The Navy's new missile could make non-stealth fighters viable again
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 тра 2024
- Earlier this year, the Navy announced that their new radar-hunting missile is officially moving into its first phase of low-rate production, and it could potentially make stealth a bit less essential for some portions of America's fighter fleets.
📰 Articles Cited
The Navy's new missile could make non-stealth fighters viable again
➡️ sbxx.us/3Afbjua
📱 Follow Sandboxx on social
Twitter: / sandboxxnews
Instagram: / sandboxxnews
Facebook: / sandboxxnews
📱Follow Alex Hollings on social
Twitter: / alexhollings52
Facebook: / alexhollingswriter
The 4th gen aircraft is being used as missile trucks. The stealth aircraft gives it's position away briefly when it opens it's bay doors. A 4th gen can fire from a safe location while the 5th gen aircraft guides the missile to it's target while remaining is stealth mode.
The real issue for engaging Air Defense systems is not so much detection range as much as lethal range which typically is a shorter distance.
Brilliant
We Europeans can do the same with a coupl of F-35 i front, some Eurofighters in the backup, and our meteor missiles which had been specifically designed to interchange information with other missiles and aircrafts.
Could third gen in boneyard be used as well with pilon teck upgrade to be a cheeper drone seeing know on knows how to fly them that are able to fly anyway ,,,,in numbers ,,,what of the hundreds of them waiting to be called back in service in times of need
Heck you might get some retired macanics to sit in a chair training new ones with the basics of overhauling engine's they could rebuild blind folded to train the people needed to keep them running for a round or too
It makes non-stealth viable, and stealth even more deadly.
Exactly. Doubles the threat capability of our forces.
The S400 system cares little about steahlt since it is a long wave system.
@@sorennilsson9742 explain long wave system
@@Mianhe Long radar waves detect area in where a steahlt fighter is. Three radars or more gives you target data good enough to fire missiles.
@@sorennilsson9742
Depends on what components you considered part of the S-400. If we're talking about battalion-level, then the longest-wavelength radar the S-400 have is 91N6, which operate in S-band. That'll do slightly better than X-band and C-band, but stealth is still quite effective against this band. If we're talking about the entire IADS, then VHF and UHF bands are available, but stealth is not completely useless against them as the early stealth fighter testing show that some designs are effective even against VHF band.
This may help offset the costs of retiring F-15s/16s/older 18s and others. You could technically send up a bi-plane with this hanging underneath, launch it, and let a forward aircraft take it from there... meaning you might be able to have a loitering C-130 packed with dozens/hundred of these missiles, circling miles behind the lines, and simply drop these into the digital airstream as requested and let the forward drones pick them up and move them to target. That's one hell of a quiver!
Sounds like Skynet!
@@ryanvandoren1519 don’t give em ideas!
The 747 CMC was considered in the early 80s. I think we should revisit the idea with new longer range weapons.
This entire video ain’t logical for so many reasons
@@mewantkrinkov4206 I want a Krinkov too with a folding stock. This video would have been in line with 2000-2010 thinking, but not in 2021.
We have had HARM missiles for quite a long time. It is a lot better if such a missile is fired from closer and with operational surprise. That means a stealth aircraft is going to be able to launch such a missile from much closer.
Stealth is always better if you have got it, and that is unlikely to change soon.
This.
Also, a key capability of this is that it can be launched from long range and then guided by another (closer) aircraft into the final target.
Guess which type of aircraft is best suited for getting close to enemy radar sites to guide such missiles into their final target? Not to mention the fact that the F35 is literally designed for this kind of integrated support. Yeah, stealth is going nowhere.
I would also add: stealth is still good for 'air-to-air'....
The system is passive. A target won't know they have shot at until the missile impacts.
@@ErikS308 true, except that the radar operator is going to get a return from the missile, but even a good system will need several sweeps to separate such a small return from the clutter, and then the operator has to identify and classify the return as a missile and sound alarm. The operator OODA loop is 15-30 seconds on a good day with a good system, Powering down and moving the radar takes minutes. Time matters so much in these engagements, and more stealth=less reaction time.
As for the claimed detection range of the S-400 missile system, detection does not mean ability to track or/and lock-on to a target. And tracking and lock-on are needed in order to shoot down an airplane.
@linkzable , so, the vaunted S-400 is unable to hit aircraft that are beyond a national border, that is only a virtual line on a map?
The engagement range of an S500 battery is still nearly twice the engagement of the AARGM air launched missile
@@randoviral8113 , you mean its CLAIMED detection range! And only IF the target can be detected!
I’m not sure that if you have precise coordinates from a closer to target F35 that you’ll necessarily need an AARGM to hit it. Where an AARGM becomes important is if the antiaircraft battery is cognizant enough of incoming threats to move. If not, longer range conventional missiles might do the trick.
@@randoviral8113 I The range of these missiles is determined by the radar horizon. The F/A-18 launching AARGM (horrible name) need only stay below 11000ft to be undetectable. I used the radar horizon calculator.
"Stealth only matters when there are air defense systems left to beat"!
Great work again Alex :)
For those thinking non stealth aircraft is a bad idea, stealth doesn’t really mean invisible, large ground based radar such as you would find on an air force base can detect them, it is useful in evading anti aircraft radar and other aircraft radar. The idea that you could fly an f35 through Russian or Chinese airspace and they would not know is highly unlikely but it does make those planes very difficult to target
YES!!! I remember back when i worked at Hughes Aircraft this tech was already in place for other "programs" and one of the engineers said to me, "it's really just a matter of when they want or need to employ this in our missile systems".... IIRR these went into deployed status in about 10 years ago.......
Being able to track aerial target at ranges of 100 to 200 miles is one thing. Being able to achieve a high resolution targeting data at those ranges is something else
The F-14 and Phoenix missile systems were quite successful at it.
