Countering LO capability in air sup platforms

[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.