Propagation of stealth technology and what this means for the US

[gf0012-aust]

Todjaeger, first I have to say that I have an undeniable “skepticism” towards GFs knowledge, as he more often than not seems to be somewhat favorable when it comes to Australian radar systems, and repeatedly close his eyes to other arguments whilst frequently make use of personal attacks as a debate approach.

Please point out where I am technically incorrect. Not only on base principles, but on how those base principles are directly related to issues like CONOPS.

there are obvious paths where I will not travel due to self evident reasons, but I would add that when you see some people who are making claims that are inherently robust and based upon traceable history and traceable references then its encumbent on the detractors to provide just as robust counter arguments.

I personally don't know you from a bar of soap, but the fact that you now want to question the integrity of my technical background due to the way I moderate trolls and the less disciplined makes me wonder whether your focus is on me rather than the technical aspects of debate.

re your comments about my attitude to australian radar systems. I'd have to say that its nonsense. why? well:

1) in the first instance I have not discussed any of the other australian capabilities on SWR or OTHR because it skates too close to home.
2) I have only discussed the anecdotal evidence on JORN due to above
3) I am not interested in talking about the actual capabilities of australian sensor systems because of (1) and the fact that it ties into our relationship with some 5 other countries
4) I'm not permitted to talk about australian systems in detail because it would impact upon my job. so my philosophy is to actually avoid any posts about australian capability unless its citation elsewhere. fortunately the american material tends to say enough

If you have a difficulty with me or my views then you can deal with me via PM.
If you don't like my technical responses, then deal with it in a credible fashion.
If you want to use me as a foil for whatever other reason you have, then play within the rules and I won't care one iota either way.

Considering that my track record is one of hooking into the australian govt for some of its military and platform decisions wherever warranted, the nationalistic card that you are playing re my input reeks of soft snot and comes across as a little venal.

 

[gf0012-aust]

as a debate approach. This is not something you would be expecting from an important person who works with comparable systems by means of a more methodical approach then me for instance.

I’ve never in my life seen personal attacks when discussing defense advancement at both domestic and international roundtable seminars, even when rather radical concepts has been produced. Then again it is vital that I reveal that there might be a possibility we are talking about two different personas using the same name. So if I am mistaken, my apologies.

Let me make this abundantly clear.

I do not, have not and will not make claims about any systems where they have relative currency and impact upon national interests. period

I will not and do not comment in the public domain about any allied capabilities, that includes soft partner allies such as sweden, norway, denmark france germany etc....

I do work in this environment at different levels - I do get to go to partner nations closed and approp cleared events - that includes commercial events where relevant

At a professional level I never have seen any instance of too'ing and fro-ing between nations and/or individuals.

where I do see it is on the internet - and I will quite forcefully say, that often or not some of the claims stated on the net so confidently by some about platform capabilities is abject nonsense. I know that because we see actual trial and event data - and if you work in industry you know yourself that vendors claims can often be out by a factor of 30% in an empirical sense.

so when I see anyone claiming "nn" range at "yy" altitude for an rcs factor of "xx" - then I have a significant degree of doubt as to whether they do have an actual insight into the subject matter being discussed. be it american, french, czech or russian etc......

Lastly, you make claims about the robustness of your own methodical approach - and yet, you don't seem to have worked out that some of us in here (and that includes me) have actually been involved in technical evaluations for client countries and that we assess claims of technical competency against real established conditions articulated by the warfighting community - ie we don't have a commercial or academic interest - we have a functional directly operational and vested interest to ensure that the warfighting community gets what they need - and not what the vendors would like them to get so that their own end of year financials are safe from shareholder attack on the directors.

If anyone thinks that the the military industry sector purely and solely provides capability solutions without any commercial pollution of intent, then I'd suggest that they've not worked on the other side of the fence - or if they have, not for a long long time. Some are better than others, but make no mistake, the bottom line by the Executive is get that balance sheet in the black. Pick any company in the top 200 and you can get examples of that without any difficulty.

 

[ewen55]

Let me make this abundantly clear.

I do not, have not and will not make claims about any systems where they have relative currency and impact upon national interests. period

I will not and do not comment in the public domain about any allied capabilities, that includes soft partner allies such as sweden, norway, denmark france germany etc....