You don't need high resolution targeting data if you know the target is there and can rely on the missile to develop that data en route to the target. Put simply, an AMRAAM style, go-kill-something-over-there missile is all you need.
The Russian S400 radar systems, yes, can detect up to 250 miles....however, detection does not means lock and launch capability and a lock and launch high probability of a hit capability. For the S400 system to have a high probability lock and launch hit/kill, is at 60 miles and that's in the best situation. On average, it's around 40 miles. Lol
Getting the enemy to use-up their interceptor inventory is also important. The advent of fire and forget technology makes the search radars less important. The Wild Weasel role of presenting false targets to the enemy caused them to fire valuable interceptors at non-existent attacking aircraft and missiles. The Israelis have demonstrated this in the real world. The enemy launch systems become very vulnerable during the reloading phase. Once the ready interceptors have been used-up, they become as if they have no interceptors at all.
use cheap drones to attract expensive missiles
@@lunafringe10
The cheap drones have to reflect the radiation to appear like something worthwhile, otherwise, they just look like a cheap drone.
@@untermench3502 "The cheap drones have to reflect the radiation to appear like something worthwhile, otherwise, they just look like a cheap drone." LOL nice attempt at a self serving rationalization to convince yourself you can one up the enemy, but you just undermined your original post, because the same way you can present a false target, the enemy can present a false target. They wouldn't make cheap drones to look like cheap drones, but rather a legitimate target the same way you explained the wild weasel role above presenting false targets. In fact they could even make a legit weapon/target 'look' like a cheap drone.
You just like many of the fanboys here always need to believe the enemy will overlook something that the side you want to win won't overlook i.e. you always willfully ignore or become oblivious to things that put a crimp in your logic. Sorry but in the age of hypersonics and passive stealth detecting radar, the tech in this video will quickly prove to be underwhelming to a capable foe like China or Russia, and up and comers like Iran and NK.
@Dumb User name checks out 100%. Don’t post anymore.
@@apostle100
LOL, feel better now?
Another in-development air-to-air missile that's also gonna cause some worry for any potential enemies of the US is the AIM-260.
I love the idea of no longer needing stealth like "oh yeah we know they can see us, but its to late to run when they do" just sounds so bad ass
They can still kill a fair few attackers. war isn't a game you know.
SA400 is no joke
@@jajajaja2624 All such defenses can be saturated by sufficiently many small targets.
@@Max_Da_G war is kinda like a video game tbh
@@DavidFMayerPhD Drones can be taken care of by EW though. Also in order to deploy weaponry, the platform in question needs to know where it is, how it's protected, etc. A saturation attack WILL succeed, but it'll spend a LOT of ammo.
I've always wondered if the USAF has considered using larger transport aircraft, or even B-52s, as missile boats. This would allow for much larger, much longer range ARM missiles. I'd imagine you could easily fit dozens of ARM missiles with 300+ mile range in a B-52, which could then loiter outside the detection range of enemy AA and blind fire these missiles toward F-35s which could guide them onto SAM sites.
If anybody in civilian life has thought of it then surely the big brain thinkers in the military have thought of it , hell that's all they probably do all day is create different war scenarios like in the movie "War Games ". USA, China, Russia, England, Israel, India, any country with a decent sized military and military budget does
USAF planners have considered using B-1’s as high speed missile trucks. They would fire missiles directed in by F-35’s arrayed 100+ km in front of the B-1’s
Like that Idea!!👍🏾
A vulnerability of stealth bombers and fighters is that at some point they'll have to open their bomb doors.
Wouldn't be surprised if we see a future where no plane flying above enemy anti air capabilities are armed, instead acting as sensor boats that guide missiles onto their target without ever being detected by the enemy.
Problem is the B52 has a radar cross section as big as a barn.
AARGM - that is what the guys at the SAM sites yell just before the missile hits them.
Yep 👍
Or the SAM sites will have close in missile defense systems. Long range missiles give the enemy lots of time to react.
One of the best channels out there!
👍 One of the best wrap up statements I have ever heard with these kind of videos.
"Puba's Party" was my favorite read in Chuck Horner's book Every Man A Tiger.
This is a good development for sure. I do think that the F15EX should be the last major non stealth manned fighter. It's speed and missile truck capacity along with modernized radar and networking capabilities are excellent. On the flipside, rather than finding a fleet of new non stealth F16 replacement units, better to vastly expand and develop the attritible weapons platform series of networked autonomous capable drones. The huge advantage of these is that they are very cheap, and can be fielded even in stripped decoy variants to provide an unreasonably high number of potential targets for even dense AOD coverage to manage. Instead of sending a few dozen mixed F35/15EX/22/etc forward on a sortie, send thousands of AWS birds blanketing a few 35 and 22s. The outer waves can be unarmed bodyguards, the inner waves can be missile trucks. The surviving unarmed units can be flown straight into targets of opportunity after the manned birds are back under air supremacy CAP.
If we ever go to a hot war with China or Russia or both, we will need 4thgen fighter production. The first 3 mths of the war will see massive losses of expensive advanced systems , and then they will be held back by both sides for special missions. Cheap, easy produce 4gen ac will then become the backbone of a conflict that last years. If not, the US will find itself becoming increasingly low on fighters. As well as China or Russia, although their fleets are largely 4th Gen anyways. I would say we need the to either choose a current 4th Gen to fill that need or develop one. A easy to produce, maybe 4.5 Gen ac. If we were gonna go with right now, I would say f18 f16 because it covers the land and naval needs and has a current production line. I think a ac should be developed for both AF and navy that will fill this major conflict role.
I don’t believe anyone is talking about developing a nonstealth replacement for the F-16. It simply means that older airframes are more survivable when the air defenses are neutralized.
