5 ms·

It's always a tradeoff in aerospace, but I think what the article is arguing is that we give up too much for stealth. For example, the incompatibility of stealt

It's always a tradeoff in aerospace, but I think what the article is arguing is that we give up too much for stealth. For example, the incompatibility of stealth and external hardpoints on aircraft causes a significant increase in both the unit cost of aircraft as well as a significant decrease in mission capability. With external hardpoints, launching a missile or bomb is merely just a matter of letting ordnance fall away from the aircraft. Without them, you have to invest in complicated launcher mechanisms (i.e. the F-22's crazy pneumatic system for pushing missiles outside of the plane before firing them). In addition, the fact that all stores have to be carried internally means that each aircraft can carry far less in the way of weapons or fuel. This then leads to knock-on costs, like increased requirements for tankers. And if the value of stealth is constantly being eroded by new radars and other detection technologies, then I think the article is asking a fair question. Is the US best served by stealth aircraft (like the F-22 and the F-35)? Or would we be better served by a supermaneuverable "4.5 gen" fighter along the lines of the Su-35 or Su-37 that is cheaper to build, cheaper to operate, and has greater mission flexibility than our "next-gen" planes?

Retric 12y ago
The US air force has two very different missions. First is to quickly crush a nations standing military. This is where the stealth tradeoffs are less useful. Basically, just blow up anything that uses radar and you win. The second is to patrol territory. Here stealth can be very useful as you tend to deal with far less capable radar and missile systems. But, they tend to be vary mobile so while there minimal threat at a military level they are a serious ‘let’s not show up on CNN’ issue. Considering the actual missions flown over the last 50 years I think the Air force’s priorities are much more reasonable.
- quanticle 12y ago
  >Considering the actual missions flown over the last 50 years I think the Air force’s priorities are much more reasonable. That is a very, very difficult point to defend. The vast majority of USAF missions over the past 50 years have been CAS missions against ground forces, not jet-against-jet duels against other air superiority fighters. Yet, if you look at the design priorities of not just the current state-of-the-art fighters, but even previous-gen fighters like the the F-15, F-16 and the F-18, you'll see that they privilege air-to-air combat capability over air-to-ground. IMHO, the only plane in the USAF's inventory that's actually suited for the missions the USAF is actually flying is the A-10. And if you look at the A-10's history, you'll see that the USAF leadership fought tooth and nail against the program (it was essentially forced on the USAF by the Army), and at every feasible opportunity they've tried to retire the airframe. Stealth isn't magic. Stealth doesn't make you invisible. Stealth is, at best, a very sophisticated camouflage that makes your plane harder to see with radar at a distance, and its advantages end the moment your plane starts shooting. Contra your point, stealth is actually most suited for the "blitzkrieg" style missions which are designed to crush enemy air forces in the opening days of an engagement. That's actually what it was designed for. The F-22 (and other stealth aircraft) were designed to wipe out Soviet aircraft and air-defense systems in the opening days of WW3, at which point more conventional fighters (like F-4s, F-15s and A-10s) would do the majority of the "grunt work" of wiping out Soviet ground armor. Stealth is far less suited for the kinds of "patrol" missions where your planes are going to be flying the same airspace day and day out, supporting ground troops or enforcing a no-fly zone. As the evidence from the F-117 shootdown in Yugoslavia demonstrates, all the camouflage in the world won't help you if your enemy is able to deduce where you will be based on your past activity. Stealth is poorly suited for close-air support missions, where you're flying close to enemy troops, for long periods of time, and shooting at them on a regular basis. The Air Force's priorities have not been reasonable, by any rational measure, nor have they been reasonable for quite some time now. The Air Force should be investing in developing UAVs and the accompanying swarm tactics that allow for effective use of large numbers (e.g. 100+) aircraft in a combat theater. Instead, they're blowing billions of dollars on a "unified" combat aircraft that can't actually perform any of the roles it's supposed take over. EDITS: Added points and restructured for clarity.
  - Retric 12y ago
    Drones are ideal for day to day ground support. Cheap, high loiter time the cost is low speed so they have to already be in country. And the Air force has been buying a lot of drones. Manned fighters are currently much better for patrolling large areas of airspace and maintaining air superiority. As to swarms picture the minimum drone that can hit a target that’s traveling at 2.5 times the speed of sound at 65,000 feet. Now how many of those do you need to patrol say the entire US border. Don't get me wrong the swarm concept is useful, the only problem is the minimum useful airframe vs modern fighers is not tiny. Ps: This is of course highly simplified. Cruise missiles are great at dismantling vary high value targets, but there also vary pricey and can’t loiter.
mgarfias 12y ago
We’d be better served by a horde of highly specialized drones. Have CAS drones, fighter drones, attack drones for the anti-sam role, etc. They won’t have to be super stealthy, and will be tons cheaper than a manned platform, which gives the ability to throw them away at a problem.
- quanticle 12y ago
  Amen. Unfortunately, the Air Force culture, from its leadership down to its rank-and-file is one that emphasizes the individual heroism of fighter aces, so I'm not confident in the Air Force's ability to internally reform itself towards a more UAV-centric warfighting model. I feel like the people crowing about unparalleled air-combat superiority of the USAF today are similar to the people who crowed about the impregnability of the Maginot Line in 1936. They're correct, but the point will be rendered moot by new technology and new tactics.