I do work in this environment at different levels - I do get to go to partner nations closed and approp cleared events - that includes commercial events where relevant

At a professional level I never have seen any instance of too'ing and fro-ing between nations and/or individuals.

where I do see it is on the internet - and I will quite forcefully say, that often or not some of the claims stated on the net so confidently by some about platform capabilities is abject nonsense. I know that because we see actual trial and event data - and if you work in industry you know yourself that vendors claims can often be out by a factor of 30% in an empirical sense.

so when I see anyone claiming "nn" range at "yy" altitude for an rcs factor of "xx" - then I have a significant degree of doubt as to whether they do have an actual insight into the subject matter being discussed. be it american, french, czech or russian etc......

Lastly, you make claims about the robustness of your own methodical approach - and yet, you don't seem to have worked out that some of us in here (and that includes me) have actually been involved in technical evaluations for client countries and that we assess claims of technical competency against real established conditions articulated by the warfighting community - ie we don't have a commercial or academic interest - we have a functional directly operational and vested interest to ensure that the warfighting community gets what they need - and not what the vendors would like them to get so that their own end of year financials are safe from shareholder attack on the directors.

If anyone thinks that the the military industry sector purely and solely provides capability solutions without any commercial pollution of intent, then I'd suggest that they've not worked on the other side of the fence - or if they have, not for a long long time. Some are better than others, but make no mistake, the bottom line by the Executive is get that balance sheet in the black. Pick any company in the top 200 and you can get examples of that without any difficulty.

I make my living in small arms design, but I do socialize with radar and missle tech people, and can mention an incident in Texas a bit more than a dozen years ago, where an Australian unit, using software presumably similar to the Israeli/Russian software used by the Serbians, tracked a B-2 bomber several hundred miles over Texas and Oklahoma. I don't feel constrained to sit on it, as i believe it was published in Aviation News and Space Weekly several years ago.

 

[Feanor]

Did they by any chance mention whether the data they got was enough to target it?

 

[Todjaeger]

Did they by any chance mention whether the data they got was enough to target it?

If the incident is the same one I am thinking of, the answer is no. OTOH I might be remembering a different incident , because the one I am recalling is when JORN was able to detect/track a B-2 operating out of Nellis AFB in Nevada.

From information that is available and what I have been able to piece together, JORN is able to detect and track targets, providing information that a target is within an n-sized box at the location detected. For what should be obvious reasons, there has been no declaration on the what n is, apart from it is sufficiently large to not provide target quality data. However, the system should provide a very useful tool to vector other assets into an area to detect/engage targets.

-Cheers

 

[Feanor]

So it's part of a solution within a wider IADS but not in it's own right. Thanks.

 

[Todjaeger]

So it's part of a solution within a wider IADS but not in it's own right. Thanks.

Sort of... I would be less inclined to consider it part of an IADS and more a theatre-level or strategic ELINT resource. That is largely due to the type and scale of data it could potentially provide. JORN is apparently capable of detecting and tracking not only airbourne targets, but also ships and vehicles on the ground. Again, no word on the resolution (can it determine the size difference between a corvette and a supertanker?), or definitive range (3,000+ km is what I usually come across). That sort of information, early detection of inbound ships and aircraft, is just the sort that would be desired by a theatre commander tasked with defence of Australia.

It does not enable a commander to know precisely where the enemy is, or to engage them remotely. However, it is intended to provide information on the general vicinity of an opponent and where their force concentrations are, thus falling somewhat outside the scope of an IADS.

-Cheers

 

[Feanor]

That does clarify things. Thanks. I wasn't familiar with JORN.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I don't feel constrained to sit on it, as i believe it was published in Aviation News and Space Weekly several years ago.

where things are in the public domain anyone can pass comment. however, at an official level or anyone in an official capacity with said military organisations - will not confirm the accuracy and/or relevance of said material.

that's standard practice

 

[gf0012-aust]

So it's part of a solution within a wider IADS but not in it's own right. Thanks.

In very broad and deliberately said terms, OTHR and SWR systems on their own do not provide targetting capability in 3 dimensional battlespace.

note my phraseology.....

 

[localhost127]

If the incident is the same one I am thinking of, the answer is no. OTOH I might be remembering a different incident , because the one I am recalling is when JORN was able to detect/track a B-2 operating out of Nellis AFB in Nevada.

From information that is available and what I have been able to piece together, JORN is able to detect and track targets, providing information that a target is within an n-sized box at the location detected. For what should be obvious reasons, there has been no declaration on the what n is, apart from it is sufficiently large to not provide target quality data. However, the system should provide a very useful tool to vector other assets into an area to detect/engage targets.

