Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Light Stealth Aircraft (LSA) - Concept Aircraft

Discussion in 'Indian Air Force' started by randomradio, Mar 19, 2016.

  1. LonewolfSandeep

    LonewolfSandeep Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2017
    Messages:
    420
    Likes Received:
    521
    Country Flag:
    India
    Lol my response was on a theoretical discussion
    http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/waves/Lesson-3/Interference-of-Waves
    where @Averageamerican was pointing it not theoretical possible & I just punched holes in their assessment of same wave theory as lack of conceptual scientific understanding, now you want to shift goal to proven tech in war, nice..
    In your own words, effective tech like active cancellations by spectra can exist too decades before it was revealed.. why only GPS internet etc could for USA & something not for others. So your argument falls flat on its own head.

    British/American members has common pattern to any tech they dont have, they either try to say it not possible, when they fail, they try to say it doesnt exist - why so insecurity..
    Dont expect any further response to this unnecessary discussion..
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2017
    Angel Eyes likes this.
  2. X_Killer

    X_Killer Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2017
    Messages:
    710
    Likes Received:
    675
    Country Flag:
    India

    Whomever started off topic posts but finally it resulted in a derailed thread.

    @randomradio @nair
    Please move all the mess to a desired thread.
     
  3. Grevion

    Grevion Think Tank TROLL ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2016
    Messages:
    1,783
    Likes Received:
    2,965
    Country Flag:
    India
    So you won't tell.:D
    Atleast tell me what role it will play in IAF's doctrine?
     
    Blackjay likes this.
  4. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,252
    Likes Received:
    2,335
    Country Flag:
    United States
    If active cancellation was effective, the USA would just add it to their B52 bombers, and F15 and F16s, if the French had it they would sell it.
     
  5. randomradio

    randomradio Mod Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    10,058
    Likes Received:
    5,068
    Yes. That's the plan. USAF plans to add Spectra type device on large tankers initially.

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...orce-wants-a-cloaking-device-for-its-tankers/

    They are gonna add this on the Growler and SH as well.

    They are selling it. But it is subject to purchasing the Rafale. You buy the Rafale, you get Spectra. It's not a standalone system after all.
     
    HariPrasad and zebra7 like this.
  6. randomradio

    randomradio Mod Staff Member MODERATOR

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    10,058
    Likes Received:
    5,068
    The MSA can replace every single aircraft in the IAF. We won't need Gripen, Rafale, MKI, AMCA etc. MSA will be better than them all in practically every role.

    Vstol thinks even FGFA is unnecessary, but I think otherwise due to the huge difference in engine power and internal volume for avionics in favour of the FGFA. So a FGFA/MSA mix is far better than having a huge fleet of different types of aircraft.

    Not to mention, the MSA's production can be easily scaled.
     
  7. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,018
    Likes Received:
    14,029
    Country Flag:
    India
    A fighter aircraft must be able to a job for which it is designed for irrespective of the MTOW. For that you need a certain amount of weapon load and range. the size does not matter as long as you are able to do the job at hand. It is for this reason that I do not believe in categories like Gens and weight divisions.
    tell me how is Rafale inferior to SU-30MKI when it carries same load to nearly same distance? How can a SU-30MKI with 12 AAMs be superior to MSA which carries two more missiles and out ranges SU-30MKI? what benefit does SU-30MKI offer over MSA for any mission or strike profile?
     
    HariPrasad likes this.
  8. Grevion

    Grevion Think Tank TROLL ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2016
    Messages:
    1,783
    Likes Received:
    2,965
    Country Flag:
    India
    Rafale and AMCA will be replaced by a Medium weight aircraft but MKI must be replaced by a heavy weight air superiority fighter.
     
  9. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,018
    Likes Received:
    14,029
    Country Flag:
    India
    I wud prefer that aircraft to be an aircraft which falls in the category of fighter bomber like SU-34 and not SU-30MKI or FGFA.
     
  10. Grevion

    Grevion Think Tank TROLL ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2016
    Messages:
    1,783
    Likes Received:
    2,965
    Country Flag:
    India
    But that's not how IAF operates if you want to sell them a aircraft it should be as per their demand and needs. If MSA will be able to take on MKI and outnumber it then that's great but they wont pitch it against an MKI would they? It will most probably be against f-35 or pak fa or a j-20.
     