Retric 12y ago

The US air force has two very different missions. First is to quickly crush a nations standing military. This is where the stealth tradeoffs are less useful. Basically, just blow up anything that uses radar and you win. The second is to patrol territory. Here stealth can be very useful as you tend to deal with far less capable radar and missile systems. But, they tend to be vary mobile so while there minimal threat at a military level they are a serious ‘let’s not show up on CNN’ issue. Considering the actual missions flown over the last 50 years I think the Air force’s priorities are much more reasonable.

quanticle 12y ago
>Considering the actual missions flown over the last 50 years I think the Air force’s priorities are much more reasonable. That is a very, very difficult point to defend. The vast majority of USAF missions over the past 50 years have been CAS missions against ground forces, not jet-against-jet duels against other air superiority fighters. Yet, if you look at the design priorities of not just the current state-of-the-art fighters, but even previous-gen fighters like the the F-15, F-16 and the F-18, you'll see that they privilege air-to-air combat capability over air-to-ground. IMHO, the only plane in the USAF's inventory that's actually suited for the missions the USAF is actually flying is the A-10. And if you look at the A-10's history, you'll see that the USAF leadership fought tooth and nail against the program (it was essentially forced on the USAF by the Army), and at every feasible opportunity they've tried to retire the airframe. Stealth isn't magic. Stealth doesn't make you invisible. Stealth is, at best, a very sophisticated camouflage that makes your plane harder to see with radar at a distance, and its advantages end the moment your plane starts shooting. Contra your point, stealth is actually most suited for the "blitzkrieg" style missions which are designed to crush enemy air forces in the opening days of an engagement. That's actually what it was designed for. The F-22 (and other stealth aircraft) were designed to wipe out Soviet aircraft and air-defense systems in the opening days of WW3, at which point more conventional fighters (like F-4s, F-15s and A-10s) would do the majority of the "grunt work" of wiping out Soviet ground armor. Stealth is far less suited for the kinds of "patrol" missions where your planes are going to be flying the same airspace day and day out, supporting ground troops or enforcing a no-fly zone. As the evidence from the F-117 shootdown in Yugoslavia demonstrates, all the camouflage in the world won't help you if your enemy is able to deduce where you will be based on your past activity. Stealth is poorly suited for close-air support missions, where you're flying close to enemy troops, for long periods of time, and shooting at them on a regular basis. The Air Force's priorities have not been reasonable, by any rational measure, nor have they been reasonable for quite some time now. The Air Force should be investing in developing UAVs and the accompanying swarm tactics that allow for effective use of large numbers (e.g. 100+) aircraft in a combat theater. Instead, they're blowing billions of dollars on a "unified" combat aircraft that can't actually perform any of the roles it's supposed take over. EDITS: Added points and restructured for clarity.
- Retric 12y ago
  Drones are ideal for day to day ground support. Cheap, high loiter time the cost is low speed so they have to already be in country. And the Air force has been buying a lot of drones. Manned fighters are currently much better for patrolling large areas of airspace and maintaining air superiority. As to swarms picture the minimum drone that can hit a target that’s traveling at 2.5 times the speed of sound at 65,000 feet. Now how many of those do you need to patrol say the entire US border. Don't get me wrong the swarm concept is useful, the only problem is the minimum useful airframe vs modern fighers is not tiny. Ps: This is of course highly simplified. Cruise missiles are great at dismantling vary high value targets, but there also vary pricey and can’t loiter.

mgarfias 12y ago

We’d be better served by a horde of highly specialized drones. Have CAS drones, fighter drones, attack drones for the anti-sam role, etc. They won’t have to be super stealthy, and will be tons cheaper than a manned platform, which gives the ability to throw them away at a problem.

quanticle 12y ago
Amen. Unfortunately, the Air Force culture, from its leadership down to its rank-and-file is one that emphasizes the individual heroism of fighter aces, so I'm not confident in the Air Force's ability to internally reform itself towards a more UAV-centric warfighting model. I feel like the people crowing about unparalleled air-combat superiority of the USAF today are similar to the people who crowed about the impregnability of the Maginot Line in 1936. They're correct, but the point will be rendered moot by new technology and new tactics.