
F-35's radar invisibility cloak in question - XnoiVeX
https://www.c4isrnet.com/intel-geoint/sensors/2019/09/30/stealthy-no-more-a-german-radar-vendor-says-it-tracked-the-f-35-jet-in-2018-from-a-pony-farm/
======
Someone1234
This isn't strictly just about a weakness in the F-35's radar resistance, but
that the whole concept of "stealth" aircraft may be limited in the future
thanks to ever increasing computation power and clever usage of existing radio
waves (making effective, passive, "radar" that cannot be easily overcome). But
as the article points out, this cannot yet be used for guided missiles, and is
very early tech regardless.

I suspect the future won't be "super weapons" like the F-35, but instead just
"mass" weapons like tens of weaponized drones. Where the mission isn't to be
invisible but to simply overwhelming enemy defenses (essentially the World War
I strategy, but without the massive numbers of dead soldiers).

PS - The people pointing out that the F-35 had radar reflective disks added
didn't seem to have understand the article (or technology). This is using
entirely different methods to detect the aircraft, not radar waves, so that's
irrelevant. The F-35 could be broadcasting a transponder, and it wouldn't
undercut the technology discussed.

~~~
snowwrestler
> I suspect the future won't be "super weapons" like the F-35, but instead
> just "mass" weapons like tens of weaponized drones. Where the mission isn't
> to be invisible but to simply overwhelming enemy defenses (essentially the
> World War I strategy, but without the massive numbers of dead soldiers).

I think this point of view will come to be seen as anachronistic, much as the
WWI strategy was not long after WWI.

Why? There is a fundamental disparity between the complexity needed for a
forward-operating offensive weapon, and the complexity needed for domestic
defensive weapons. Offensive drones need to avoid defenses and navigate to a
particular target. Defensive drones just need to interfere with the offensive
drones.

Any offensive strategy you can think of that depends on simple numbers, can be
countered with numbers at lower cost. If it's drones, I can build more
defensive drones than you can build offensive drones for the same total cost.

~~~
oconnor663
> Any offensive strategy you can think of that depends on simple numbers, can
> be countered with numbers at lower cost. If it's drones, I can build more
> defensive drones than you can build offensive drones for the same total
> cost.

Mobility can complicate that picture. If I have a million attack drones, and
you have a million defense drones, there's still the question of _where_ you
put your defenses. If you have a hundred cities to defend, you might
realistically need a hundred million drones.

~~~
ectospheno
I imagine they will spot whatever you are using to transport your million
drones...

~~~
D-Coder
Transport? You can't just fly them there?

~~~
sq_
I mean, it seems like any drone cheap enough to be expendable by the millions
would probably be lacking enough in range as to need a carrier/mothership of
some sort.

~~~
animal531
And of course the carrier/mothership could be a cloaked bomber that drops them
over the target zone, which brings back the need for cloaking.

------
jjoonathan
I'm not sure I've ever seen stealth sold as an "invisibility cloak," except by
press lacking subject matter familiarity.

The pitch I've seen in settings that _do_ have subject matter familiarity is
that stealth decreases the detection range for a given power / bandwidth /
noise tolerance. Could your opponent use more power? Sure, but then they're
easier to missile lock and destroy. Could they use more installations? Sure,
but then they have to maintain them and their communications. Could they crank
up the sensitivity? Sure, but then they have to deal with false positives and
increased vulnerability to jamming. That goes especially for passive radar.
Don't get me wrong, it's still an arms race, but it's not as cut-and-dry as
this piece would have you believe.