  11. Grevion

    Grevion Think Tank TROLL ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2016
    Messages:
    1,783
    Likes Received:
    2,965
    Country Flag:
    India
    Why not a dedicated bomber. Or do you believe in case of India heavy weights don't have a role to play and we should stick with medium weight multirole aircrafts like the euro canards?
     
  12. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,018
    Likes Received:
    14,029
    Country Flag:
    India
    At the tactical level MSA will have a large impact in Beyond Visual Range and Within Visual Range air combat. Most recent analyses of relative air combat capabilities assume that BVR combat will arise much more frequently than WVR combat. The basis of this assumption is that opposing air combat capabilities are easily detected and tracked by ISR systems, permitting fighter aircraft to choose the time, place and type of engagements to an advantage. This assumption collapses if the opposing fighter has significant VLO capability, as the MSA will have. The result is that attacking MSA will have to be engaged at much closer ranges than existing non-stealthy threats, as they enter predictable geometries, when attacking high value targets such as AWACS/AEW&C platforms, tankers, or defended surface assets. Another important qualification is that the extreme agility of the MSA will significantly degrade the kill probability of all Air to Air Missiles, (AAM) especially though the AIM-120 AMRAAM, which will be challenged to sustain the necessary manoeuvres to defeat the MSA. Like the F-22A Raptor, the MSA will provide a significant capability for the kinematic defeat of inbound missile shots.

    A radar cross section of only -20 dBSM would deny early Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missile shots using the AIM-120C/D AMRAAM to all current and planned fighters. Doing any better, like -30 dBSM or -40 dBSM, simply increases the level of difficulty in prosecuting long range missile attacks. The consequence of this is that missile combat will be compressed into shorter distances and shorter timelines, putting a premium on the stealth, supersonic persistence and close combat agility of fighters. A larger portion of engagements will be at visual range, and most BVR engagements will end up taking place inside 30 nautical miles. In Beyond Visual Range combat, the combination of supersonic cruise and competitive VLO performance will allow the MSA to emulate the tactics developed for the F-22A Raptor. The MSA can thus be expected to produce greater lopsided air combat exchange rates to those achieved by the F-22A Raptor when flown against legacy fighters. Even if the MSA was only to attain half of the effectiveness of the F-22A Raptor, it will still yield BVR exchange rates of the order of 50:1 against legacy fighters. The arrival of the MSA therefore irrevocably enforces the end of the operational usefulness of the 4th generation of fighter aircraft in the traditional fighter roles of air superiority, air defence and tactical strike in contested airspace. These aircraft will retain operational utility only in permissive environments, where neither the MSA is deployed nor is able to be deployed. No less interesting is the impact at a tactical level when the MSA is flown against the F-22A Raptor. Fights between the F-22A and the MSA will be close, high, fast and lethal. The F-22A will neither get ‘first look’ nor “first shot” with the APG-77, the Advanced Infra Red Search and Track (AIRST) sensor having been deleted to save money, but the MSA will get “first look” & ‘first Shot’ using its advanced infrared sensor. Then, the engagement becomes a supersonic equivalent of the Battle of Britain or air combat over North Korea. The outcome will be difficult to predict as it will depend a lot on the combat skills of the pilots and the capabilities of the missiles for end-game kills. There is no guarantee that the F-22 will prevail every time. The tactical impact of a low cost MSA is therefore a loss of the overwhelming advantage provided until now by the F-22A Raptor. Flown against the MSA, a decisive outcome can only be guaranteed by numerical superiority of the F-22A force in theatre.

    The arrival of the MSA therefore also irrevocably enforces the end of the operational usefulness of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, defined around a 1990s technology threat spectrum, in the traditional fighter roles of air superiority, air defence and tactical strike in contested airspace. The F-35 will retain operational utility only in permissive environments, where MSA is not deployed. The operational impact of indecisive combat loss exchange rates between a low cost MSA and the F-22A Raptor, and very high F-35 Joint Strike Fighter loss rates against a low cost MSA will have major implications at an operational level, and consequently, at a strategic and political level. Once the MSA is deployed within a theatre of operations, especially if it is supported robustly by counter-VLO capable ISR systems, the adversary will no longer have the capability to rapidly impose air superiority, or possibly even achieve air superiority. This will not only deny the adversary access to an opponent's defended airspace, it also presents the prospect of adversary being unable to reliably defend in-theatre basing and lines of resupply. Should this occur, in-theatre basing and surface assets become exposed to air attack by aircraft armed with a wide range of accurate and highly lethal Precision Guided Munitions, with the potential for very high loss of life and equipment deployed in theatre.

