Next Predator, Stealthy And Fast

Next Predator, Stealthy And Fast

UAVs aren’t going to be as useful as they have been in Afghanistan and Iraq because, in the next real war they are much more likely to face armed opposition from the ground and from the air.

The outgoing commander of US air assets in Europe, Gen. Roger Brady, told a recent UAV conference that “the burden of proof, in my opinion, is on the proponents of UAS.”

He cited maneuverability and stealth limitations as arguments against UAVs in contested airspace. It turns out the folks at General Atomics have been listening to these arguments and looking ahead. Chris Ames, director of strategic development, said they are developing a stealthy, jet-powered version of the Predator.


Predator C/Avenger will have a jet engine’s maneuverability, be able to fly at 400 knots for up to 20 hours and carry an impressive 3,000 pounds to 6,000 pounds of ordnance, Ames said.

The requirement doesn’t exist yet — at least not in the unclassified world — but Ames says the company is aiming at the Navy’s unmanned carrier aircraft — Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS)  — and at the Air Force’s long-range strike program. Basically, it looks as if the strike program will include manned and unmanned capabilities and GA is targeting the unmanned portion. He also said the Missile Defense Agency is interested in the capability.

Add to that likely markets for the intelligence agencies and foreign customers such as the UK’s Scavenger UAV development effort, and Ames thinks “the market is going to be significant.” He wouldn’t offer specific numbers, citing the lack of requirements but said he expected a market for “hundreds” of stealthy UAVs.

To be clear, these UAVs would not be stealthy in the fashion of an F-22 but they would boast radar-observing materials and design modifications to reduce radar cross-section. The plane will be able to fly above 50,000 where it could perform electronic warfare functions, Ames said, as well as plug holes in satellite coverage.

Join the Conversation

Good Morning Folks,

Sorry to have to disagree with you Colin. While you are correct that the Predator/Reaper/Avengers are not designed to operate in a high threat environment, so what?

We already have 187 F-22’s that are chasing 737’s around the skies of the United States. This is more then enough firepower if the UAV’s/RPV’s that are doing the CAS mission need an escort against the Pakistani Air Force, which is rather unlikely right now.

Our current enemies have no air defense missile systems or combat air interceptor forces, and I haven’t read about any in the making, the Taliban/Al Qaeda/Terrorist are not going away anytime soon.

The UAV’s/RCP’s in the pipe line will function very well in a high threat environment. The X-45 and X-47 are coming along quite nicely and will lead to a generation(s) of unmanned and even autonomous aircraft that will either match or better any manned 5th. Generation fighter or any know ADS in development including the Russian Federation’s now promised S-600.

The weapons coming out of DoD research and that of private companies in the US are several generations ahead of anything that any future foe may have. Even Putin, no friend of the Us admitted that the US is 20–30 years ahead of The Russian Federation in weapon technology, both China and India follow The Russian Federation in technology. Since The Russians and the PRC have yet to solve the GEMs problem, the US solved in the 1950’s, it is unlikely that anyone is going to spoil Uncle Sam’s party any decade soon.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Okay, here’s a thought. Do next-gen UAVs need to be stealth platforms?

High value targets, such as S-300/400 and SSMs can be seen from orbit, and are large/conspicuous enough to be tracked. Attacking those can be done with the various stand-off PGMs, either by F-35, B-2 or even F-22, or even ship/SSGN launched TLAMS. In fact, most IADS will be neutralized within the first few days of any ‘serious’ conflict.

Ground troops (and their helos) won’t enter the theatre unless there is air dominance, so UAVs will have fairly friendly skies to operate in. Any remaining IADS will be attacked, and attacked furiously, either by EA-18G EW/cyber attacks or HARM toting TACAIR.

In short, current Predator/Reapers should do nicely, as near-persistent ‘orbits’ are more important than unmanned F-117 deep strikes.

IMO anyway.

Cheers.

I was thinking along those lines as well. Seems better keeping them cheap and therefore in numbers.

The F-117 is retired…

I meant unmanned “F-117-type” deep precision strikes vs high value targets, as in requiring a stealthy platform designed/configured for limited roles.

I got to disagree with you about ground troops not entering the theatre unless there is air dominance. In the past couple of wars we have had the luxury of facing off against adversaries who were not a threat to our existence. The last time this happened was WW II and we did enter theatre’s without air dominance. Much perfer to have it but if necessary ground forces can still go in. I think as long as we are contesting the air even if weakly we could still overcome the threat if we are prepared to deal with a lack of air dominance.

