1 missile? How would that mean that BVR shots are impossible??? And why would there only be 1 VLO platform and a flight of legacy platforms? And why would the fight go from 150km to 20 km range???
C'mon mate, be realistic. Are we outlineing the unlikelest scenario's that may have a maximum effect on the VLO platform, were the tactics used were crap and the VLO platform was alone and the legacy platforms used some magic countermeasures that rendered BVR useless and etc etc....... lets be realistic.
My point is basically nothing else than non VLO aircraft can defeat VLO aircraft, they are disadvantaged especially if everything else is similar (performance, sensors, weapons etc.), but it is not impossible and not even unrealistic.
Most of what you have outlined is unrealistic. You have to assume that support elements are similar because currently only advanced nations will have VLO platforms, and argueing that somehow other nations will advace their ECM and IRST technology by an order of magnitude while the VLO posessing nations do nothing is in itself unrealistic.
Basically the question isnt 'are there technologies out there that will allow VLO platforms to be targeted under sertain conditions'? Realisticaly the bare bones ability to engage an VLO platform under sertain sircumstances changes nothing. In order to effectively counter VLO you have to replace the battlespace SA you lost when the enemy brought them along. In simple terms, theater wide, he can see you and you cant see him, which means the VLO equiped force will be able to effecteively pick holes in your ACS. Additionally the current gen of VLO platforms also have some of the most capable ECM equiping any fighter, so expect to loose your datalinks and have your radars degraded.
VLO doesnt make an platform invisible or invincible, however it gives the user a huge advantage in situational awareness, and if utilised with the apropriate tactics said force should be able to decisively defeat any opposeing force of legacy platforms. 1 VLo platform vs an IADS is irrelevent, becasue its NEVER going to happen. In real terms its my air combat system vs yours and if i have VLO platforms as a componant i will effectively render all of your radars uselss at BVR ranges (at which the combat takes place). The technology has brought a whole new aspect to air combat and realistically any opfor who has legacy platforms is going to be at a real and decisive disadvantage.
