backtop


Print 37 comment(s) - last by edge929.. on Jun 3 at 4:55 PM


Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II
U.S. is losing stealth technology lead according to top officials

The F-35 Lightning II will fly with three different branches of the military in the U.S. and while the Marines have previously stated that it would field the F-35 with interim Block 2B software, the Navy and USAF have noted that they will not consider the jet formally operational until software Block 3B in the past. However, the USAF and Navy are now going back on that statement.

According to testimony given by leaders of the USAF and Navy before Congress, the F-35 could be considered operational and put into service with the Block 2B software in all branches if needed. That would be assuming that there were no safety concerns with the aircraft and that software.

Air Force Lt. Gen. Herbert Carlisle said, "If the combatant commander said, 'bring me this capability,' then we clearly would provide it."

Along with Carlisle, Navy Rear Adm. David Philman said, "I don't see any reason we wouldn't be able to be told to go into theater, assuming all the safety considerations have been taken care of."

The Navy and USAF will both have a number of F-35 fighters before the fleet is declared fir for Initial Operational Capability or IOC. Carlisle said, "We will have a number, probably on the order of a 100, airplanes delivered to operational units before we declare Initial Operational Capability. Clearly, although we may not declare IOC, we'll be training; we'll be doing the tactics, training and procedures with the Block 2."

Marine Lt. Gen. Terry Robling told congress that his service would declare IOC with interim block 2B software and that at least 50 F-35 fighters would be available near that time. Robling noted that IOC for the Marines was estimated to be in the 2014 to 2015 range. The F-35 is said to be vastly more capable than existing aircraft even with Block 2B software.

Carlisle said, "There is a lot of capability even in the Block 2 airplanes that look very impressive."

While the F-35 is moving along and may see service sooner than expected in some branches of the military, the U.S. is said to be losing its stealth technology lead. Military officials told Congress on May 24 that the lead in stealth tech held by the U.S. is eroding faster than anticipated.

General Carlisle told Congress, "Over time I believe we will still maintain an advantage, but I think our advantage will be a shorter period of time."

Carlisle cited aircraft like the Chinese J-20 fighter and the Sukhoi T-50 PAK-FA being developed in Russia as some of the aircraft eroding our stealth lead in America. America has held the stealth tech lead since 1970 with Carlisle noting the F-117 and said, "I don't see us maintaining an advantage for as long, as I think other nations will continue to gain that technology."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Sal right
By RjBass on 5/26/2011 12:18:21 PM , Rating: 1
We seem to be moving forward with drones more then standard aircraft. How long before we have a combat air force that is 100% stealth and drone capable? I imagine it could happen by 2025.

If the Chinese and Russians are just now starting to cath up with our Stealth tech, it could be possible they are both still 20 years behind in drone tech.




RE: Sal right
By theapparition on 5/26/2011 12:28:11 PM , Rating: 3
Somewhat agree, but it's a lot easier to catch up than to lead.

The Chineese in particular have a extensive history of using existing design technology to improve thiers. They are still ranked as the #1 country in stealing foreign secrets, both commercial/industrial and military. While the Chineese haven't shown much in thier design innovations, the Russians have. So while the US will maintain it's lead, it will be slimmed down considerably.

US drone technology leads the world, but all it takes is a recovered aircraft or espionage to rapidly bring them to the forefront. I mean, it was only a week ago that someone was selling a small US drone on Ebay.


RE: Sal right
By wiz220 on 5/26/2011 12:39:24 PM , Rating: 3
I disagree. The drone itself is the easy part. To do drones right you need a pretty massive integrated command and control system that includes things like advanced satellites, communications links etc. I think we still have a solid lead in that arena. Not that Russia and China couldn't catch up in those areas too, but I think building that infrastructure could take a bit longer than just building a drone.


RE: Sal right
By Pessimism on 5/26/2011 2:21:58 PM , Rating: 2
All that takes is for China or Russia to throw a dump truck of money at one of the design engineers or employees at the facility to smuggle out the secrets, have them murdered, and hey presto they've caught up. Yes I am sure they all must pass extensive background checks TO BE HIRED, however once inside there is nothing stopping them from being coerced. You can't monitor every staff member 24/7 off-duty.


RE: Sal right
By Jeffk464 on 5/26/2011 9:57:08 PM , Rating: 2
China has a third option that they are very good at, simply steal stealth technology.


RE: Sal right
By bryanW1995 on 5/27/2011 5:04:14 PM , Rating: 3
They can't steal it if it's in stealth mode!


RE: Sal right
By SPOOFE on 5/26/2011 11:23:18 PM , Rating: 2
No, the big problem is manpower and training. You can have a ten million guys running around, but without a solid tradition of effective command structure to draw upon, you're not going to be wielding those resources as effectively.


RE: Sal right
By Hyperion1400 on 5/27/2011 12:46:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To do drones right you need a pretty massive integrated command and control system that includes things like advanced satellites, communications links etc.


Or, if you are a Russian, an R/C controller and a Virtual Boy helmet!