Ok here is a program where cuts should be made. UAV’s are not CAS they are more hunter killer, and they are only effective if led to a target by ground forces who in fact could take them out without having to wait around for the UAV. Dont like them or know any operator that does either ( reffering to black ops personnel as operators, not UAV arm chair and AC with a cuppaciono warriors). Save the money — give the operators a couple of LAW rockets, let them kill the bad guys and get on with thier ops rather than waiting on a UAV to come in and do it. Heck — after a UAv hit the bad guys run all over the territory looking for the guys that painted them anyways so what are these multi million dollar things actually good for other than road recon.

you know “black operators” and find time to comment here?

OK, I figured out what GEM refers to.

Seems to me that we ought not forget the potential threats from Iran, North Korea, the Chinese and even the Russians.

OK, I give up! Byron, what is the “GEMs problem”?

I need a little education on this. Thank you.

The drones are my favorite way to control the ground. The more undetectable they are the more effective we are in securing the peace. I would hope to see a drone on every mission a group or a unite or a squad goes on in unknown territories…This will reduce helicopters, jets, and topographic satellite surveillance. All so, I think Air Craft Carriers who make a better prison in Afghanistan for all Taliban prisoners (Arrest all Taliban citizen in Afghanistan right now). Five Carriers in the Arabian sea could handle what? How many possible militant combatants? This would prevent attacks from fellow combatants with the Sea Fortress five miles off shore? No more land prisons which are made for security leaks and outside attacks?

North Korea we could defeat with one hand tied behind our back, China and Russia actually have some tech.

Well past and present open source research shows Georgian Buk or Tor radar missiles probably downed the Russian Tu-22 and Su-25s. So guess they and other radar missiles wouldn’t have much problem with a normal UAS. Dependent on the open source you believe, the Serbs also managed to shoot down between 15 and 25 UAS over Bosnia and Kosovo using SA-6 and even helicopter door guns! And if flying over enemy territory, high performance aircraft can down them as well. All these systems would rather easily shoot down any MV-22, high– flying Cobra and Huey, AC-130, KC-130, F/A-18, and Harrier. There are reasons Marines need the F-35B and Navy Growlers if they want to operate in lethal air defense environments.

There is something to be said for air defense missiles shooting down UAS and MALDs rather than manned aircraft. Would imagine all the troops assisted by Apache, 58D, and UAS Hellfires probably thought they were pretty effective TIC weapons, and weapons like Predator C can carry much heavier ordnance. UAS are more than capable of finding targets on their own…but mutual cueing with other ISR always helps. Fortunately for all troops, not just SOF also assisted, Boomer’s desired cuts aren’t remotely likely.

BYRON SKINNER

I THINK U NEED TO RETHINK UR STAND ON OUR ENEMIES. WE R NOT 30-YEAR AHEAD OF CHINA AND AS FOR RUSSIA DONT BE FOOLED BY THEIR ECONOMIC DECLINE. CHINA HAS THE ABILITY TO REVERSE ENG. ANY WEAPONS SYSTEM IN A SHORT TIME. TAKE A LONG HARD LOOK AT CHINAS AIRFORCE AND THE NUMBER OF PLANES AND ATTACK COPTERS THEY HAVE. I AGREE WE HAVE SUP. WEAPONS SYSTEMS BUT IN A NON NUC. WAR SURE NUMBERS R A MATCH WHEN WE R ALREADY SPREAD THIN AROUND THE WORLD.

Byron skinner = BS

Obama is gutting our 1st tier capabilities so we can never project power against his Maoist allies. Jimmy Carter all over again.

26 billion to bail out his union thugs not a cent for defense.

To “Marcase” :

You wrote: “High value targets, such as S-300/400 and SSMs can be seen from orbit, and are large/conspicuous enough to be tracked.”

Did Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (I.S.R.) really evolve that much since the beginning of this present Iraq War or what? Last time I checked you Anglos had a pretty hard time discovering ANY Scud missile launchers at all “hidden” in the flat, mono-colour, monotonous Iraqi desert, even with reconnaissance PLANES ( = NOT JUST / BETTER THAN satellites!) , after 12 YEARS of searching for them and in an ultra-permissive / low-threat environment…

(At least in equally besieged Serbia, you had a “good excuse” not to find any military targets from above)

Hi Byron!

Please explain to me this passage from the article: “To be clear, these UAVs would not be stealthy in the fashion of an F-22 but they would boast radar-observing materials and design modifications to reduce radar cross-section. The plane will be able to fly above 50,000 where it could perform electronic warfare functions.”

What’s the point of stealth if you intend to do electronic warfare? Put simply: What’s the advantage of invisibility if you need a flashlight to walk in the dark?
Would any anti-radiation missile care?