    The deployment of a low cost MSA into such an environment very significantly increases risks to adversary forces, as the aircraft can credibly challenge the F-22A Raptor in air combat. While the intended survivable strike/ISR aircraft may, eventually, provide a credible capability to penetrate advanced anti-access capabilities, and thus attack opposing airfields, it will need to be defended against the MSA, and airfields deploying this aircraft will also need to be defended against MSA tasked with counter-air strike missions. The adversary will be denied access to any operational theatre into which credible numbers of the MSA are deployed. In turn, the adversary will be deterred from the use of conventional forces in such a scenario. The consequence of this, in turn, is that significant pressure will be placed to threaten the use of, or operationally use, tactical nuclear weapons. The only practical low risk option available is to deploy over this decade large numbers of advanced fighter aircraft which are competitive against the MSA in air combat. The proposed “sixth generation fighter” is not a viable contender in this time frame. The F-35 is not competitive and cannot be made to be competitive due to basic design limitations in aerodynamic and VLO shaping performance. The only aircraft which can survive in airspace contested by the MSA is the F-22 Raptor, and given the time frame of interest, it is the only design which can be adapted to defeat the MSA. The MSA is by Western standards a low risk design, following the philosophy of “evolutionary” design, rather than the “Big Bang” approach currently favoured in the West, of trying to start from scratch with most or every key portion of the design.

    MSA will operate in Bait and Hunter mode much ahead of the non stealth biggies like SU-30MKI which will be used as bait while MSA will be the hunter. MSA will also be used to create and clean up line of approach for legacy fighters using its dedicated mainbay with 8xSPICE250 to neutralise enemy radars threatening the main strike force. A flight of four MSA, separated 150kms apart can deliver and take out 32 radar/missile sites and also fight with 24 enemy fighters to clear the way for main strike force.
     
  13. vstol jockey

    vstol jockey Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    13,018
    Likes Received:
    14,029
    Country Flag:
    India
    I wud love an airforce with just SE light and TE medium and rest comprising of Bombers.
     
    Grevion likes this.
  14. sunstersun

    sunstersun Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 12, 2017
    Messages:
    434
    Likes Received:
    260
    Country Flag:
    Canada
    Just because something can exist doesn't mean it does.

    You seem to misunderstand something, my whole point is we don't know because 90% of military technology is classified to the public. How would you know the USA or Italy or whoever does or does not have this technology? The point of the GPS, blackhawk and stealthcopter was to point out countries having technology produced and applied to military projects for years without people knowing. Your definitive statements are asinine.

    All I'd like is proof that the Rafale has spectra technology. Even if it does, it hasn't won a single competition in Europe yet.
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2017
  15. somedude

    somedude Captain FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2014
    Messages:
    1,404
    Likes Received:
    957
    Country Flag:
    Afghanistan
    Not that easy to add to something as big as a B-52. The bigger your RCS, the more power you need to cancel the signal that you reflect. That's why it's better used on something that also has other RCS reduction features, such as use of RAM and stealth shaping.

    The Rafale stopped at low observability instead of going as far as very low observability because a VLO design was deemed to be too expensive and to compromise other performances too much; but it's still a low observable aircraft with several passive stealth features, making active cancellation relatively easy to implement. American aircraft older than the F-117 don't have that and trying to develop active cancellation for them is futile. Same reason the French won't bother trying to put active cancellation of the A330 MRTT or the A400M.

    It won the Swiss evaluation; but the politicians decided to procure the loser of the competition instead, and then the whole thing was canceled. It come second place to the Dutch evaluation, losing to the F-35 by only 0.02 points out of 10, and that was back before the F-35 had actually made its first flight so it had been evaluation entirely on the promises made on paper rather than the actual, verifiable performances demonstrated by real aircraft in real conditions as for the Rafale. Later the F-35's key performances characteristics were downgraded to allow the real aircraft to meet them; but it was too late for the Netherlands to go back on their signature.
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2017

Share This Page