Also, it's a VHF technique, which is low enough frequency that I'd bet active
cancellation is practical, possibly even through a software update :)

~~~
lambdasquirrel
> Also, it's a VHF technique, which is low enough frequency that I'd bet
> active cancellation is practical, possibly even through a software update :)

A lot of this stuff is literally an arms race, along multiple dimensions. Want
to active-cancel the VHF signal? You'll need a transmitter for that. How many
can you miniaturize into your fighter, and how many can they fit into the
installation on the ground?

Another way that it's a race. You have to detect the signal quickly enough and
recognize that it's a signal, and then jam it before they can get enough
return to discern you from the noise.

So there was _always_ a matter of economics/engineering here, and one valid
criticism of the F-35 is that it costs a _lot_ for what it's doing, and any
way that chips into its advantage (in a way that is actually production-ready,
and not just an irreproducible hack) shifts that cost/benefit balance.

~~~
jjoonathan
Very true, I just want to make sure we aren't taking the "stealth used to be
perfect but passive radar makes it mostly useless" claims at face value.
Passive radar certainly isn't useless and it does tip the table towards
detection.

It only tips the table, though. By using ambient RF it is very difficult to
track, but very easy to spoof and mess with.

How well would it deal with a dozen drones omnidirectionally blasting the
star-spangled-banner at high amplitude over FM with a bunch of wacky reverb
(and maybe a few leads/lags chosen to look like scattering)? Traditional
active radar wouldn't have the slightest problem rejecting interference at
that sophistication tier, but most passive radar systems would have a tougher
time.

As for stealth,

> Want to active-cancel the VHF signal? You'll need a transmitter for that.

Like antennas in the skin hooked to software radios with resilient analog
front ends? To my ears, that sounds like a bet that payed off.

> How many can you miniaturize into your fighter

A few, probably. That's not enough to do active cancellation at microwave
wavelengths, but it might be enough to do active cancellation at VHF.

> You have to detect the signal quickly enough and recognize that it's a
> signal

With active radar, that's the game. With VHF passive radar, you characterize
the "ambient" radiation, which in this case probably boils down to mapping the
FM stations. It's public information, and that is both the greatest strength
and the greatest weakness of passive radar.

------
lazyguy2
The weakness in F-35's have been well known for a long time now.

They've been well known since that a F-117 was shot down in 1999 during the
Serbia conflict. The actual event was mostly due to bad operational tactics on
the American's side and a very lucky shot, but it did highlight that it was
possible to detect stealth fighters using coldwar-era Soviet technology.

The problem is that the stealth is specifically geared towards XHF
frequencies, which are the frequencies used in radar guided missiles.. which
are the favored missiles for the USA.

However the planes lack the physical size and features necessary to completely
absorb VHF radar. VHF lacks the resolution necessary for guided missiles and
VHF radar stations must be very large, but it can be used to monitor air
traffic over vast areas.

So if you detect a aircraft on VHF and then point your XHF radar at it and
nothing shows up... Then you know you are dealing with a USA stealth fighter.

Stealth has been heavily oversold to the American public, but foreign
governments are not so vulnerable to USA industrial-military propaganda.

This doesn't mean that stealth is worthless. It does dramatically reduce
chances of detection, just doesn't make them invisible. They are still largely
invulnerable to radar-guided missiles. The size of VHF radar arrays needed
precludes their use on other aircaft.

So to make this sort of thing still requires a sophisticated network
connecting large and easily found radar stations, which themselves can be
targeted and disrupted in a combat environment. There is still major hurdles
needed to solved before it would be possible to actually shoot down these
aircraft with radar-guided missiles.