Good Morning Folks,

Looks like the same old right wing garbage, so I won’t bother to respond, only to say what difference does stealth make if the enemy has no radar, if they did have radar and it make a difference why can’t UAV/RPC be just as stealthy as any other aircraft? If your going to attack ADS why would you want to do it with a $100 million plus aircraft whe you can do it with a $6 million like the Predator? Change your kool-aide guys.

To HasBeen, you ask a good question it can be looked up, but in brief I will explain GEMS’

GEMs deals with the fuel management in ballistic missiles in their second stage. In order to move an ICBM into the correct orbit or sub orbit you need the ability to control the time and amount of burn, in the second stage. Both Russia with the Topol M and the Bulava and China with the ICBM version of the DF-21 have been unable to solve how to do this.

The US solved this problem in the 1950’s and it is one of the reasons that the basic Minuteman airframe has been around now for 50 years.

In January the Russians tried a control burn off, which produced the cartwheel light show over Norway and amused a bunch of drunks. A fortnight ago the Russian had thrown in the towel on the Topol M/Bulava programs and are starting over. Even by by Russian estimation they are from 10–20 away from soling this problem.

Last week The Russian Federation had two successful launches of the old liquid fueled SS-N-23 ‘s for their SSBM’s the 1970’s technology Delta IV’s.

If they are going to send the SS-N-23 back to sea, which I’m sure is still problematic, there have been at least three serious accidents over the years with these missiles on subs at sea, is it worth it, or is a show to the US that says, yes we can do it, enough, who knows with the Russians.

This is an admission that there is no solid fuel ICMB’s in The Russian Federation’s future for a decade or more and since the PRC follows Russian missile technology I think it is a safe guess to think the DF-21 as in ICBM and the Il-2 SLBM are also dead.

Now all you boy rocket scientists can pick apart my argument. The fact that none of you were aware of this before, makes no difference.

ALLONS,

Byron Skinner

@Byron:
Colin wrote the article…he didn’t make up the subject matter. You aren’t disagreeing with him, you are offering an opinion not necessarily rooted in fact. http://​ezinearticles​.com/​?​C​h​i​n​e​s​e​-​S​t​e​a​l​t​h​-​F​i​g​h​ter… . It will be online~2015.

This will be as well. http://​news​.yahoo​.com/​s​/​a​p​/​2​0​1​0​0​8​0​5​/​a​p​_​o​n​_​r​e​_​a​s/a….

ARM/HARM missiles are typically air-to-ground. In order to fire one you must lock up a target…which will get one down your throat at launch-time. No current HARM is capable of tracking a stealth fighter or even an EW aircraft. On launch detection, your EWO pushes your EW pod to ‘standby’ and the missile loses lock.

@Byron: EW doesn’t always mean active emissions. The reason for flying above FL 50 is to have a larger piece of earth to listen to. It’s transmissions are uplinked to satellite — there is no radiation signature on the ground. You have to be above it…China has a satellite flying which does just that.

The F-22 is not designed for, nor should it be used iin, missions the UAV fleet is currently performing. Escorting the UAV fleet is somewhat an archaic notion. Regardless of who escorts what, the low flying and slow Predator/Reapers would be sitting ducks to AAA and/or manpads.

Then187 F-22s are not ‘chasing 737s’. In fact they will only be at 4 locations, 2 CONUS (Langley and Tyndall. Hollloman is losing theirs), one in Hawaii and one in Alaska.

Current enemies may not be future enemies.

Predator C should come in smaller and at less cost than X-45/47 which are designed more for the strike role and not the loiter/CAS role as the X-47 is designed with a payload similar to the F-117s (2 JDAMs). The USAF dropped the X-45 several years ago and the nUSN a little later so the X-45 is not coming along nicely.

Yes we are ahead of everyone in most areas of weapons design and technology. We need to keep it that way.

Scuds launchers could be seen from orbit as well and we had a very hard time finding those during ODS as some were mobile. Just like the S-300/400. It takes large ammounts of manned acft to search for mobile launchers.

If we are going to use UAVs in a high threat environment, then yes they do need to be a LO design. If we are going after high value targets the enemy will be doing their best to protect them.

Perhaps the writer meant to say “radar-absorbing materials”.….….…..

The writer meant “To be clear, these UAVs would not be stealthy in the fashion of an F-22″ in the first place, and I just wondered why.

Smart move by General Atomics. While the Predator C still won’t compare to a manned F-22 or F-35 and probably won’t be as stealthy as the X-45C (or is it X-45N?) and X-47B it could easily provide a successor to the current Reaper (Predator B) that would be survivable in many warzones.

To the poster Tom Burnett:

You wrote: “EW doesn’t always mean active emissions. The reason for flying above FL 50 is to have a larger piece of earth to listen to.”