The 6th gen doctrine combines stealth with UCAVs. Unfortunately these drones are still in development so they aren’t as numerous as 4th gen aircraft yet.
Thank you! Excellent perspective on radar and aircraft in battle!
Another fairly new technology not often talked about are drone swarms. High speed drones have been successfully launched by F 16 and FA 18 super hornets. I also remembered watching an interview of an Air Force pilot that participated in the red flag competitions I think it was in 2015. It was the first time the Air Force invited the Indian Air Force to participate. It was soon after the Indians had taken delivery of the new Su-30MKIs. We wanted to see how well they preformed. Along with a squadron of Su-30MKIs the Indians also sent a squadron of the old Mig 21's. The USAF pilot interviewed flew the F15. His squadron was paired up to fight the Mig 21's. He commented that he along with his squadron mates joked about fighting an aircraft that they felt belonged in a museum. The Migs were tasked with intercepting the 15's. The USAF pilot commented that they knew approximately when the attack was to take place but were surprised that they never saw the Mig 21's on radar and were shocked when the Migs magically appeared in the middle of their formation. I cannot remember who won the engagement but I remember that several F15's were shot down. After the engagement they found out that the Indian Air Force were using a new ECM pod developed by the Israelis. I am convinced all of these new developments played a major part in the purchase of the new F15 EX from Boeing.
Very basics of electronic support and counter measures is that the radar signal is detected by the recipient of those waves at ranges that are greater than ability to have the energy to return to the receiver and provide useful tracking or targeting info. In WWII the Japanese that lagged behind the US in radar technology developed ESM that could detect the incoming radar signals to tell them that US warships were nearby. We had similar capability in Slick 32 in the 90s. So logic is that anti-radiation mission can always detect radars before they will be targeted.
Anyone remember a time when this type of information was classified! I sure feel better knowing that any enemy simply needs to do a status check on you tube to maintain an effective counter or first strike ability
Does make one wonder about what the hell?!
It does not take a genius to figure out how weapon systems will be used. We are in the information age. A few keys pressed and you can find out a lot about anything.
@@BOBO-ut3mn there is a difference between finding your way to a specific destination vs someone giving you a virtual GPS to a specific address. But, you are totally right....we live in a click era. I sure feel sorry for all those smart kids who studied hard to become rocket scientist!
Mobile systems make a GPS location pointless! I have been up all night working. Post responses and Ill get to them when I wake up:) Have a good day.
If info like this is readily available that only tells you they have better stuff they’re not talking about. By the time it’s released it’s almost obsolete
Very well done video. This came up in my suggested feed. Liked, subbed and shared! Again, WELL DONE!
AARGM is what the radar operator yells when he realizes the missile is about to hit. "AARGM!"
Would be interesting to see how this performs against ship based radar defense systems.
That’s where the navy’s stealth missile come in to play.
“Could”, “potentially”, in other words…”no one knows, but we gotta produce content that gets clicks”
You never know if something works until its tested in combat. Until then it's speculative.
@@elias_xp95 are you sure
Yeah it's better to read up on stuff like this. Easier to read the 3 sentences of actual important info
I really appreciate your analysis.
Good stuff
Subscribed
ty
4th gen fighters (and any new non stealth fighters) have a huge role to play in any near peer war, as you said, US doctrine calls for the removal of enemy air defense systems as the first move, once done, stealth is no longer required, so the 4th gen fighters that are affordable enough to be built enmass are open to engage in air patrols and CAS missions with impunity.
Stealth fighters clear the way in the early days, 4th gen do the heavy lifting during subsequent days, synergy of action while retaining capability.
if a fight with any "near peer" breaks out the effectiveness of any aircraft not in the air may be jeopardized as I'm sure enemy sat data is good enough to provide targeting data to ICBMs that would probably take out any runway near enough to be a threat. Hiding airstrips (ones that service high tech fighters) is hard, silos are not.
@@PhantomDragonX in the time frame to locate confirm transmit launch missiles at a USN CSG that group has moved up to 25 NM
A combination force has to be the best option. The US is doing some amazing stuff. Pity the fool who tries it on.🇦🇺🇬🇧🇺🇸
Nice job Alex!
another great one, thanks
God seeing a entire carrier fleet is scary. Especially one mixed with other nations
An even scarier sight is seeing 3 aircraft carriers in a group because that portends 24 hours operations
We also use the B-1 for a missile truck, overwhelming! I'm pretty sure this will also be used as an anti ship missile as well, as in the future a variant air to air.
You mean the B-1 that is rapidly being retired? We're down to 45 active airframes.
@@9HighFlyer9 I wasn't sure about how many we have left, but at this time they still plan to use them for missile trucks because of capacity and frontal RCS, would you agree that 45 would still be an overwhelming force.
you think we can actually afford that?
Good shit bro!
That would mean an F15EX can come in at Mach 2.5, launch it's anti-radar missile, turn tail, run and get out of harms way before the enemy surface to air missile can close on it. Still viable.
The current HARMs can already do what you’re talking about, multi mode, no lock search mode, data link… etc etc
The only big changes I can see from what you listed is longer flight time,
And can be stored internally on the f-35 (f-22?)
(Upgraded sensor quality?)
Also wild weasel are tactics and techniques
Not missions/tasks, SEAD and DEAD are the names of such tasks.
So rumor has it, range of up to 160 Nautical Miles, combine that with existing modes HAS (Harm as Sensor), RUK (Range Unknown), PB (Pre-Brief), and EOM (Equation of Motion) the ER could really be a problem for more advanced IADs systems. I am curious though in regards to existing systems like the SA-10 (S-300) are also anti-ballistic systems, and can retaliate against inbound missiles in fairly short order. The ER may launch further out, but at some point an SA-300 or 400 is gonna pick them up??? I would think range could hit 180 nm, because with PB mode, you could loft and extend range?? Your point though of "missile trucks" is key in this scenario, even if the sneaky F-35 gets close, fires off an ER, once those systems come online, a 4th gen missile truck could volley multiple (at a safe distance) ER's at a SA site, and overwhelm its defensive capabilities - and coupled with other sources painting the target, those IADs are gonna be busy!