Also this technique doesn't work as well against aircraft the size of B-2
bomber.

~~~
andylynch
I think you may be missing a key point of the system described in the article-
it is passive, and does not transmit any signal. Instead it relies on RF
already in the environment - radio, tv stations and the like. This makes the
system far harder to detect and target. I recall hearing about a similar
Chinese(?) system a little while ago which used the scatter from mobile phone
signals.

------
angry_octet
These articles are spectacularly uninformed, jumbling together claims which
have never been made, uninfomed guesses and lack of domain expertise. It is
more interesting as a propaganda exercise, conceivably so Boeing/Dassault/Saab
can sell their planes more competitively, or so the RADAR operator can get
more government funding.

Problems with the article: \- The F35 isn't flown to air shows in 'war mode'.
It has a bunch of reflectors added to increase its RADAR signature. It is only
naked when it might be used in anger or over test ranges, and the USAF is very
careful to make sure non-JSF program RADARs are off, or have the recordings
deleted.

\- Passive RADAR is a real thing that works, but it only gives a general
location. It would be meaningless to try to send a link track to an
interceptor or SAM site from a passive RADAR system -- all you could do is
call and say "look sharp chaps".

\- When you want to shoot at it, your S band (ground) or X band (interceptor)
RADAR will have a very hard time picking it up or maintaining lock (because
its signature changes depending on aspect, and obviously the pilot will
manoeuvre to minimise). Meanwhile your ground receiver is getting jammed and
transmitters are getting blown up by JDAMs.

\- Passive RADAR can also be jammed and deceived. How many times will you
scramble interceptors for a false passive detection?

------
colechristensen
This is a big stretch.

A radar manufacturer claims they can detect an F-35 which was equipped to be
detectable but the radar maker claims that the devices uses to make the plane
visible to radar didn't matter because they were tuned to a different
frequency.

They're just selling radars.

The thing about stealth is that a tiny aberration can turn an invisible plane
into a flying barn. It doesn't matter if the devices used to make the plane
visible were for different bands, it's radio, nothing is exact. They obviously
made the plane visible to more than just the target design.

On another level, there are various maintenance things that are done to make
the plane stealthy when in operation that wouldn't be done going to an
airshow.

And finally, no one says the F35 is totally invisible to radar in all
circumstances. It is especially detectable after it has passed your current
position. The value of the stealth is that you don't detect it until it's on
top of you or has already fired on you.

In a real air-superiority fight, F-22 and whatever other classified drones and
planes would be the first wave and clear out a path for the less stealthy but
more versatile F-35.

~~~
edoo
Stealth isn't a binary. It is a completely analog range. The stealthier you
are the closer you can get to a radar before detection. Even the very stealthy
planes are highly visible at relatively close ranges.

------
vorpalhex
So they managed to pick up a stealth jet.. that was equipped with special
markers to make it extra visible (for air safety outside of combat), with
additional help from a strong polish broadcaster... with information knowing
exactly when and where the aircraft would be?

~~~
braythwayt
This was addressed in the OP. Their explanation is that the markers are
optimized for the specific band of civilian radar, and that they do not assist
with passive radar detection.

As for knowing when and where the planes were flying, true, true. But then
again, they deployed one van to try to detect the planes, in the one farm, and
if the objective was to suggest that the passive technology could end up being
useful in a military situation, that might be enough.

The argument is that the F-35 is invisible. If passive detection seems to have
any effectiveness, even slight, in detecting F-35s, that ought to guide
investment into passive detection and into upgrading the F-35’s stealth to
avoid passive detection.

INAE, but it feels like there is enough here to cast the claims of complete
invulnerability to detection in doubt.

~~~
akvadrako
The main argument for the F-35's stealth is to avoid target locking missiles.
It's not to be "invisible".

~~~
SiempreViernes
How does low radar observatbility help against IR missiles?

~~~
vonmoltke
IR seekers have very (in air-air combat terms) short effective range, ~25km at
best. Thus, a missile with an IR terminal-stage seeker needs to either be
launched from close range (which would indicate the F-35 was probably detected
via Mark 1 Eyeball) or the missile needs to be guided into range by radar.
Guiding the missile that way involves painting the target with a fire control
radar and having a passive radar seeker on the missile follow the return.
Reduced radar signature obviously helps in the second case.