EW isn’t ESM, ELINT or SIGINT. I also thought that EW is always active, preferably even “too active” = intentionally, brutally conspicuous?

ANY first strike will start off w/ SEAD, they turn those radar’s on they get a HARM down thier throat. This vehicle here could do that, a 3 to 6,000lb payload? Thats alotta HARMs’. The Iranians are gonna find out the hard way. Even the Chi-coms, they think they can hide an ICBM meant for a aircraft carrier? LOL!!! The Chinese are thieves, and one day it will get hot. No way they are gonna hit a carrier 1000 miles away with a missle. They are good liars too…

What do F-22’s have to do with current UAV’s being unsurvivable against modern surface-to-air fire? He’s absolutely correct. If current UAV’s flew against an enemy that had ground radar and anti-aircraft capability the Predator family of UAV’s would be useless. As far as air-to-air… if you’re going to escort a cheap UAV with a VERY expensive manned AS fighter why bother with the UAV in the first place? Your premise is absurd and the author’s point is well made; in the future UAV’s will need to be stealthier and quicker on their feet to survive. I’m not sure how anyone could logically argue against that.

As for the X-45 and X-47… they’re far from “coming along nicely”. They’re interesting proof-of-concept test beds but they’ve yet to begin any real flight testing with these systems. They made lead to a new generation of UCAV’s or they may simply be an R&D excersise, at this point in the development it could easily go either way and no real commitment has been made to pushing them into operation.

Our enemies need no air/space-borne intelligence gathering assetts when all they have to do is inject a tantalizing conjecture into an online discussion thread filled with a boat-load of former [and would-be] military who’ve totally forgotten the rules of information security.

“We will bury you!”…Kruschev

Nah, too old fashioned for video games. Much prefer paint ball and get a kick outta shooting the young guys with remote controlled video capable RC planes while they try to find out where I am on the playing field so they can sneak up on me. But ask any pilot how frusrtating simmulators are because of blind spots — tunnel vision — and the simmulator not responding like the real thing. Remote piloting UAV’s is the same thing, you cannot react as quickly because you cant see everything, you get tunnel vision, and you over compensate because of lack of depth perseption which is why these things are constantly ground guided and the bad guys know it. Most folks here dont because the government people supporting the contractors dont want the public to know they have been lied to again and the program they pushed for is not performing as promised.

If SAM and TBM launchers are so easily viewed from orbit by satellites… why then did we still have to hunt Scud’s and mobile SAM sites during the First Gulf War with spy panes, fighters, helos, and special ops? Why did we have to hunt down mobile SAM sites in Kosovo? We had satellite imagery then, yet they couldn’t spot these targets you all are saying is so easily viewed from orbit.

When you engage in electronic warfare functions, you’re denying the enemy good usage of their radar, however they are now alerted to your presence and can begin taking active measures to counter you. Without stealth, you’ll be forced to use EW to defend yourself. But with stealth, you can hold back on any active EW actions and the enemy won’t be alerted to your presence just yet.

Electronic Warfare is all encompassing, which includes aspects of ESM, ELINT and SIGINT.

Also, missiles such as the AIM-120 possess “home-on-jam”, in which they will home in on the source of jamming. If a stealth aircraft was to commit to jamming, the AIM-120 would simply begin to home in on the jamming source… the stealth aircraft. Which is why stealth aircraft cut all emissions during low-observable situations.

The UAV’s will be less stealthy than the F-22.

Our current batch of HARM’s can be defeated simply by turning off the radar. However an upgrade is on the way that allows the HARM to defeat that tactic… most likely by homing in on the last known position of the emission source via inertial navigation and GPS. The radar site probably won’t be able to pack up and move in time to avoid a missile screaming in at Mach 2+.

LOL @ military​.com posters being experts.

Trophy -
You stated…
”…however they are now alerted to your presence and can begin taking active measures to counter you.”

When (and if) the enemy does go “active” with countermeasures, he becomes a target for our HARM’s — exactly what we want them to do! RPA’s (remotely piloted aircraft) are well-suited for these multi-role missions (ISR, Strike, and EW). And they don’t require the costly infrastructure necessary for SAR missions to recover downed crew members.

Keep The Faith…

Rich — sad to say, but OPSEC and INFOSEC only keep the American public from knowing what’s going on. Every time we collect material while conducting BDA, etc., we find that our enemies are fully exploiting our tactics and have developed successful counter-tactics (TTP’s). This (partly) explains why we still haven’t located OBL — must less why he’s still alive after several failed attempts to KoC (kill or capture). Wikileaks is nothing more than a modern-day version of the Pentagon Papers of the Vietnam era.