Not for the IADS. Only for individual SAM sites without any cover. Modern force structure is to have several SAM types together, for instance 2 S-400 units covered by 3 Pantsir-S. That is so that if there is an attack, Pantsir can take out the incoming missiles. Use in Syria has shown that even with Syrian crews (who aren't crash-hot at it) Pantsir is pretty adept at killing incoming missiles.
As you said: the attack on that SAM site would have to be massed to saturate the defenses of it.
As for the IADS: if there is enough of them and they constantly scan-move-swap, they can create traps for the incoming attack, so it's still a friggin dangerous mission.
@@Max_Da_G Good point on multiple coverage "bubbles" with different ranges and capabilities. I glossed that over. Surely another level of complexity when approaching a IADs that is well integrated and operated by competent personnel.
@@Max_Da_G The Israelis take out the pantsir at will.
@Drew Peacock SWAG, based on current capabilities, lofting, and some very prelim specifications speculated on at the War Zone. Articles by Tyler Rogeway.
@Drew Peacock Will see if I can dig it up. Article at War Zone discussing, along with AIM 260 development I think.
Great news, and finally a site that shows near future weapons systems!, instead of regurgitating weapons systems that have been in service for some time! Thanks!!
very good points....especially the "After facts" of already eliminating ground sources of radar
Hell, just throw a couple more booster stages on the AARGM-ER and you could fire it from even further ranges.
Ironically the HARM it is based on is related to the Shrike and thus the Sparrow and Sparrow in the ship based form has been fitted with boosters, so there would be nothing new under the sun.
How do you fit the augmented missile in the FIXED SIZE A-35 weapon bay? There is simply no room for a booster.
@@DavidFMayerPhD ; You don't, but put that on the 4th gen fighters that need the extra range.
oooh what about attaching gliders onto them like what standoff weapons use?
high-altitude bombers need only drop them for a bonus 50 mile range...and identical radar profile to cheaper bombs.
@@charlespk2008 Good idea.
Well-analyzed, and considered-- especially your detailed treatment of PRC and Russian air defense systems. In that context, we realize modern anti-aircraft technology develops almost as fast as aircraft models. That rapid rate of AA development means expensive new aircraft are never completely finished, but require retrofits even after manufacture, simply to counter the latest AA technology.
With F35 mission pathfinders, that developmental problem may be bypassed for the rest of the air fleet. And with real-time transfer of mission data from F35s to following strike aircraft, an air group completely integrates battlefield command and control as it brings assets from non-stealth aircraft to bear on the target.
The principal negative aspect is the strike depends more than ever on a relative few pathfinders with superior jamming and detection systems. If they lose their edge, the whole air group is vulnerable.
It also hints at some other aspects I'm now wondering about. Although there is a range trade-off with playing those games. RADAR's have line of sight limitations on what it can see. If the missile can get guidance telemetry from a third party rather than having LOS on the target itself.. That means the launch platform doesn't need LOS to attack. In more practical terms, that means you can have low flying, poor stealth characteristic aircraft operating below the calculated LOS launching from far closer in than the initially suggested engagement windows. (possibly as close as "a few miles" behind the F-35, just at several thousand feet lower)
You just have to hope they don't have AWACS-like platform flying around which can detect your low fliers until after the surface defenses that are in range of them have been knocked out. Because the next evolution of that is going to be Surface to Air Missiles which can be launched and guided towards its target using third party data feeds.(The US is already reportedly doing this with some of the anti-ballistic missile systems the Navy has fielded--the launching ship is doing so off of data coming from another platform)
@@markbarta2369 This may be "premature", but the expense of fielding a sophisticated pilot-carrier (interceptor and/or strike aircraft) has become a huge feeding trough for the usual DOD suspects. And all this, as AI technology makes automatic target acquisition, fire-control and evasion the standard operating procedure of the near future. We do not need pilots for effective AI warfare, and their physical limits impose critical restraints on missile/drone capability.
@@bobgreene2892 Still want to have a human nearby to direct it, otherwise all you have to do is disable the communications links and it is game over. The fewer nodes(and more redundancy) in said links, the better. Someone controlling from dozens of miles away is superior to thousands in many electronic warfare scenarios.
@@markbarta2369 Except that weapons control-- whether line of sight or thousands of miles away-- remains a digital stream. In essence, the battle front has become control of the digital signaling environment. That contest becomes almost impossible to manage, since realistically testing digital communications before battle is beyond reach. We can only hope our side has better signal technologies when the battle begins. If we rely on humans as core of that system, and a number of manned aircraft survive, that still devolves the attack mode to "full manual" control, and markedly less effective.
@John Johnson "passive radar" doesn't exist, and never can. It doesn't work that way.
What you can have is a doppler radar-type setup where you have a known set of transmitters with a known (set of) receivers. But as you have an active transmitter, it isn't passive except where the receiver is concerned.
You can have a EW style setup for passively detecting emission sources and triangulating on where they are. But that isn't considered RADAR.
The next option is you have a distributed network of sensors, where some sensors have active radars running, and they report back what they're detecting to other nodes in that network. Which in turn allows them to be "passive" with their own sensors, but it is not a "passive radar" in that context either. As an active radar is in use, just not by the specific platform in question.
This is a really clear explanation.
@Sandboxx Last I saw was 939 not 1300 F-16s operational. We are using early versions as drones to shoot down.
And I suspect we'll be giving allies like Taiwan a significant fraction of those F-16s if war breaks out.
@@xkavarsmith9322 Taiwan is upgrading 142 F-16s to F-16Vs and has ordered 66 more F-16Vs. They have upgraded 42 older versions to the V version. Upgrades should be complete in 2023. The delivery of thenew 66 F-16V's should start soon Yesterday we just approved a 1.8 billion dollar weapons deal with Taiwan.
@@BOBO-ut3mn well, they're in the middle of upgrading them. They've asked Lockheed for priority so all new build F-16V jets go to them first. Could work if Taiwan asks the other allies in line.
@@xkavarsmith9322 You pretty much said what I said.
@@BOBO-ut3mn The problem is time. China might actually invade before Taiwan is prepared. Called the First Strike Window. That's why the rush.
I enjoyed your video on the new Navy Anti-radiation missile, immensely. Have you published videos on potential adversary surface to air missile systems too (I'm a new subscriber so I have not seen those yet if you have them?
F-35B makes a good Harrier replacement though.
The caveat is whether the missile itself can be shot down by the air defense systems. Then it becomes a game of saturating the position with dozens of missiles at a time until enough get through to wipe out the battery.
Seems like you would still have to come within range of an S400 type missile system 400km, this type of missile capacity will encourage development of other longer range ground based missiles to counter it.
You forgot to mention the EA-6B and the Growlers which in the past have been far more effective at protecting attacking aircraft from SAMs than HARMs or any other missile.
he did mention the growlers. EA-6B has been retired
The growlers were mentioned towards the end.
Those work by overwhelming the receiving radar sets with lots of noise. With modern electronics, the chances of brute force EM counterjamming working as well are reduced. And, any jamming is a great big glowing target for an enemy HARM missile, too.
@Peter McKay NGJ will IOC in a year or so, but legacy Q-99 pods will be in use for the foreseeable future. They still get the job done.
Or the fact that the F-35 has extensive EW capabilities of it's own. Including 'offensive' EW capabilities.
I would think that stealthy drones could provide targeting coordinates so that they could be hit with missiles that have a great enough range and don't rely on tracking radar.. some low flying cruise missiles would be fine
You are right, with satellites, the "SAMS", can't hide. GPS, was Invented, for cruise missiles, "Unmanned", is the future & now.
@@charletonzimmerman4205 if they are stealthy and can loiter they can provide damage reports too.. so you know when it’s safe
@@charletonzimmerman4205 I don't count on satellites in a war... ground lasers are getting very powerful.
Stealth is here to stay for sure but advanced EM detection certainly has a niche, righthand vs. left, but any project with too many changes too often ties up valuable assembly and test resources questioning the readiness for contract.
I wasn't in the scouts. I'm sure it's very satisfying. Good luck.
This does not change the viability of non-stealth fighters. They've always been viable for various missions.
Making adversaries afraid to turn their radars on for fear of getting a missile through their equipment makes it easier for a non-stealth plane to survive.
But, yes, aircraft tasked with radar-suppression will still be needed in large quantities with non-stealth strikes.
@@chrisrautmann8936
Our Jamming Tech is second to none. We created the state of the art active/passive jamming systems. I could say more, but that would not be good for me at this time. Suffice to say we have everything covered plus some.
@@wilsonrawlin8547 We don't know it works until people start shooting at us. And that's kind of the issue.
@@chrisrautmann8936 Israel has field tested it successfully.
@@donaldclifford5763 Israel is not exactly facing the A team...
Good I get the feeling we'll be needing weapon systems like this soon.
Very good to see, only if used in an honest/honorable way 👍
But the real insane shit is the stuff we all have no idea about, but somehow we all know exist? Lol yeah you know what I mean
@@johnserrano9689 Oh hell yeah lol. Nations tend to release just enough to deter others, the real nasty things are kept in the shadows until really needed.
UK were using these years ago called ALARM in a more retro form, they fired the missile into the area which then descended slowly on a parachute, once a radar went live the ALARM went active and attacked the signal! Genius...yes this is better, and 30 years newer, but what a weapon!!
I found this a fascinating video, my thanks to you.
I'm interested in the types of intelligence gathered by underwater drones : a video topic?
Another way to extend the life of the non-stealth fighter is to use drone aircraft. A small number of aircraft can be made into drones, such as the Air Force's F-16 drone fighter plane meant to probe hostile air defense systems on the edge of their missile range. The idea is to proble the air defense radar to get them to engage the F-16 drone. The concept of a drone swarm or large numbers of small drones with computer sensors and small bombs fired from a cruise missile can in theory engage SAM systems to destroy them or other ground based air defense assets such as radars. The drone F-16 program is in essence a form of Wild Weasel to probe the air defenses, get location and electromagnetic spectrum information about the ground based air defense platform, and them destroy them with cruise missile "drone swarms" or other drone aircraft firing bombs, missiles or other types of rockets.
These extended range antiradiation rockets where F-18's serve as missile trucks with an F-35 stealth aircraft will extend the life of the F-18 program. However, it should be remembered that an F-18 drone program with an unmanned plane can serve the same purpose of flying on the very edge of the range of the engagement envelope of the hostile threat area. Drone aircraft will prove essential even if deployment of these long range antiradiation missiles fired from missile truck aircraft. Drones are needed to smother an enemy area. Soone drone swars fired from cruise missiles will also become a regular weapon. Most ground combat systems like tanks, artillery guns, and vehicles could prove highly vulnerable to drone swarm attacks.
MALD.
If you just want an air-truck to carry them within rage of the target, you need a plane with a great under-wing weight capability. How about some ex-bone-yard F4 Phantoms? Cheap, fast rugged and capable in this role.
We'd have to spin up all the logistics behind them.
We need,,, C5 missile trucks!
@@cynickicksass The unsung heroes. Soldiers win battles, logistics win the war.
@@SparkBerry much love!
Alot of boneyard vehicles just sitting waiting to be repaired and used again
Great vid
If u hve a ski arms to hydro land, option in hot high threat missions being able to thrust down soft feather then ski arms rest float then thrust up & away far greater then B-35 options trick serviceability.
It's definitely better to have viable anti-radar capabilities for the entire aircraft fleet, but it would still be better to have stealth aircraft even after the initial destruction of radar arrays. There is no way to know if you got all their arrays and having something that won't be instantly marked in the sky if they have arrays that weren't on at the time of the first missions.
Drones will be the future anyway.
Satellites in a peer to peer first.
Also I read Apache helicopters were the first to raid Iraqi airspace to destroy anything. I have to look it up.
Now this is a person with vision. See was that so hard to think about how they can prepare for such a strike. The Pentagon needs someone like you. 🤔👍😎
@@dianapennepacker6854 shooting down enemy satellites is a HORRIBLE idea. Because congratulations you just turned that satellite into a million small pieces flying wildly thought the same band your own satellites are in.
Also to take out air radar planes to keep aurdominance. Stealth planes u can sneak in quick amd strike will always be usefull
@dianapennepacker6854 yes drone swams etc but at 1st itll be manned fighters leading drones and backing them up
The next step is to make a missile that can loiter around an area for a bit as a sensor platform.
tomahawk can do that
Any opinions on whether this would be effective against new LIDAR systems used by ground troops? Ghost Platoon is a novel recently published that has one of these described as a self contained platoon based air force and artillery.
heavy fog laying cover in right conditions circle flying foil floating clouds very smart in high threat areas. Like a mine carpet to protect shipping or subs in remote away from friendly sores
It will be interesting if they develop an air-to-air ARAD missile that would lock onto enemy aircrafts' radar and continue to track the target using that radar. If effective, they would literally force enemy planes to "close their eyes". I'm sure they would only be effective against planes approaching them, but it could be effective against enemy stealth aircraft.
with phased array radar the missiles have to find the individual beams to home in on - and the source is moving- so it would be pretty difficult to do from long range.
Don't forget that Russian air defence systems cannot cope with "curvature of Earth", as proven in Syria
Wdym by that
I was thinking of that. could get much closer using that.
What ground based radar system does significantly see round the curvature?
@@bigjake2061HF can see OTH, just not in high res (can't see aircraft for example). It uses the ionosphere to reflect back the emissions. There's also LF transmissions using diffraction to get extended ranges (hundreds of km). Interesting tech for sure.
Drones are changing the reality of that slowly but surely. Passive IRST drones or even active radar drones operating in the area would allow the SAM system to launch without detection.
Love the term 'missile trucks.' It seems that being a clever engineer is
as important as genius or well monied engineer.
AARGM-ER is designed to fit into the F-35 weapons bays allowing it to be employed deeper into hostile territory without sacrificing aircraft stealth.
Another interesting development is the AIM-260 JATM, which is expected to replace the AIM-120. Which would supposedly be able to extend an F-22s, F/A-18s, F-35s (and maybe F-15s) BVR capabilities out to +-200 km. The JATM is also supposedly going to be faster than the AIM-120, with the contact specifying at least Mach 5.
Basically the new Aim-54 ?
More like 350 km. The AIM-120D already has a range of well over 150km.
Well if it's the specs you state, simple physics dictates that without a propulsion revolution it's gonna be a notably bigger missile.
So, replace the AIM-120 it might not. Instead, it might replace the AIM-7, or AIM-56.
As a matter of fact, an AIM-7 with an AIM-120 seeker head would make a rather interesting missile. I wonder if that's been considered.
Hey that's Hypersonic isn't it?
I'm thinking you could eventually use a UCAV to haul a boat load (forgive the pun) of these and simply use them to travel with F-35Cs into contested areas. They could remove the radar threats while allowing the F-35Cs to do more against air and ground threats. Don't forget that there are many other tools to use in a war scenario dependent upon the adversary you are up against as well. Its a constant contest of who can build something that will render your opponents previous advantage useless.
This is one thing that's been talked about more and more since - well, drones really came out. Of course, before that there were things like using B-1bs or even B-52s as "missile boats" or "flying magazines" as well.
Would the single-seat F-35 pilot become 'task-saturated'?
@@douglassauvageau7262 It's really hard to say, it would depend on how they're handled in the cockpit. I'm sure they're wanting to automate as much as possible.
@@douglassauvageau7262 The beauty of the F-35 is the capabilities with sensor-fusion it has. It literally sucks up a ton of sensor information from it's own sensors and then can also share it with other similarly equipped platforms, whether they be other aircraft, drones, ships at sea, or ground forces and then fuses it all into a threat picture for the pilot to digest without having to do it themselves.
@@egmccann Agreed. The cost savings of sending a stealthy drone equipped with whatever weapons are required, is much less costly than sending a B-52 or a multi-billion dollar B-2 to haul anti-radiation missiles. Imagine a section of F-35Cs operating behind an advance section of stealth drones all armed with ARMs and ISR that is communicating all of that back to the F-35s and other "platforms" doing the same thing. If they can make it all work then it will provide an overmatch against almost any opponent.
Suggestion: when you quote specs (range, size, speed) you should put those on screen as text as numbers said aloud can be hard to understand, also allows you to include the (internationally accepted) metric units.
From the look of the strike you showed should have a fuse that makes it blow up when close to targets instead of blowing up after penetrating the radar
Perhaps even better in the first attack wave to send in stealth drones with such anti radar missiles. Stealth manned aircraft tend to be extremely expensive, difficult to maintain / repair, low percentage of combat readyness etc etc. Could make a lot of sense to equip much simpler and far less expensive / complicated planes with such missiles. Who has the best chances: 10 top of the line stealth fighters or 40 simpler and more traditional ones?
i was thinking similarly, but more like making drones of the F-15/16/18 fleet like they sometimes do for target practice. Shouldn't be too hard to just point them in the right direction and fire the HARMs when in range.
I’m still going with the stealth fighters
This is the way.
@@antifret If technically possible that would be a practical approach. Better to let those old planes run a very high risk instead of the few F-22's that are available. And perhaps very cost effective? Although getting good value for taxpayer money does not seem to be very high on the Pentagon's priority list ;-)
When I hear him touting the range of the new missile I can't help thinking about the Phoenix Missiles used with the F-14s 40 years ago. 1 F-14 could target 6 incoming aircraft and hit all of them simultaneously at over 100 miles distance. I also can't help thinking again, that the Navy really blew it by not upgrading their F-14 fleet with newer ones instead of switching to the smaller and less capable F-18 which was a rework of the prototype F-17 that competed against the F-16 and lost.
What I'm saying is that if they had F-14s to carry reworked versions of the Phoenix missile to a HARM configuration they could have had this 100 + mile capability at least 20 years ago. The F-35 is a joke. They still haven't learned from the lesson of the F-111 aka McNamara's folly. It was supposed to do all the things all the other fighter aircraft could do, and failed miserably in most capabilities. It did finally turn out to be very capable as a deep penetration interdiction attack aircraft with it's capability to fly low and fast with a decent bomb load. The F-35 has a fairly short range and almost no loiter capability so it's value as a wild weasel would be severely limited unless they can find room inside it for fuel instead of weapons. I think that's the only way this scenario has any chance of succeeding.
I was always a big fan of the Phoenix missile system. Problem was they weren’t as reliable in real world as they were in testing at least for the US. Iran claims to have had good success with them.
Nah, the F-35 has turned out just fine. It's actually one of the most cost effective fighter aircraft of all time, contrary to popular misconception. The F-35 is going to be the F-16 of this century: widely produced and bought by everyone, and used to good effect by nations all over the world. It will end up highly regarded with an incredible track record just like the F-16 is viewed today.
I'm old enough to remember all the F-16 naysayers. You're in good company; history is rife with naysayers, but you're wrong as wrong about the F-35 as they were about the F-16.
F-35s don’t have short range, they have huge amounts of internal fuel capacity. An F-35C carry’s 3,841lbs more of internal fuel than a F-14 (19,841 to 16,000) despite being singled engined.
@John Johnson The SU27 needs to get into range to see it first while the 35's have already launched and are already getting ready to deploy the 2nd salvo of AMRAAMS. Up close. Sure, it will be in trouble, but tactics, pilots, and equipment will determine the winner up close.
@John Johnson “yes and it is not very efficient is it- the extra fuel is for vertical maneuvers”
That doesn’t make any sense.
Saying that the F-35 has short range because the Su-27 has a longer range is retarded.
The F-35 is a single engined fighter, the Su-27 is a twin engined fighter designed to cover Russia’s vast territory that is significantly larger than the F-35 (6.2 meters longer with a 3.7 longer wingspan)
Does the Su-35 have bad range because an old B-52 has a longer range? No.
We also have the sr1 which is a modified B1 bomber which is a missile truck, it can carry hundreds of missiles oh, and it also has the ability to carry air-to-air missiles to even up the odds if there are a whole lot of enemy aircraft and maybe over wanted or two of ours we can use the sr1, give them a run for their money
I would love to watch a video about the transition from the f14 to and how the yf17 became the superhornet.
Wow- this would be great for taking out the air defenses of chinese ships. What it really needs though (and hopefully has) is an endgame rocket motor so it's constantly accelerating for the last couple of miles. This would make it more difficult for their gun-based close-defense weapons to take out.
The world knows how bad china's recon network is so the ships aren't an issue and their "5th gen pops up on soviet era Indian radar" soooo I think it's more targeted towards russias new SU-57 variant unveiled a few months ago
@@nathanielalaburgDelhi Well...I think the idea is to protect Taiwan. If we give these to Taiwan, they could take out the ship's air defenses and then take out everything else with inexpensive bombs
@@nathanielalaburgDelhi all you so called information is based on india media which anyone with a brain knows indian news is all bullshit
@@MY-zj8pb did I hurt your feelings? Why so hostile? It's okay tho I wish you the best in your difficult times 🤝🤝🤝
It's very inefficient to use it for ships, Air force has a good strategy for eliminating ships with JDAM missiles program
ua-cam.com/video/5w5sMTI_aX4/v-deo.html
The standoff capability of these missiles receiving guidance and targeting from forward fighters is key. You could build a larger version of it, fire it from a few hundred miles away and receive targeting information from a stealth drone in theater.
And makes the statement about the F-35 C and C systems that allows hive communications and control between Ground, other F-35, AWAC, etc.
@@softballm1991 I was focusing more on the fact that you could take the F-35 (and it’s squishy pilot) out of the mix entirely. As we become increasingly more risk averse, Missions are undertaken (or NOT undertaken) not simply for the military utility, but for a wide variety of political purposes as well. The loss of a single F35 in combat would be a serious dent to the prestige of the United States…if we still have such a thing. We lost a single F-117 And people still talk about that decades later. We could lose the entire squadron of UAVs spotting for missile strikes and the only people who would bat an eye, would be the accountants in finance and the general in procurement Who gets to go out to a fancy dinner with The contractor so they can sell him more tech.
This new missile looks a lot more like a modern SM-2/6 Aegis missile, rather than the older design that looks like a miniature version of the TERRIER Wing-Control missile when the system was still using beam-riding missiles at its first design in the mid-1950s.