Edit: fixed seeker range

~~~
dx034
But in this case passive radar would help enormously? It could detect the
aircraft and help to launch an IR missile, effectively rendering the stealth
capabilities useless. Deployed at borders, it could provide good air defense
against F35.

You obviously need strong signals for passive radar to work but those could be
positioned inland and they don't need to be where the passive radar is, making
it harder to disable it.

------
ben7799
I would be real curious how this passive radar design helps in an actual war
environment.

Even if you discount all the possible issues like the F-35s not being in
"stealth operational mode", having reflectors, etc.. this is not a real world
test at all.

In the real world test there will be a massive amount of ECM energy hitting
this passive radar... it might totally blind a sensor like this. In addition a
lot of the civilian radio frequencies/transmitters will be getting knocked
offline and it won't have it's energy sources.

~~~
mannykannot
Would active ECM not be a source of illumination of the target that passive
radar could take advantage of?

~~~
inetknght
Sure it would if you also assume that the ECM transmitter is also the target.
Decoys might break your assumption though. It seems logical to mount ECM on a
decoy target.

~~~
mannykannot
Passive radar depends on the reflection of ambient RF by the target. A drone
radiating for ECM purposes (or any other) might illuminate the airplane it is
supposed to be protecting.

On the other hand, the algorithms behind passive radar might depend on knowing
where the transmitters are. Maybe one could triangulate the drone directly,
but not so easily if you have multiple drones transmitting short bursts
asynchronously. And if there are enough decoys, it would be like chaff.

~~~
inetknght
> _Passive radar depends on the reflection of ambient RF by the target. A
> drone radiating for ECM purposes (or any other) might illuminate the
> airplane it is supposed to be protecting._

That's a very good point which I neglected to consider.

------
blakesterz
Interesting, apparently it's because of "passive radar" which I'd never heard
about before...

"Passive radar equipment computes an aerial picture by reading how civilian
communications signals bounce off airborne objects."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_radar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_radar)

~~~
lallysingh
I've seen a presentation (over 10 yrs ago) where passive radar was set up as a
secondary sensor system that is hard to locate because it's not transmitting.
One attack scenario is with a stealth plane first attacking the radar systems,
then regular planes come in after. So the passive systems would stay up, as
most attacks won't target civilian infrastructure. Still, there's a hint of
hiding behind civilians here I don't particularly like. But I'm just being
impractical about the matter.

You can't optimize your civilian transmitters to send out signals best for
radio detection and ranging, so you lose accuracy. Better than nothing.

~~~
SiempreViernes
I don't see how its hiding behind civilians? Typically a well marked road
march isn't seen as comparable to using human shields, there mere sharing of
infrastructure isn't enough.

~~~
lallysingh
Essentially it's using civilian transmitters as part of a military radar
system. A stretch, given.

------
koube
Midway through the article it finally mentions that this was with the "radar
invisibility cloak" turned off by installing Luneburg lenses to make it radar
visible. I don't doubt that there are current advances in radar technology
that weaken the stealth claims of the F-35, but I don't think that this
specific case demonstrates this.

~~~
wbl
The lenses are irrelevant to VHF scattering. Civilian air traffic control is
S-band, quite a bit up from radio transmissions.

------
hef19898
Goes a long with a story I heard last year concerning the presence of a German
radar and electronics company at the ILA. The story goes that Lockheed didn't
want to fly the F-35 as long as the most advanced radar was on premises. After
the radar was moved the F-35 cleared. Also, the radar was set up further away.
And the F-35 successfully located. (I wasn't there, so that is a second hand
story).

EDIT: The Spiegel reports more or less the same story, occurred in Aptil 2018.
The radar comes from Hensoldt, a former Airbus subsidiary.

And, as already stated in another comment, it was passive radar in the sense
it took existing signals and analyzed them and their absence.

EDIT 2: Yeah, submitted article reports the same story... Lazy me...

------
jorblumesea
It's worthwhile to note that while passive radar might be able to detect
stealth aircraft, there's not much that can be done other than that. Passive
cannot guide missiles, and active radar is the only method used to guide
missiles. So even if you detect a squadron of stealth aircraft, what can you
do about it?