Long live the 4th estate…

There is a simple yet elegant method to deal with the S300 — S600, and so on. Problem is we have a gov’t that loves carbon based fuel. Because of greedy closed minded attitudes and the stifling of creativity we deny our country, soldiers, and allies tools that would add a whole new level of protection that would blow the minds of any US potential enemy.

To the poster “Trophy” :

You wrote: “Also, missiles such as the AIM-120 possess ‘home-on-jam’, in which they will home in on the source of jamming. If a stealth aircraft was to commit to jamming, the AIM-120 would simply begin to home in on the jamming source… the stealth aircraft.”

So, if a pursued plane dispenses ultra-expendable, ultra-cheap mini-emitters together with its pyrotechnical flares & chaff, etc., would these be considered ECMs, ECCMs or ECCCCCMs ? Oh come on, I hope the F-22 wasn’t drawn up for the next 30 years around such hilarious concepts of the enemy…

That’s why I’m always puzzled why (fixed and mobile) land-based radars, anti-missile batteries and EW stations etc. NEVER surround themselves with dozens of fake antennas, scattered far away of course, to “simply disappear” in their midst when homed in on. At least warships, when targeted, already use such deployable electronic decoys for over 3 decades now. These simple counter-measures even make the use of the horribly expensive anti-radiation missiles (ammunitions!) look prohibitively wasteful, as well as exposing the attacking aircrews in vain to A-A.

To Mr. Byron Skinner:

You wrote: “While you are correct that the Predator/Reaper/Avengers are not designed to operate in a high threat environment, so what?

We already have 187 F-22’s that are chasing 737’s around the skies of the United States. This is more then enough firepower if the UAV’s/RPV’s that are doing the CAS mission need an escort against the Pakistani Air Force, which is rather unlikely right now.”

You don’t need 150-million-$ F-22’s to babysit a few bumbling 4,5-million-$ precision-strike U.A.V.’s, even in sight of enemy fighters. As today’s A-A missiles become more and more sophisticated, even a relatively cheap C.A.S. plane or attack helicopter armed with advanced air-to-air missiles poses a significant threat to all but the most advanced air superiority fighters.
That is: If you deeply trust the publicity of the U.S. American military-industrial complex… And you do, don’t you?

Plus:

You wrote: “The weapons coming out of DoD research and that of private companies in the US are several generations ahead of anything that any future foe may have.”

I don’t understand.
People in full possession of their mental faculties don’t invent anything – and certainly NOT literally unpayable stuff like an F-22 – for absolutely NO reason at all, just to literally bankrupt their own ministry or country. Normal countries ( = those who would take offense at being compared to Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union) would only do something like that in the case of extreme desperation, but there is something about the U.S. American justification for the need of the F-22 that eludes me. If the present mainstay of U.S. American air superiority fighters (F-15’s, F-16’s, F-14’s – please don’t annoy me with their rôles’ exact names, you get my point) is held as sufficient to defeat any non-U.S. American fighter planes that oppose them, with or without electronics, but the F-22 was developed NEVERTHELESS , what does that possibly say about all the other existing U.S. American fighter models? Senseless redundancy of the F-22, or did you “forget” some crucial minor detail in your vainglorious boast? Like a hidden cat that forgot to pull his tail in?

(My opinion: The F-22 is just an answer to the last generation of super-agile Soviet / Russian fighters, which in turn was a – successful – answer to the older generation of F-15’s, F-16’s, F-14’s etc., which on their behalf were an evolution over the Vietnam-vintage MiG’s, etc. etc. …)

Good Morning Folks,

To freefallingbomb, glad to see you back, I hope everything is OK.

First off you may want to rethink you views on ADM’s. Technologically they are losing ground to counter measures including non kinetic means of destroying them, which have been used by the United States.

The Russian Federation has already jumped from the old S-300 ADM system, past the S-400 (two made) through the S-500 (never made) to the S-600 that is still a Putin dream. The short of it FFB is that outside the US ADM systems against US air dominance are little more then a fantasy.

Other then you conclusion I really can’t disagree with what you said. The Soviet/Russian Federation has really been out of the fighter business since the Su.27 and the Mig 29. The current front line Russian Federation fighter is the Mig 31, when ever they find the money to build some that is.

The F-22 was built for only one reason, profit to the US military industrial complex and corrupt politicians and those peculiar institutions of right wing tanks who line their pockets with free and easy money from industry (note my ROE here prevent me from using the “B” word.)

To say what I think you said, the F-22 will be made into beer cans before it has any combat engagements, I agree.

Come around more often, FFB I miss the EU point of view.

ALLONS,

Byron Skinner

You might want to ensure you know what you’re talking about before shooting off sarcastic remarks. Mini-emitters aren’t so miniature in terms of tactical aircraft. These emitters would be too large to be able to be powerful enough to mimic tactical radar emissions and have enough power to last a few seconds. Warships and strategic aircraft are large enough to deploy these type of decoys. Besides, aircraft performing EW can simply cut emissions to defeat anti-radiation missiles and air-to-air missiles that switched modes to “home-on-jam”. Like I already said, stealth aircraft cut all emissions for situations that require low observability.

Ground-based systems DO in fact deploy decoy emitters. Our Patriot batteries use the AN/TLQ-32 Anti-Radiation Missile Decoy, the Russians use the VNIIRT 34Ya6E “Gazetchik”, Belarus protects their SA-3 with the Tetraedr SRTZ-2TM, et al.

That’s good when engaging ground-based radars for SEAD, but in air-to-air combat in some situations you don’t want to alert the enemy to your presence just yet (such as maneuvering for a better firing position). For deep strikes, you’ll definitely not want to alert the enemy until the last possible moment.

our ISR systems have come a long way in a short time so we are able to see a lot more on the ground and relay that intel to the appropriate entity for evaluation and disposition (KoC/SaD).

Good Arguments, however there are simpler ways to deal with some of the threats. How much does a UAV cost versus what the ADA weapons that can shoot it down? Probably cheaper to build a lot of UAVs and put them in with the SEAD so that a lot of their ammo is expended at the drones and not the stealth and other planes. They have to choose whether they want to shot at the UAVs or at the incoming planes to bomb the crap out of them. They choose the planes, then the UAVs will start killing the ADA and if they chose the UAVs, then we nail them with the planes. Real simple that one, but will have to be planned out tactically. It is probably cheaper to build a couple of hundred UAVs than it is to replace a plane and no costs can compare to the loss of a pilot or co-pilot. We need to think smarter not harder. We can make some that serve as decoys that fly over all the time and mix in ones that have and don’t have weapons on them and do the ropa dope on them!!! Don’t forget, geopolitically, having emerging democracies on either side of Iran is putting tremendous pressure on Iran and we should exploit that and let it be know the attack or air could come from either country, offshore or even from the US.

We have a different dynamic with China than we ever had with Russia. Our economy was not tied into the Russian economy where if something happens to ours, it happens to theirs. We had separate economies. Clinton may have done some rotten things in the White House, but strategically got the Chinese into the WTO and our economy is linked with theirs now and we can and have done before, boycotted a Country — France and can do so in the future. If Russia’s economy was tied to ours like China’s is, then we would have ended the Cold War a long time ago. Look at the global slowdown for example. If our economy slows down so does theirs. We are their largest trading partner and they own a lot of our debt like the Japanese did previously, but you saw where that got them. When Alan Greenspan got of office, he went to Japan I think and made some comments that made stock markets tank all of a sudden. Ours came back fairly rapidly, but it took China quite a long time to get even to where they were and not ahead of where they were before he spoke, so I think they got the message, don’t you?

Needless to say, the Chinese need to be sent a message that if our economy tanks, then so does theirs. We may have to tighten our belts and give up some things we want but don’t need like Chinese imports. We only have 400 million or so people, but China? They have what around a billion and a half people? If we boycott or their economy tanks, guess what happens? The guy that was making a few bucks when the economies were good, ain’t making it anymore and if that happens you may get up to a billion people pissed off at the Chinese leadership. Just take away something they got like a phone or doctors, paid teachers, raises, etc. and tell them they can’t have that anymore and you have one serious problem on your hands.

When the Russians found out that we didn’t want to kill them and all the goods and services that we had lile a house, two cars per family on average, tv’s in every room, grocery stores, plenty of them, within a ten mile area and some of the creature comforts we can buy that they now have access to??? Guess what happens when that gets taken away? That’s why their economy wasn’t linked to ours and why the Cold War lasted so long!!!

Never, Ever forget that we don’t even have to show up to win a war. That’s what ICBMs and cruise missiles are for. We can put a conventional warhead on it, not a nuke or tipped, and must absolutely send one over to get the point across. Peace through superior firepower works with those in the middle east and if you study your history, you will see that it is true. And then what about the subs we have that are.…… hehehe! Surprise!!! Early Christmas present for you!!! :-)

Thanks,

DT
Atlanta, GA

To the poster “Trophy” :

——————————————————————————————————-

You wrote: “These emitters would be too large to be able to be powerful enough to mimic tactical radar emissions and have enough power to last a few seconds.”

If there was a single talented electronics specialist left in the whole U.S. American military-industrial complex then you would only need one or two such decoys per aircraft, whose volume and weight would be a fraction that of the attacking missile’s power generator + signal converter, and who would only have to emit for a few seconds anyway, shortly before missile impact, to avoid automatic or manual reorientation of the attacking missile (if lock was broken too soon).
Large valuable airborne targets like bombers, troop transporters (Airforce 1?) and AWACS etc. (military satellites?) especially deserve (especially N-E-E-D ! ) such decoys, and they don’t exactly have “a lack of space or lifting power” on board for them either, so your argument is half irrelevant.

(Continued)

do you operate RPA’s? it sounds like you don’t know what you are talking about because i personally know soldiers who have thanked God that an RPA was overhead to tell them where the bad guys were before the good guys got in range. now these RPA’s are capable of locating fresh IED’s in the ground before a convoy gets to it. i know more than i can say but i’ll just leave you to your speculation.

(Continuation)

You wrote: “Besides, aircraft performing EW can simply cut emissions to defeat anti-radiation missiles and air-to-air missiles that switched modes to “home-on-jam”

Does my French accent affect my written English or what? I wrote of “pursuED planes”, not of “pursuING planes” ! How do you cut the radar emission of your pursuer at 6 o’clock?

That’s where my idea of mini-emitters kicks in. But don’t even try it, it might actually work…

(Continued)

You wrote: “Like I already said, stealth aircraft cut all emissions for situations that require low observability.”

The poster Tom Brunette, to whom I was answering in the first place, admitted the possibility of (quote) “active emissions” (a pleonasm, where I live…) among other forms of warfare for STEALTHY drones.
(Other posters, like Byron Skimmer, attribute future stealth drones even superior dog-fighting capabilities. Stealth and maneuverability, imagine. What next: Ballet?)

(Continued)

You wrote: “Ground-based systems DO in fact deploy decoy emitters. Our Patriot batteries use the AN/TLQ-32 Anti-Radiation Missile Decoy, the Russians use the VNIIRT 34Ya6E ‘Gazetchik’, Belarus protects their SA-3 with the Tetraedr SRTZ-2TM, et al.”

The ground-based “AN/TLQ-32” decoy is sea-based and is not a decoy either, but a whole ECM suite, very unexpendable, and I only found one single search result for “VNIIRT 34Ya6E” on Google, too, very vague on details. Is that your cabal proof of the “widespread use” of such radar-mimicking decoys?
The Belorussian Tetraedr SRTZ-2TM fake radar which you mentioned is in fact the ONLY one that comes CLOSE to a small, expendable, ideal decoy (12 inter-connected emitters in a radius of 300 meters! Still too close for an area attack with cluster bombs…), and designed to fool almost the complete inventory of Western anti-radiation missiles.

(End)

technology is advancing in leaps and bounds at this time and the enemy can’t even hide in a mud hut anymore

Good Arguments, however there are simpler ways to deal with some of the threats. How much does a UAV cost versus what the ADA weapons that can shoot it down? Probably cheaper to build a lot of UAVs and put them in with the SEAD so that a lot of their ammo is expended at the drones and not the stealth and other planes. They have to choose whether they want to shot at the UAVs or at the incoming planes to bomb the crap out of them. They choose the planes, then the UAVs will start killing the ADA and if they chose the UAVs, then we nail them with the planes. Real simple that one, but will have to be planned out tactically. It is probably cheaper to build a couple of hundred UAVs than it is to replace a plane and no costs can compare to the loss of a pilot or co-pilot. We need to think smarter not harder. We can make some that serve as decoys that fly over all the time and mix in ones that have and don’t have weapons on them and do the ropa dope on them!!! Don’t forget, geopolitically, having emerging democracies on either side of Iran is putting tremendous pressure on Iran and we should exploit that and let it be know the attack or air could come from either country, offshore or even from the US.

if an escort is indeed necessary for an RPA then an A-10 is more applicable but the very nature of an RPA means that it is expendable so no escort is required… although if one is shot down there may be need of an aircraft to destroy whatever is left behind so the enemy can’t backwards engineer anything from it.

And they were obviously working with ground troops just as I have been saying and not randomly flying the countryside on thier own looking for bad guys. Also you are talking about a convoy above and not SF types on an op who found bad guys and now have to wait around so some general can play with his UAV. It puts operators at harm having to wait around to verify a kill they could easily complete themselves. There are some uses for these things but they are not the great gift from above people are led to believe.

