SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post - German radar vendor can track F-35

Mike Abberton · 10-02-19, 03:06 PM

The original article's claims should also be filtered through the lens of someone who wants to sell a product as much as the US wants to export a plane. It is his contention that the reflectors do not factor into his ability to track the F-35, but that has not been proven to be the case.

The other important part of the rebuttal is that passive radar (as well as the various low-freq radars or bistatic radars) is generally not capable of providing a fire control solution against the stealth aircraft. As the article mentions, knowing there is an aircraft there is important, but if you can't shoot at it, it has clearly not defeated the platform (yet).

I certainly have concerns about the F-35, primarily cost related, but if they US really does buy as many as they have planned (2600+), it's not clear that it will really be a "low-quantity" option, unlike the F-22. The US will, theoretically, have more F-35's than most nations have planes. If the choice is 2600 F-35s or 2600 less-stealthy aircraft, then by all means get the F-35. But I don't think the real choice, at least for the US, is 2600 F-35s or 5200 somewhat less stealthy aircraft. If nothing else, they couldn't afford, or find/train, the extra 2600 combat pilots even if they wanted them. I'm not even sure they could afford 2600 less stealthy planes and 2600 or 5200 drones to go with them. That equation is likely different for some of the export/partner nations, of course.

One place where I feel the US is completely disingenuous about the F-35 is allowing/supporting the general idea that it will be invisible and/or invincible in some way (to increase acceptance and build sales of course). If they are ever used in combat, there will obviously losses due to enemy action, which will likely lead to a lot of second guessing of who screwed up because someone shot one down. Like you said, stealth is not, and never has been, about making a plane that can't be shot down, it is about making a plane that is significantly harder to shoot down than it otherwise would be for a given mission profile. Unfortunately that sort of realistic way of looking at things doesn't sell planes.

10-02-19, 03:06 PM	#2
Mike Abberton Electrician's Mate Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 135 Downloads: 42 Uploads: 0	The original article's claims should also be filtered through the lens of someone who wants to sell a product as much as the US wants to export a plane. It is his contention that the reflectors do not factor into his ability to track the F-35, but that has not been proven to be the case. The other important part of the rebuttal is that passive radar (as well as the various low-freq radars or bistatic radars) is generally not capable of providing a fire control solution against the stealth aircraft. As the article mentions, knowing there is an aircraft there is important, but if you can't shoot at it, it has clearly not defeated the platform (yet). I certainly have concerns about the F-35, primarily cost related, but if they US really does buy as many as they have planned (2600+), it's not clear that it will really be a "low-quantity" option, unlike the F-22. The US will, theoretically, have more F-35's than most nations have planes. If the choice is 2600 F-35s or 2600 less-stealthy aircraft, then by all means get the F-35. But I don't think the real choice, at least for the US, is 2600 F-35s or 5200 somewhat less stealthy aircraft. If nothing else, they couldn't afford, or find/train, the extra 2600 combat pilots even if they wanted them. I'm not even sure they could afford 2600 less stealthy planes and 2600 or 5200 drones to go with them. That equation is likely different for some of the export/partner nations, of course. One place where I feel the US is completely disingenuous about the F-35 is allowing/supporting the general idea that it will be invisible and/or invincible in some way (to increase acceptance and build sales of course). If they are ever used in combat, there will obviously losses due to enemy action, which will likely lead to a lot of second guessing of who screwed up because someone shot one down. Like you said, stealth is not, and never has been, about making a plane that can't be shot down, it is about making a plane that is significantly harder to shoot down than it otherwise would be for a given mission profile. Unfortunately that sort of realistic way of looking at things doesn't sell planes.