~~~
mannykannot
No doubt there are already missiles in the works that will fly to a given
location on internal guidance, and then attempt to home in on a nearby target.
As others have pointed out, stealth is not invisibility.

------
openasocket
Wait, the passive detector was set up only "a couple kilometers" away from the
jet? At that range, I'm not surprised you can detect it up with passive radar.
You could also detect it with an infrared sensor, a pair of binoculars, or
even just listening for the jet engine.

~~~
SiempreViernes
Sure, passive radars need a lot of antennas to cover a lot of ground, but the
point is they can be made very hard to find since they are passive and that
the hardware doesn't cost so much.

~~~
openasocket
Definitely, but unless this offers better range than other passive methods
(like infrared) this doesn't really change anything.

------
Gpetrium
In the future, due to advances in radar tech, satellite and others. Skirmishes
between highly advanced nations will likely emphasize the use of swarm drones
to serve as a battalion and a distraction against the more technically
advanced and less defended solutions (e.g. F-35).

Whenever someone looks at the F-35 and others, you should aim to build a
holistic picture of what 'X' feature serving sub-optimally could entail, not
just "Invisibility cloak has weaknesses under these specific conditions,
therefore it is a failure" and whether the group behind optimizing the
aircraft is aware of it and accounts for that when upgrading and /or sending
it on missions.

------
hindsightbias
This is trivial to see. There will be a F-35 demo at Fleet Week in SF this
weekend.

Turn on your TV to a UHF digital channel during the demo. Watch the
interference. Now, it could all be reflectors, but you get a sense how a
bistatic RF detector could work.

~~~
dx034
The hard part is probably calculating where the object is and where it's
going. With that information, you could then feed the data to IR missiles.

------
Havoc
All comes down to whether the Luneburg lens reflects background noise too. If
yes then this is of little use and the result is tainted.

If not well that could be a game changer

A bit of Google suggests that they are indeed frequency specific see link. So
that sounds like it has real potential

[http://targetsystems.qinetiq.com/static/media/files/Luneberg...](http://targetsystems.qinetiq.com/static/media/files/Luneberg_Lens_2015.pdf)

~~~
mannykannot
According to that article, the most common use of a Luneberg lens is as a
reflector, returning the RF back to its source, and I would guess that is what
you would want it to do when your goal is to enhance its visibility to
conventional radar. I do not think this would help passive radar, however,
even if the lens functions as a retro-reflector at the frequencies used by the
passive radar, as the sources and detector are typically a long way apart.

These lenses presumably have some isotropic scattering at the frequencies used
by this passive radar, and the question is, how much?

------
ARandomerDude
Misleading. The article says things like the F-35 is "designed to be
undetectable by radar."

Nothing is designed to be undetectable by "radar." "Stealth" aircraft are
designed to be "invisible" (low-observable, really) in one or more radar
_bands_. Once you get outside those EM bands, the aircraft is obviously
detectable (e.g., you can see it because your eye doesn't operate in the X
band).

~~~
computerex
You are not wrong. But air defense radars operate in specific bands, too. So
when articles targeted at laymen use phrases like "designed to be undetectable
by radar" \- I think they mean that the aircraft is designed to have a small
RCS for the bands/radars generally in operation. But of course you are
technically right, the jet isn't literally invisible...

~~~
ARandomerDude
True. The reason I said what I did is because if you have an aircraft that's
designed to defeat airborne X band, and somebody on the ground pulls out a
truck-mounted radar in a different band, I still wouldn't say the stealth has
been defeated, if the reason X band was chosen was to defend against other
aircraft.

Don't know your background, so I apologize if this is old info for you: the
band of radar you use is driven by the size of the antenna, which is why
pretty much all fighter radars are X band (maybe +/\- a little bit). You only
have so much space in the nose of an aircraft, and that becomes a constraint
for what radar frequencies you can use. If you know that, and your goal is to
not get shot down by enemy fighters, you can optimize your radar signature
_for that threat_.

