American Overuse of Stealth

In the world of Air superiority fighters among countries, one thing remains constant. The United States Airforce has an overdependancy on "stealth" technology, and use that to compensate for their planes airframes and first strike capabilities. Other countries, ex. France ( Dassault ) Sweden ( Saab ) U.K.(Eurofighter) and Russia (Sukhoi, Mikoyan ) rely on speed (1) first strike(2) maneuverability (3) and a strong airframe (4) to get the job done. Problems are continuously cropping up with stealth, and with the intercept fighters that use it (yF-22, JSF). The Eurofighter Typhoon and Sukhoi-37 Super Flanker are built like tanks. Yet they are probably the fastest and most manueverable aircraft out there. Sadly there is not a wealth of information on the U.S. Planes, because in most of the airshows You see them fly laterally. cOMMENTS?

I think that you are lumping strategy together with resource attributes which can confuse the issue.

Originally posted by Just a Plane old dude
Other countries ...rely on speed (1) first strike(2) maneuverability (3) and a strong airframe (4) to get the job done.

Where speed, manueverability and airframe strength are attributes, first strike is a strategy.
Why is this difference important?
Because the main function of "stealth" is for first strike.

US air war strategy calls for the first wave of any air attack be accomplished with cruise missiles and stealth attack aircraft.
What stealth does is simply further enable the effectiveness of the first strike; knocking out the enemies' command, control and communication as well as their surface-to-air assets.

Is there an over dependance of stealth by the US?
Probably not, because even with all the articles about anti-aircraft technology capable of defeating stealth ( Russian S-300, etc) the fact is the stealth aircraft are still less vulnerable to such air defenses as a non-stealth aircraft.

What stealth provides is not a fallable invisibility to radar, but rather a smaller window in which the enemy can react to an attacking aircraft.

Where a non stealth supersonic aircraft may be seen by radar hundreds of miles away, a stealth aircraft such as the F-22 will be visible to the human eye long before it is visible on a radar screen.
Thus giving the fire control officer nothing to lock on until it's too late, (provided the F-22 is set up for ground attack and is prepared to attack the SA site).

Originally posted by Just a Plane old dude
In the world of Air superiority fighters among countries, one thing remains constant. The United States Airforce has an overdependancy on "stealth" technology, and use that to compensate for their planes airframes and first strike capabilities. Other countries, ex. France ( Dassault ) Sweden ( Saab ) U.K.(Eurofighter) and Russia (Sukhoi, Mikoyan ) rely on speed (1) first strike(2) maneuverability (3) and a strong airframe (4) to get the job done. Problems are continuously cropping up with stealth, and with the intercept fighters that use it (yF-22, JSF). The Eurofighter Typhoon and Sukhoi-37 Super Flanker are built like tanks. Yet they are probably the fastest and most manueverable aircraft out there. Sadly there is not a wealth of information on the U.S. Planes, because in most of the airshows You see them fly laterally. cOMMENTS?

Why do you think EF and Su-37 "are build like a tanks?" And F-22 is VERY manuvrable - much more manuvrable than EF for example. It has also most powerfull radar ever deployed by fighter. Other countries don't make stealth aircraft because they are not able to do it, not because they are relying on speed, first strike etc....

we can but Mr tony blair doesnt want to.
thank you very much Mr Blair!

Originally posted by devilwasp
we can but Mr tony blair doesnt want to.
thank you very much Mr Blair!

Don't worry, UK will have good airforce, Eurofighters + JSF is good combination, remember that UK is not that big and rich to have everything. I think future Royal airforce will be much better equipped than today (tornados are not especially maneuvrable and Harriers are only subsonic and have short range).

yeah much better equipped sure, ;like buying fighters without a cannon cuz lack of money and cutting your forces by half. Damn sounds like they are well equipped to me.

Why don't you stop your "anti-everything other than US" crap Westpoint? He wasn't attacking anyone, he's just saying the RAF has somethings to improve on.

I see you, but you can't see me. I kill you.

That's tactic of dogfighting from day one, and that's why stealth is important.

Air combat maneuver of course is important, but the vast majority of aircraft destroyed in air-to-air kills in history of aviation never saw the enemy until it was too late.

Originally posted by Just a Plane old dude
The United States Airforce has an overdependancy on "stealth" technology, and use that to compensate for their planes airframes and first strike capabilities. Other countries, ex. France ( Dassault ) Sweden ( Saab ) U.K.(Eurofighter) and Russia (Sukhoi, Mikoyan ) rely on speed (1) first strike(2) maneuverability (3) and a strong airframe (4) to get the job done.

LOL! Stealth is a BONUS that US fighters enjoy. The Raptor is the best at every single thing you mentioned as a priority compared to all of the aircraft you mentioned.
1) First strike - Because it has the best radar and the farthest reaching missles, it retains first strike over any other aircraft (and thats without stealth - with it it simply will never eben be seen by these aircraft)
2) Maneuverability - the F-22 can do indefinate 60 degree AoA's no aircraft mentioned - including the Sukhois - can do that.
3) Strong airframe - I guess you never heard of that F-15 flying home with ONE wing
4) Get the job done - US aircraft have the best track record in the world of getting the job done. Look at the F-15's 100+ kills with ZERO losses. The F-16 is generally regarded as the best all around light fighter ever made. The F-14 was the best interceptor ever made.

Problems are continuously cropping up with stealth, and with the intercept fighters that use it (yF-22, JSF). The Eurofighter Typhoon and Sukhoi-37 Super Flanker are built like tanks. Yet they are probably the fastest and most manueverable aircraft out there. Sadly there is not a wealth of information on the U.S. Planes, because in most of the airshows You see them fly laterally. cOMMENTS?

The F/A-22 (it is no longer YF because it is becoming operational in december) maintains the best cruise speed of any fighter in the world going nearly Macj 1.5 WITHOUT afterburners. None of the aircraft you mentioned can do that. The F-22 likewise is more manueverable in real world situations then any aircraft you mentioned.

Basically - quit sipping the hater-ade. I understand you hate hte fact that the US dominates military aerospace tech but get over it - you are just making yourself seem uneducated.

BTW - nice to see you back Intelgurl

Originally posted by American Mad Man
1) First strike - Because it has the best radar and the farthest reaching missles, it retains first strike over any other aircraft (and thats without stealth - with it it simply will never eben be seen by these aircraft)

Well, I think Russians have missiles with longer range... but what it benefits to have missiles with 200 miles range if radar can detect other one only from twenty miles?
Same goes for ground radars, instead of seeing you from hundreds miles enemy can detect you only ten miles distance.

And goal of air combat is to shoot other down before he knows you're there, it doesn't have anything to do with "fair play" and dogfight. If you give enemy change to see or let him to dogfight it's like giving half win for him.

3) Strong airframe - I guess you never heard of that F-15 flying home with ONE wing

Well, carrier aircrafts are definitely much stronger than any other plane, otherwise they wouldn't withstand catapult launches and landings... which are pretty much "free fall" with high AoA, nose points to upwards put plane goes down at speed of lot of meters per second.
This video shows well how hard carrier landings are. (landing is 1 min 20 s after video's start)


Did someone forgot to install warning light for missing wing?

The F/A-22 (it is no longer YF because it is becoming operational in december) maintains the best cruise speed of any fighter in the world going nearly Macj 1.5 WITHOUT afterburners.

Yeah, makers like to show big Mach numbers but in reality they're completely useless for evaluating aircraft's performance. Afterburner literally sucks fuel like sponge and creates huge IR signature.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
yeah much better equipped sure,

- they were talking comparitively speaking Westy, do you have trouble with the concept?

like buying fighters without a cannon cuz lack of money

- RAF EF Typhoon does have a fully operational cannon fit.

They just aren't bothering to load it.

To save money, not because of a "lack of money".

and cutting your forces by half. Damn sounds like they are well equipped to me.

- Would you imagine an airforce of a few thousand Spitfires and Lancasters better than a few hundred EF's and F35's?

Of course not, so how come you are missing this rather obvious and salient point at this moment?

Just because the UK won't engage in the 'gouge-fest' the US tax-payer is 'enjoying' (what's up Westy? does it help reduce the credibility of the US war-pervs?).

Eurogihter = europe not only england

Originally posted by E_T


And goal of air combat is to shoot other down before he knows you're there, it doesn't have anything to do with "fair play" and dogfight. If you give enemy change to see or let him to dogfight it's like giving half win for him.

Some ace from WW2 said air combat was like walking down a dark street at night, coming up behind someone and hitting them in the head with a club.

Awesome story about that F-15, E_T.

Well, being that I'm a military brat, I think stealth technology is beneficial in air battles because of the element of surprise. If you can't see it coming and react in time to get a lock on a stealth craft then you are at a big disadvantage. It would be like a Cessna dogfighting with a Blackbird.

Before you gripe, look at all the facts! Yes the USA does use stealth in very large amouts, but it not the only thing we use. Speed, Agility, Advance avoinics, and High tech weapons (AMRAAM's, JDAM, JSOW, ect.) all play a role in US strategy.

Now for the Question: Is Stealth Overused? Maybe! Stealth has it's place, but I personally don't think everything should be stealth. How much stealth is too much? I'm not sure. But, I do believe firmly in the old saying: Too much of anything is not Good!

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance

Does the US rely overly on stealth?

Not sure that they do. With platforms like the F22 then stealth is a bonus. The platform is a very capable one even if you miraculously take away stealth attributes. Perhaps if you were talking of F117 type aircraft this would be a fair question seeing as it trades capability for stealth, but this isn't the case for the F22. If you relied purely on F117's then yeah I would say they do, but that isn't happening.

On a side point though I would be very interested to hear your views on the value for money of stealth platforms. Now I don't want anyone to think I am flaming here, I believe the F22 is going to be the number 1 fighter for a number of years and it certainly is a hell of an engineering achievment. But... is it value for money?

Modern aircraft such as the F22 are built with a service life expectation of somewhere between 25 and 40 years. Now for all the money invested in this stealth airframe (and yes non airframe features too, but a high degree of stealth is airframe), is it going to be effective in 15 years time? Tracking and missile technology develops far quicker than airframe technology can be advanced and implemented and I think it is reasonable to ask whether in 15 years time the stealth features of the F22 will actually be a major factor.

The natural cycle of measure and counter measure tells us pretty conclusively that sooner or later the F22 will be perfectly trackable and targetable. It may still have a smaller RCS than a Typhoon, Rafale or Super Hornet, but once the tracking range catches up with misile range then this factor becomes largely irrelevant. If I can identify a barn door at 200 miles and a bird at 150 miles, but both our missiles can only engage at 100 miles then neither the bird or the barn door has a significant advantage. Now granted this scenario is probably a good decade or more off, but it will happen eventually, and seeing as the US is unlikely to face a threat that a lower, but not truly stealthy aircraft, such as the Typhoon couldn't handle in the meantime, could it not be argued that the F22 is actually a bit of a white elephant? Or to borrow a phrase from a poster on another website, "Could the F22 turn out to be the dive bomber of the 21st century?" Will it really give the US an operational advantage it couldn't maintain with a new more convential design?

Anyway i know this is a bit of a simplification of the argument but, sod it, I'm tired, and I think you'll get the gist of my question.

Grateful for any thoughts you might have.

Oh and Westpoint, give the Typhoon gun thing a rest. Have a look at my post on the best dogfighter thread. Do a little research and you'll see i'ts a non-story being whipped up by the media.



[edit on 15-9-2004 by Badger]

[edit on 15-9-2004 by Badger]

Originally posted by Badger
Now granted this scenario is probably a good decade or more off, but it will happen eventually, and seeing as the US is unlikely to face a threat that a lower, but not truly stealthy aircraft, such as the Typhoon couldn't handle in the meantime, could it not be argued that the F22 is actually a bit of a white elephant? Or to borrow a phrase from a poster on another website, "Could the F22 turn out to be the dive bomber of the 21st century?" Will it really give the US an operational advantage it couldn't maintain with a new more convential design?

The F-22 is projected to be an air dominance fighter for the next 10-15 years, then move more into the air superiority realm. As far as a more conventional aircraft - you have heard of the JSF haven't you? It is basically a stealthy F-16 type of strike aircraft. A2G was the priority but it will be a very capable A2A fighter as well. Basically, the F/A-22's will come in and establish a presence in the air, then send in the cheaper planes.

A combination of expensive fighter plus cheap fighter was established with the purchase of both the F-16 and the F-15 simultaneously. Now, try and figure out which one was the 'cheap' fighter and which was the expensive.

Yeah, makers like to show big Mach numbers but in reality they're completely useless for evaluating aircraft's performance. Afterburner literally sucks fuel like sponge and creates huge IR signature.

ET you better than anyone should know that the raptor doesn�t use afterburners to achieve mach 1.5 so there goes you gas guzzling theory the raptor can compete entire missions going mach 1.5 without afterburners. And the raptor had specially designed engine exhausts so that it minimizes the IR signature and once again since its not on after burner its IR signature wont be higher than a jet traveling at 500 mph.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
ET you better than anyone should know that the raptor doesn’t use afterburners to achieve mach 1.5 so there goes you gas guzzling theory the raptor can compete entire missions going mach 1.5 without afterburners.

I was referring to those claims of Raptor's disadvantage because it's top speed is lower than other planes (which use afterburner to achieve those speeds) designed for same mission.

Forgot to mention also that top speed without weapon load is pretty useless. And maximum speed starts to drop immediately when you start loading stuff under wings, so internal carriage is only possibility for making plane that goes fast with weapon load without afterburners. (fast to other direction than 90 degree dive)

[edit on 16-9-2004 by E_T]