-Cheers

i don't understand the full limitations nor operating environment of JORN, however ... how is one radar (or system) able to detect a single platform from such a great OTH distance and determine it to be (in this case), a B-2 ... how was it able to make that identification, for starters...and secondly, how would it have the resolution to pick a particular platform from a particular airbase where there are possibly hundreds to thousands of other active/flying (commercial) aircraft in the region?

i understand if the details aren't allowed to be spoken on a public forum - but that still boggles my mind.

 

[gf0012-aust]

again, deliberately vague comment.

OTHR and SWR systems operate within the vagaries of the ionosphere.

nominally the systems should see where they are aimed.

there is sufficient anecdotal evidence to show that systems that use the ionosphere can and do see outside of the declared capability.

there is no such thing as what the actual range limitations are of systems like JORN because they obviously have and continue to operate way outside of the aimed and interrogated space.

 

[Bonza]

If people are curious about JORN there is some information on these pages (though nothing in depth, obviously):

Defence Materiel Organisation

Jindalee Operational Radar Network (JORN)

 

[gf0012-aust]

In very broad and deliberately said terms, OTHR and SWR systems on their own do not provide targetting capability in 3 dimensional battlespace.

note my phraseology.....

Note with the above that the US has entered into a multi decade agreement with australia to integrate JORN into a global BMD detection and tracking solution.

again, refer to my prev comments and "add it up"

 

[Feanor]

In very broad and deliberately said terms, OTHR and SWR systems on their own do not provide targetting capability in 3 dimensional battlespace.

note my phraseology.....

Note with the above that the US has entered into a multi decade agreement with australia to integrate JORN into a global BMD detection and tracking solution.

again, refer to my prev comments and "add it up"

I have. Thank you for your reply.

 

[Pyongyang]

I don't think that's accurate. As radars evolve so will ways to reduce radar detection. I think there will always be ways to reduce their RCS.

I agree, there will always be a response to the adversaries advances and innovations, however when you let’s say for example invest in the F-35, it’s sealth technology which is primarily based on the passive materials and design in regards to the airframe (saying anything else would be a lie), meaning you will have a rather static LO progression for it’s destined service life.
And even if I have not been able to test any new radars against either the F-35 or the F-22 I firmly believe that detecting them would be rather easy, as easy as detecting and engaging the scalp missile. And I have accepted that the age of using passive stealth technology is coming to an end, and you have to be looking at other ways, like certain old active tactics and the use of pure speed to achieve stealth, or as you politically correct engineers would say; VLO properties.

 

[Falstaff]

it’s sealth technology which is primarily based on the passive materials and design in regards to the airframe (saying anything else would be a lie)

Hm... no. Ever heard of signature management? I recommend reading what gf has written about stealth and about the evolution of LO. The F-35's LO properties do not solely base on materials and design. It will certainly enlighten your understanding of what LO is.

 

[Pyongyang]

Hm... no. Ever heard of signature management? I recommend reading what gf has written about stealth and about the evolution of LO. The F-35's LO properties do not solely base on materials and design. It will certainly enlighten your understanding of what LO is.

Signature management, that's just another word for stealth or LO.....so you need to elaborate so that I can know what you are referring to. And the F-35’s stealth capabilities are based on passive static stealth elements, and not only when it comes to radar waves, but also when we talk about IF signature. I think you need to look up the difference between active and passive…

When it comes to GF, he holds no weight whatsoever. He has enough problems with Dr Copp or whatever his name is...

Mod edit: In the future do not remove any Mod Edits from a post unless you have received permission from the Mod team to do so.
-Preceptor

 

[Kilo 2-3]

Signature management, that's just another word for stealth or LO.....so you need to elaborate so that I can know what you are referring to. And the F-35’s stealth capabilities are based on passive static stealth elements, and not only when it comes to radar waves, but also when we talk about IF signature. I think you need to look up the difference between active and passive…

When it comes to GF, he holds no weight whatsoever. He has enough problems with Dr Copp or whatever his name is...

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.

 

[jack412]

Signature management, that's just another word for stealth or LO...... the F-35’s stealth capabilities are based on passive static stealth elements, and not only.. radar waves, but .. IF signature. I think you need to look up the difference between active and passive…
.

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