To me, this article is like saying something like "bullet-proof vest defeated
by falling boulder." My reaction is _well...no...not really..._.

------
imtringued
For some reason there is the expectation that a new weapon generation is
somehow completely infallible and will be able to defeat any future
generation. Except new generations of tech make the old generation obsolete.
Nothing more nothing less. A non stealth aircraft will have an extremely hard
time against a stealth aircraft.

------
caconym_
I recall that in at least one case an F-35 used for an airshow demonstration
had visible deterioration of the stealth material forward of its canopy. It
seems that the low-observable systems used by the F-35 are very maintenance-
intensive and that the jets used for shows may not be in combat-ready
condition.

(or, if you prefer, maybe the jets used for demonstrations are intentionally
damaged in visible ways so that there is a convenient excuse for the ease of
detecting them on radar)

edit: I was thinking of the F-22, see comments below for a source. But similar
considerations probably apply to the F-35.

~~~
app
I think you are thinking of these recent photos of an F-22:
[https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29218/these-images-
of-...](https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29218/these-images-of-
an-f-22-raptors-crumbling-radar-absorbent-skin-are-fascinating)

However you're no doubt correct that radar absorbant materials is high
maintenance on any aircraft.

~~~
caconym_
You're right! Thanks for finding the source.

------
Merrill
Where there are no existing civilian emitters, such as FM stations, it would
seem possible to deploy transmitters deliberately to create a hostile RF
environment to assist the passive radars.

~~~
LatteLazy
Supposedly, passive radar can use sources as weak and diverse as individual
cell phone towers, the GPS system and analogue TV signals. I doubt there is
anywhere left on land you couldn't get at least 2 of those signals. Though I'm
no expert on the tech and I guess the manufacturer has a big incentive to
overstate it.

------
w0mbat
I've been looking for a source, but I remember a previous air show incident
where a stealth aircraft was detected and the excuse was that the active
stealth system was not turned on, i.e. the aircraft would have used electronic
active radar cancellation in addition to stealthy body design if it had been
in actual combat.

Whether any electronic system would help against passive radar, or would in
fact make things worse, is another question.

------
avalys
I wonder if these F35s had external fuel tanks attached, for the long flight
back home?

~~~
mannykannot
Excellent question. Embedded within the article is a video of the airplanes
arriving in Berlin, and there is no sign of external stores. They might have
stopped elsewhere in Europe and removed them there, but a caption on the video
describes it as "a record-setting long-duration flight for the F-35 from
Arizona" and "an 11-hour flight."

~~~
angry_octet
It would have been air to air refuelled, the F-35 isn't certified for any type
of external tank, though it gets mooted occasionally when someone wants more
endurance.

------
ohiovr
Anything made by man can be defeated with enough effort, time, and people.

------
doggydogs94
Tracking any aircraft, stealth or not, isn't the issue. The issue is whether
you can get a weapons grade track.

------
joyjoyjoy
If this is true then this is bad.

I always warned that the F35 is a one trick pony. Can't fly fast, can't fly
far, can't carry much load, can't dog fight, needs ton of maintenance and may
or may not be invisible.

By definition, no plane can be invisible. It is a questions of frequencies and
angles you look at it. This plane was not build to bomb Syria or Iran. If the
German radar can see it, they Russians and Chinese can detect it for sure.

~~~
trhway
> Can't fly fast, can't fly far, can't carry much load, can't dog fight, needs
> ton of maintenance and may or may not be invisible.

that is exactly all the "can't"s the F35 ancestor - Yak-141 [1] - was designed
with. All the stealth and quasi-fighter related capabilities of F35 are just
bolt-ons onto that design in an attempt to mitigate the "can't"s and to
stretch if even just a bit the very limited otherwise capabilities of that
design. The only "can" in that design, its raison d'être, was the VTOL with
swiveling nozzle (which can't even vector in flight). While that swiveling
nozzle is a great thing for a country with no capabilities to build real
aircraft carriers, it is a thing born in the pre-stealth age, and thus
naturally compromised the stealth (especially in IR) of F35 as there is no way
of making it "flat rectangular", like for example on F-22 and B-2, at sane
(even by DOD standard) costs.

