Dr Carlo Kopp and his merry band of conspirators at Air Power Australia have updated their pages dealing with Russian long-wavelength radars. It includes new information on a number of L-band radars, as well as the site's excellent coverage of Nebo, Vostok and other new VHF band radars.
Nebo VHF radar
APA has one of the best open-source databases on these unique systems (and has even been cited in Lockheed Martin's own briefs). The performance characteristics cited are based on Russian brochure claims, but the sheer number and pace of new developments in this area is impressive.
The ability of low-band radars to degrade or negate stealth technology is not a matter for debate. Radar-absorbent material performance varies widely with radar band (it's much easier to develop and use RAM against higher-frequency radars) and, in the VHF band, some shaping techniques are no longer effective.
This was known about in the earliest days of stealth, which is why the B-2 bomber - designed to penetrate deep into a live defense system that included many VHF radars - is a flying wing, with no shape features that are smaller than several meters and very deep-section RAM built into its leading edges. The same techniques are used on the X-47B UCAS-D, which is why it's described as using "all-aspect, wideband" stealth technology.
However, long-wave radars also have classic disadvntages: big and unwieldy, they can be detected, avoided and if necessary attacked. They also have large sidelobes which make them susceptible to clutter and jamming, and are not particularly accurate. But Russian radars today are appearing with intricate fast-folding antennas; some are mast-mounted, the better to detect low-flying targets; and some use new techniques such as space-time adaptive processing (STAP) to improve clutter and jamming resistance.
Moreover, APA reports that the primary new double-digit missile systems are being provided with digital interfaces to these "retro" radars - the better to cue their high-powered tracking radars. Quite clearly, Russia's planners see these systems as the most promising near-term counter to stealth technology.
You're in a hurry, you need to find stuff to throw in your Powerpoint for your bosses, you do a google search... and guess what website comes up, with fancy graphs to boot?
Dr. Kopp does fail to mention that other fighter-sized stealth aircraft in that article as being- oh no- possibly vulnerable.
They are going to be a significant threat no matter what you're flying, and are probably going to be targeted first. For the majority of operations, the extra cost (although it's anybody's guess as to how much less the F-35 is going to cost) of the F-22 is not going to be worth it in the long run, especially since the F-35's electronics seems to be more advanced barring an upgrade program, which will only add more expense.
That is 30 or so apertures for antennas spotted around the airframe vs. around 6 or so for the F-35. This will allow the F-22 to zap those bigger radars with the Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) at significant range. In other words there is a lot of lead to pull if there is a adverse glint, for something moving that high and that fast that has good stealth and already has the threat geo-located as soon as it emits. No walk in the park but at least a chance at survival given the right tactics. The F-22s larger active and passive sensor footprint makes the aircraft an EC, RC-22 as well as a mini-AWACs when you see how it hands off sensor instructions to it's team mates as well as legacy helper. The AN/ALR-94 is truly a work of art.
The F-35 is not just a cheaper F-22. The F-35 engine and airframe design is to facilitate good range and excellent loiter at medium and low altitudes. The F-35 won't be the best stealth aircraft. It will be the best stealth aircraft that is safely exportable by the U.S. without tech bleed. With "affordable" and safely exportable stealth, no significant super-cruise and no extreme altitude, the F-35 will be at greater risk vs. S-300 and S-400 threats. The kind of threats that will be ever proliferating during it's service life.
Having said all that, if it proves itself, the F-35 should be an excellent tactical strike fighter that can do all the important war winning stuff after the big IADS threats are subdued by the F-22. Even then because it doesn't have those other survivable qualities, it darn well will need a towed decoy. The latest DAS video showing it chuck out some expendable decoys in response to a medium or large SAM coming up it's side/rear, needs a serious reality check. Especially when one looks at all the towed decoy saves in Allied Force 1999 vs. a legacy IADS.
ELP is exactly right about the F-22. The high-fast element in the requirement was there before stealth (in no small measure as a result of pushes by the Skunk Works) and was intended to be synergistic with LO.
Also, I remember a conversation in the 90s with one of the senior engineers on the F-117 and F-22 programs. He was grumbling about Northrop claims that the B-2 was the world's most survivable aircraft. "It isn't, and they know it." But in his view that title belonged not to the 117 or the 22 but to the SR.
Happy New Years to all and thank's for some good, informative discussions and debates in 2007.
B. Bolsøy
Oslo
B. Bolsøy
Oslo