RE: Sal right
By Josett on 5/28/2011 1:10:22 AM , Rating: 2
I it's certain that there's always been a "bidirectional trading secrets policy", it's also no less true that the laws of Physics are the same (at least, for those involved!). Espionage, on this matter, is just a way of getting from A to C without having to stop & wonder at B. Actually, if you care to notice, both Russia & China have been very clever at dealing with high-tech constrained issues, being creative & very efficient with much less sophisticated tools. And, what they lack in experience (and budget, as of now!), they'll both gain in deterrence force, even if not leading any of state-of-the-art technologies, like 'stealth'. After all, it's what this article's all about, right?! ;)

P.S.: UCAV's basic principles date back from the WWII (in Europe, the US and in Russia & China). Remote flight control & coordination, aerodynamics, radar scrambling/jamming features, spotting & detection, weapon's aiming accuracy, stealth, etc, are all are pretty much at hand in all those countries/regions, with current level of technology.

Cheers!


RE: Sal right
By SPOOFE on 5/29/2011 10:37:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
China have been very clever at dealing with high-tech constrained issues, being creative & very efficient with much less sophisticated tools.

Like their crazy-high-speed train that was built by cutting corners, requiring them to significantly decrease its top speed for safety reasons?

What about their aircraft carriers? Or maybe their submarines?


RE: Sal right
By Josett on 6/1/2011 1:19:21 AM , Rating: 2
If you count out # (trains, carriers, subs,...), they'll get there... soon. They've got the money, now. ;)


RE: Sal right
By Ammohunt on 5/26/2011 1:13:46 PM , Rating: 2
Stealth is late 70ies-80ies tech its long in the tooth our enemies are more like 30-40 years behind in this type of tech in general.


RE: Sal right
By Reclaimer77 on 5/26/2011 6:27:30 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
How long before we have a combat air force that is 100% stealth and drone capable?


Never. That's how long. It's NEVER going to happen.


RE: Sal right
By Azethoth on 5/27/2011 9:44:16 AM , Rating: 3
Oh man, someone on the internet is wrong!

Mass produced drones with stealth makes the stealth cheaper which makes it possible to stealth everything that flies.

Why would that not just be something we do someday because its cheap?


RE: Sal right
By SPOOFE on 5/29/2011 10:40:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why would that not just be something we do someday because its cheap?

PR. There are too many unions or lobbyist groups with a vested interest in keeping employment numbers high. Suggest slashing manpower (and thus, budgets, and with it some of the monetary wiggle-room that huge budgets can provide) and you'll have a lot of negative publicity. Our armed forces have a blemished public opinion as it is; suggest that we build Skynet and Terminators and it'll just get worse.


RE: Sal right
By stimudent on 5/26/2011 11:43:43 PM , Rating: 2
The U.S. has or is losing its lead in just about everything else. Why not this too?


RE: Sal right
By Zingam on 5/30/2011 1:51:49 AM , Rating: 1
I don't think that either Russia or China have any wet wishes to wage wars against US or to invade foreign countries. The only country that does this on massive scale under the excuse of helping to build democracy after WWII is US.
I really don't see any difference between US today and Hitler's Nazi Germany. Worse for US wars are just business.

It is amazing to see how Americans have been brainwashed that everybody is their enemy. But that's understandable it's just business. That's good for business.
And democratic values can go down the toilet.


Stealth
By eggman on 5/26/2011 4:03:51 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
America has held the stealth tech lead since 1970 with Carlisle noting the F-117


He missed that by a lot, since the SR71!




RE: Stealth
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 5/26/2011 6:26:08 PM , Rating: 3
Yea but the problem with the SR71 is that we gave up attempting to maintain its stealthiness. The heat signature lit up light a christmas tree in the dead of night and everyone knew what it was when it flew over their countries. The only thing going for it was the damn thing flew so high and so fast, it was impractical to shoot it down, although Russia tried many times.


RE: Stealth
By eggman on 6/2/2011 8:43:53 AM , Rating: 2
You do not need to be stealthy against all weapon systems, just the ones that can reach/catch you. The SR-71 was that. That is why the Russians could not shoot it down even though their light pole missiles could catch it!


RE: Stealth
By inperfectdarkness on 5/26/2011 7:00:07 PM , Rating: 2
the f-117 was the first TRUE stealth aircraft we created. the u-2, sr-71, and others were NOT stealth aircraft. they might have been low-observable and designed to avoid defenses--but they were not stealthy.

p.s.
i wouldn't be surprised in the least if the navy flew these first. they're hurting for planes BAD. the legacy f-18's are being retired faster than the navy has replacements for them.


RE: Stealth
By Reclaimer77 on 5/26/2011 7:29:43 PM , Rating: 1
The SR-71 didn't have to be stealth. Too high and too fast, so what are you gonna do about it? I love that thing. Saw one at the museum in Arizona and even got to touch it's precious radar reducing skin (when nobody was looking).

An engineering marvel, and a shining example of what we can do when we put our minds to something.