[1] [https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Lockheed-Martin-fund-
Yak-141/a...](https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Lockheed-Martin-fund-
Yak-141/answer/Jones-Averino)

------
Caspy7
Lies. I've been reassured by the highest authority in the land that this jet
is _literally_ invisible.

------
Analemma_
I rant about the F-35 a lot, but seriously: this thing is a trillion-and-a-
half dollar shitheap, and this is just the latest proof.

What's really damning about this news is that it calls the entire value
proposition of the plane into question. By which I mean, every time someone
like me points out that the F-35 loses dogfights to planes from two
generations ago, the apologists always come in and say that doesn't matter
because the stealth and ECM technology means it will never be in dogfights,
only BVR engagements.

But if you think about, that statement is essentially a gamble. It's a wager
that our stealth and ECM technology will _always_ , for the entire 40+ year
projected lifespan of the plane, be ahead of competitors. Is that a safe bet?
I don't think it is. This news shows it, and that's only what's publicly
admissible. Imagine what Russia and China have that they're not talking about.

This thing is a piece of junk based on multiple failed ideas (V/STOL, stealth
and ECM obsoleting actual combat performance, on-the-fly development, etc.)
and it needs to be scrapped yesterday and started from scratch.

~~~
hef19898
I have my doubts about all these 5+ Gen fighters myself. As you said, the
planes will fly for 40 years, so it is certain that stealth will be lost
sooner or later. And still everybody is developing them. Just looking at the
economic side of it, in a war against an enemy with a strong air defense
(against ever other enemy stealth doesn't make a difference anyway) exact how
many of these planes can you afford to loose without ruining your air force
and your economy with it?

The F-35 angled at not just its combat capabilities but at a NATO wide
domination of combat aircraft, including operations for the full operational
life for _all_ operations of these planes. Almost worked out, and my still do.

~~~
thrower123
It strikes me that having an entire fleet of high stealth aircraft is only
going to be important for... maybe the first 48 hours of any conflict. I would
suspect that the very first targets in any air war would be radar
installations and command and control centers. Once those are down, and air
superiority is achieved, stealth doesn't even matter; you could fly B-52 bomb
trucks around.

Even for that opening stage of the battle, I would suspect that cruise
missiles and drones would make more sense.

~~~
openasocket
One issue with using drones in a high threat environment is that it needs to
be able to communicate with a controller. Not only can that communication be
potentially jammed, it can also be used to triangulate the coordinates of the
drone (and controller) which limits your ability to surprise the enemy. Then
you need to consider both bandwidth and latency. Latency matters because that
lag between the drone operator getting data and sending orders greatly
degrades your reaction time, which can be critical in situations like air-to-
air engagements. Bandwidth matters because if you have a swarm of these over
enemy territory all using satellite communications you won't be able to stream
high quality video feeds back to your operators. That matters a lot if you are
searching for targets. I think you'd need the drones to have very high
autonomy, which is tricky both technically and ethically.

~~~
hef19898
You are basically describing some if the potential concepts. And in addition
to all the technical points you raised in scenario like that you would need a
lot of drones, not all of which would come back. Which again drives costs up.

Would kind of make sense, IMHO, to have a superior, super stealthy dog fighter
that can serve as a drone "mothership". Supplemented by droves of cheaper,
non-stealthy specialized planes for ground attack, recon, bombing and whatever
nasty fun things a future air force might dream of. Otherwise I think the next
world war starts with zhe equivalent of a X-Wing and ends with the use wooden
bi-planes.