Modify F117s for unmanned flight and use them as trucks that could fly even closer than forth gen fighters. The addition of the F117s would significantly complicate the identification of threats by Chinese or Russian defense radars and ability to carry multiple missiles would be a force multiplier.
Thank you! We the American patriots appreciate everyone of you! Thank you all for helping save America
So this is why the f18 fighters have been doing so many sorties here over Purdue. Many people have been getting irritated by the constant daily fly overs
Dang, probably had one fly over purdue when I was there 5 years ago, I’d be thrilled to have consistent fly overs.
Yea I like it but my mom and neighbors hate it I was at her house recently and she was complaining all about it haha
@@socratesa2536 they even flew over while I was at her house
@@austinlowrance5943 haha yea, to us it's like music, to everyone else it's a fly. Crazy how we look at things differently
It’s the Sound of Freedom
Okay well you are getting tunnel vision on stealth versus ground threats. Don't forget that the enemy isn't just going to sit around and not work on new AAMs. One of the strong suites of stealth aircraft is the fact that they can engage aircraft without being counter detected in a timely manner. This goes right back to history as well in that a lot of aircraft dogfights were over when one of the aircraft never knew the other was around and got shot down because if it.
So yes you don't need EVERY aircraft to be a stealthy 22 or 35. However you will still need a fair number of those aircraft to counter not just ground threats but airborne ones as well. Just to allow the non stealthy ones a fair shake at accomplishing a given mission.
it's not that easy... the radar is protected by a 3-layer radar defense system... and the last layer is salvo fire forming a wall... even hypersonic missiles are hard to pass through
I’ll take 12
The stealth still matters because you never know when an enemy fighter might appear. Russia in particular has some very long range air to air missiles. An F-15 or FA-18 trying to get in and use an anti-radiation missile could wind up taking a volley of R-27's for it's trouble.
This is a big game changer. If the US were to also sell the new AARGM-ER to allied countries such as Japan and Australia, this would likely create a huge problem for Chinese Air Defense especially in their man-made islands as they could be knocked out early during said potential conflict. Since it's based of 2012 tech it would most likely be considered for export especially if they're having great progress mass producing the AARGM-ER.
What oncerns me is how China is reading this too. I worked on JSTARS for several years, and my job was to provide Mid course correction updates to the ATACMS.
Many years ago, I was working on the F-14 and my analysis group looked at the forward pass option where the lead F-14s could D/L targeting info back to AMMO carrying aircraft's missiles to intercept the up to 24 targets each F-14 was tracking. This tactic would be useful in countering swarm attacks against the carrier group's support vessels. one tomcat Pilot said so many targets, so few missiles in this scenario we proposed.
I think this missile should be pronounced Aargmer and not an initialism. Is "Aarg" the sound the enemy is meant to make when they're hit?
AARGMER he got me!
Great video! I got so used to watching negative videos on US lack of preparedness and how far we’ve fallen behind the rest of the world when it comes to technology that this video makes me feel a bit better!
remember the US budget is based on how fearful we are, so our technology and assets are not put out until the enemy shows their weaopons. congress would cut the budget if we showed the new toys all the time for no reason.
Check out new EW, drone, laser and 6gen fighter tech, "loyal companions", as well as the "son of a blackbird" project and new hybrid ram jet engines.
This video was to large extend speculation. Those radio links have to be integrated and the software too.
@@ItsJoKeZ Its true. When congress sees American military fully capable. It decides to start reducing the military budget. Stating no need to increase the military budget. 😎😎
It's my belief that those videos are simply a result of us not having a near-peer conflict in the past 20 years.
EDIT: And if the cost for relative peace is some videos that call the US weaker than it used to be, well I'll gladly pay that.
It enables The F-35 to penetrate highly contested airspace and basically target radars for missiles fired from F-15EX “Missile trucks”. A great mix of High tech stealth and sensors and the Braun of the F-15EX.
You are forgetting one thing - when talking range: The earth curves. At 250 miles from an AD radar - an aircraft will have to fly above 8.000 meters of altitude to be targeted by a fire control radar. Flying low, you can likely get within about 25 miles / 40 km before being tracked accurately by even an elevated radar dish. Yes, HF based radars like the Resonans-N *can* detect stealth targets at greater ranges, but not reliably as they depend on bouncing radio waves off the ionosphere - and they are far from accurate enough to give a targeting solution. They are best used for vectoring fighters or early warning.
This is very much inline with the US gen 6 strategy of an over smart master jet surrounded by dumb drones that are basically executing orders from the mother ship. It's a great proof of concept for it and a clear step in that direction. Brilliant way to move in the right direction and refine the concept and designs.
The F-15E Strike Eagle, is a very sophisticated aircraft. Imagine the EX. The F-15EX, is the one man gang,aircraft, we’ve all been waiting for.
An F-18 with cool missiles is a crazy position to go against.
Short of thrust vectoring only other trick is X wings slower/safer/longer glides staying power quick touch & go.
Hi Alex,
Can you please provide an update on where they are with this missile, 2 years down the track (2024)?
Also, is there any clarity yet by when squadrons could expect to receive them?
Thanks a ton!
The navy's doctrine didn't rely on stealth too much as it is anyways. Their testing showed that most radar-absorbing materials don't fare too well if you're operating in all-weather conditions and facing exposure to sea spray. The materials tend to be semi-permeable and salt is a bad thing to have get in there. Not to mention that the navy is already invested heavily in active countermeasures, aircraft like the Growler version of the F-18 seem to perform well.
So it'd be logical to develop something that further complements a non-stealth approach to having an effective air offense. (Not that they're against stealth, but being pragmatic it's not their primary option given the conditions that have to be worked with.)
good comment,
11:15 if I'm not mistaken, an F-35, F-22, F-18, F-16, F-15 in formation. Freaking awesome.
Great vid as always Alex! I wonder how many of these a loyal wingman can carry?