RE: Stealth
By Jedi2155 on 5/26/2011 11:31:57 PM , Rating: 2
That doesn't apply anymore now that anti-ballistic missle technology is more feasible. Hitting a 2100 mph plane @ 90,000 feet is far easier than 17,000 mph warhead 100 miles high. China managed to take out a satellite at 500 miles...so they'd have no problems doing that now to our planes. The SR-71 had something like a 70-100 mile turning radius I doubt it could outmaneuver any missiles flying at it.


RE: Stealth
By SPOOFE on 5/26/2011 11:58:22 PM , Rating: 2
I think you dismiss maneuverability too quickly. The SR-71's turning radius is a direct function of its speed, and as such can vary.

Further, it's a horrible to directly compare it to shooting down incoming ballistic missiles. "Ballistic" means that its path is pretty much predictable. You just need to line up a projectile on that line at the exact moment the missile intersects. At those ranges and speeds, an SR-71 needs to adjust its heading by only a fraction of a degree in order to thwart the system.

And further, cost: It's worth it to shoot down ballistic warheads, because those typically contain nukes.


RE: Stealth
By Josett on 5/28/2011 1:30:21 AM , Rating: 2
@SPOOFE:

Some 'slight' corrections.
It's Velocity (a vector) and not Speed (the scalar component of Velocity). This 'detail' turns things a bit more difficult to deal with (not to mention aerodynamical issues...).
The SR-71 was a very heavy, very well designed aircraft for its intent, high Mach # speed and high ceiling. Due to its specific aerodynamical features, it was basically a "sitting duck" at low speeds. Even at these low velocities (speed + rate of changing direction), it was very inefficient, on what maneuverability was concerned.
(By the way, there's a similar issue regarding the Russian TOPOL-M ICBM...)

Cheers!


RE: Stealth
By SPOOFE on 5/29/2011 10:42:56 PM , Rating: 1
Thanks for the corrections; I further note their irrelevance to my point, namely that the SR-71 is not an intercontinental ballistic missile.

Cheers!


RE: Stealth
By Reclaimer77 on 5/27/2011 12:41:50 PM , Rating: 2
The SR-71 is retired, it's a moot point. We now have the Aurora, which I assure you, will never be brought down by an anti-ballistic missile system or any other ground based systems.

But I would gladly argue your point. Shooting down a ballistic missile, which has a static trajectory and a very predictable flight path and shooting down an SR-71 are two vastly different things.


RE: Stealth
By SunTzu on 5/27/2011 8:24:13 PM , Rating: 2
You do? Source that please.


RE: Stealth
By edge929 on 6/3/2011 4:55:35 PM , Rating: 2
I was thinking the same thing. How long are we going to limp along with the F/A-18? It's a sub-par, last gen fighter based on 70's technology, barely more capable than the F-14 it replaced.


Next Lead: Weapons
By DougF on 5/26/2011 11:02:52 PM , Rating: 2
The next "lead" won't be stealth, it will be directed energy weapons and rail guns. Those will be "force multipliers" in the vernacular of the USAF and will keep US military dominant through the 2040's or so. After that, I have have no idea.




RE: Next Lead: Weapons
By SPOOFE on 5/26/2011 11:51:23 PM , Rating: 2
I think we'd need quite the revolution in local and portable energy generation and/or storage before directed energy weapons or rail guns are widely deployed. When it comes to planes I think missiles will remain the weapon of choice for quite some time to come.


RE: Next Lead: Weapons
By sorry dog on 5/27/2011 10:44:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
After that, I have have no idea.


After that it will be sharks...


RE: Next Lead: Weapons
By abhaxus on 5/30/2011 1:40:46 AM , Rating: 3
... with laser beams attached to their heads?


Is it even possible to regain the lead?
By Smartless on 5/26/2011 2:57:11 PM , Rating: 2
Honest question. How much more can we improve on the design? Can it get stealthier? The only areas of improvement I can think of are aircraft performance, thermal signature, and now stealth opponent detection. Perhaps someone with familiarity can chime in.




By 91TTZ on 5/26/2011 4:45:16 PM , Rating: 2
How about the ability to build it cheaper. It was supposed to be much less than the F-22, but it's winding up costing almost as much.


stealth?
By jfelano on 5/28/2011 1:37:41 PM , Rating: 2
Stealth isn't that important anymore for jets. We are moving toward cheaper, unmanned aircraft.




RE: stealth?
By jabber on 6/1/2011 8:45:56 AM , Rating: 2
Why bother with those either.

A few guys with $40 worth of bolt cutters did far more damage back in 2001.

In the kind of conflicts we in the west will be facing, the guys with the $200 budget and the will to sacrafice will generally be more successful.

China, Russia etc. all have too much to lose financially to get involved in global conflicts. Sure we all need to keep an eye on each other but multi billion defense spending isnt the answer to our problems right now.


"It's okay. The scenarios aren't that clear. But it's good looking. [Steve Jobs] does good design, and [the iPad] is absolutely a good example of that." -- Bill Gates on the Apple iPad














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki