The Planet’s Best Stealth Fighter Isn’t Made in America

Daily Beast ^ | March 24, 2014 | Bill Sweetman

[C19fan]

In 2005, Lockheed Martin labeled the F-35, the stealthy new jet they were building for the Pentagon, as a “fifth-generation” fighter. Ironically, it was a term that they had borrowed from Russia to describe a different stealthy fighter, the F-22. But the term caught on. Some of Lockheed’s rivals tumbled into this rhetorical trap and tried to argue that “fourth-generation” was just as capable—whether it is true or not, making such a case is an uphill struggle.

But if “fifth-generation” means more than “the ultimate driving machine,” a sixth generation will emerge. Saab—yes, that Saab—can argue that it has built the first such aircraft. The Swedish plane has got a mouthful of a name: the JAS 39E Gripen. But it could well be the future of air combat.

[JRios1968]

[Phlyer]

Won’t it shoot?

It shoots fine. Phalanx CIWS is a great weapon system. It's just kinda bulky. And heavy. And draggy (if used on an aircraft). And you need several of them to get full coverage. This is the current US solution to what the poster recommended. I don't really think that an active shoot-down defense even if you allowed 'bulkier, non-stealth systems' is the way for aircraft to go.

[Phlyer]

You try and avoid a “dog-fight” if you are flying a fighter. Why close to the merge when you don’t have to, and if you do close to the merge, you want to remain ‘invisible’ as long as possible in order to give you the advantage.

During the operational test and evaluation of the F-22, they asked one of the F-15 pilots how hard it was to fight an F-22 with an F-15. Now you have to remember, all fighter pilots think they fly the greatest aircraft ever, and besides, even if it wasn't their skill would make them the winner. So you could expect an F-15 pilot to talk about how he could beat even an F-22. In fact, he said, "It's easy."

The rest of his comment was, "You go up. You die. You hit the tanker and refuel. You die. You hit the tanker again. You die again. And that's a sortie."

[Hulka]

To clarify your point, fighter are designed to shoot down other fighters and stealth allows a level of ‘sneakiness’ to do so.

Strike aircraft are the ones that drop bombs, if the platform can also be used as a ‘fighter.’ The F-15E is an excellent fighter/bomber (’strike’) aircraft.

The F-22 can be used to blind the enemy because they can do so without being seen, rush in, drop a JDAM or SDB and never be seen, thereby opening the door for the non-stealthy F-15E to run in and drop bombs in great numbers and with great effect.

Strategic strike like the B-1’s and Next Gen Bomber are something else.

Other nations are buying 4th-gen fighters from Russia and China and that is what we build against. . .the platform.

To be sure, a third-world camel jockey pilot is still a third-world camel jockey pilot even if he is flying a first world advanced jet. See Iraq in Gulf War 1 for example.

While we produce the best pilots in the world, along with the RAF and RAAF, we must always be prepared to fight those that might not be camel jocks. That is why we build to the fighter. There is no guarantee we will NOT end up fighting a capable enemy behind the stick. We should not bet our national security that all we will ever face is some third-world camel jock.

[doorgunner69]

Modern A/A warfare is not like it was in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, or even Gulf War I.

The problem with your statement is ignoring the role of EW in denying the stand-off weapon advantage. There will never be 100% hits regardless, missiles are just not that good and never will be.

[pepsi_junkie]

To clarify your point, fighter are designed to shoot down other fighters and stealth allows a level of ‘sneakiness’ to do so.

The F-35 is a Strike Fighter (the SF in JSF) and it's not really designed to slug it out with other fighters, it's designed to deliver air to surface strikes. You don't want your $100+M JSF getting hit by a lucky shot from some old fashioned and otherwise obsolete 25 year old Russian military surplus jet. Evade, get the to the target, deliver the goods then disappear.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

LOL!

[Mastador1]

I was wondering about the problem of the “unexplainable blank place” actually pointing out where the plane is.

“Look at that moving ‘hole’ on the radar! That ‘nothing’ thing is coming right for us!”

LOL! Isn't that how Kirk and his crew spotted Romulans and Klingons that were cloaked?

[Hulka]

Didn’t mention the JHMCS either.

Was speaking about the environment.

[Hulka]

Wasn’t talking about JSF. Was talking about F-22.

JSF isn’t worth a darn in A/G configuration.

Should have focused on F-22 and let the F-15E carry the mail for A/G.

[Axenolith]

The Aircraft as a bulkier, non stealth platform. Bearing small on board anti missile systems.

[Phlyer]

Bearing small on board anti missile systems.

Powered, no doubt, by pixie dust. In the real world, things are not so simple.

The reason Phalanx is so big is not just because they wanted it to be bulky. It takes a good sized shell to have a reasonable assurance of a kill on the incoming target. It takes a good sized radar to track the target and (in the case of Phalanx) also track the outbound shells to correct aim. It takes a fair sized magazine to have a chance at multiple targets in the same sector. It takes a good field of regard, which means azimuth-elevation movement, and multiple units in order to provide coverage over a meaningful sector (consider all the turrets on a B-17).

The bottom line is that providing active anti-missile defense is analogous to providing active anti-fighter defense for a WWII bomber. It's heavy, draggy, and consumes a lot of volume/power. Before you get to the point where you have a fair confidence you have an effective defense, you're no longer a 'fighter' or 'attack' aircraft. You're a "Flying Fortress" and cost as much as a (new-build) B-1, yet with the payload/range of an F-35.

My point in the post was that it's not as easy as you assume. The physics/engineering shows that reducing incoming missile probability of kill can be done more effectively with stealth and/or countermeasures such as chaff and flares than with active kill-the-attacking-missile defense. Perhaps that will change some day when particle beam weapons or other 'death rays' mature, but not in the near future.

[Axenolith]

I’m not assuming it’s easy, and I also assumed increased weight and drag, but missiles are frail, and another vulnerability of theirs is that they have a package designed to go boom.

many of them are going to terminal in on heat. Your anti missile device could target a narrow probability cone for any given one unit and fire flechette clusters or something along that line.

You know, when you think about it, a low tech force fielding a lot of prop aircraft could probably kick ass on a lot of current high tech forces, through numbers and creative means of getting the enemy to waste their very finite SAM capacity.

It’d be interesting to game it out...

[Phlyer]

Your anti missile device could target a narrow probability cone for any given one unit and fire flechette clusters or something along that line.

More pixie dust.

[Axenolith]

Whatever, condescending asshat...