“Description
AN/TLQ-32 ARM-D is a miniature radar transmitter designed to protect radars in the field from Anti-Radiation Missiles (ARMs) which are guided by homing in on the radar’s own transmission signals. The ARM-D provides protection to the radar by emulating the transmission characteristics of the host radar, thereby deceiving and confusing the incoming missile. Features of ARM-D include its capability to emulate frequency-agile radars; 360º coverage; protection of both the radar and the decoy assets against ARMs; lightweight fibre optic interface between the radar and decoy emitter groups and low prime power operation. It also features rugged, lightweight modular packaging, extensive built-in test capability and rapid set up and tear down. It is claimed that the decoy can be transported by two people with individual decoys being deployable within 15 minutes. In operational use, three decoys are allocated to each radar system. The surveillance decoys are designed to be capable of protecting the radar site from multiple missile launches, whether simultaneous or consecutive.”

The decoys are actually pretty expendable.

What’s the contest here? I’m not saying stealth aircraft won’t be actively emitting anything, otherwise they can’t deploy their own weapons. I’m simply saying that when they need to be operating in low observable modes, they cut emissions. Otherwise when low observability isn’t needed, they can emit as needed.

1) Yeah, actually your French is affecting your written English, as your grammar and syntax is kind of confusing.

2) You were speaking of dropping active radar countermeasures. I assumed you were talking about using these countermeasures against missiles operating on “home-on-jam” capability, which as I pointed out can be more simply defeated by cutting emissions. But it looks like you were talking about missiles operating in active radar mode. A cloud of chaff still works well while the AIM-120 is in it’s interception stage. For the active dispensed countermeasures that you were talking about, they’d have to mimic the same radar frequency and know the IFF signal of the aircraft that fired the missile. And if it’s a fighter with an AESA radar, those would be some expensive decoys.

However once it reaches it’s terminal stage and switches to it’s onboard radar, chaff isn’t very effective. The “home-on-jam” feature makes jamming not very effective either. The best way to counter an AIM-120 in it’s terminal stage is to use a towed decoy, which is employed by fighters such as the F/A-18 and strategic aircraft like the B-52. The other option is to destroy the missile. The F-15 (those with AESA radars) and the F-22 have demonstrated the ability to destroy just the seeker head of missiles (not outright destroy the entire missile) by using their radars as high powered microwaves to fry the electronics.

I’m sure there’s someone who can design such a decoy, but it would be too cost-prohibitive. To power such decoys you’d either need to use batteries or generators. Battery technology hasn’t kept up with power-hungry technologies. A power generator would need some sort of fuel. You could try to power it with wind as it falls through the air, but wind power technology still has a long way to go.

Look up the AN/ALE-50 Towed Decoy system. The towed decoys are fairly large as it is, and yet they have to be powered separately by the aircraft through the launch controller.

“Large valuable airborne targets like bombers, troop transporters (Airforce 1?) and AWACS etc. (military satellites?) especially deserve (especially N-E-E-D ! ) such decoys, and they don’t exactly have “a lack of space or lifting power” on board for them either, so your argument is half irrelevant. ”

I already said strategic aircraft (such as the E-3 Sentry “aka AWACS” and bombers) are large enough for these. I’ll quote myself: “Warships and strategic aircraft are large enough to deploy these type of decoys.”

To the Trophy (answer to all your posts) :

——————————————————————————————————–

You wrote: “In operational use, three decoys are allocated to each radar system. … The decoys are actually pretty expendable.”

ONLY THREE “pretty expendable” baits per radar?? That makes it financially EXTREMELY worthwhile to fire four A.R.M.’s against each U.S. radar (starting with the biggest ones, logically), even if the main radar is miles away from the fakes!

(Continued)

(Continuation)

You wrote: “Otherwise, when low observability isn’t needed (by stealth planes), they can emit as needed.”

How does a stealth plane get rid of its low observability?

————————–

You wrote: “Yeah, actually your French is affecting your written English, as your grammar and syntax is kind of confusing.”

I caught a cold too.

(Continued)

(Continuation)

You wrote: “For the active dispensed countermeasures that you were talking about, they’d have to mimic the same radar frequency and know the IFF signal of the aircraft that fired the missile. And if it’s a fighter with an AESA radar, those would be some expensive decoys.”

It’s NOT the decoys that need to be large and high-powered, it’s ONLY their BRAIN inside the plane that needs to be it! The decoys will just do what the plane’s onboard ECM / ECCM suite tells them to do, even after ejection! And what seems to be the so Sci-Fi about that? If modern torpedoes who travel 20+ km underwater can be wire-guided, why can’t a targeted plane, whose ECM suite computes the correct signal to fool a tracking radar or missile’s onboard radar, update this information to the free falling decoys through a comparatively short, thin wire?
From YOUR OWN description of the land-based “AN/TLQ-32 ARM-D” anti-A.R.M.-radar (did you even read it?) :
1) “…lightweight fibre optic interface between the radar and decoy emitter groups…” (that take 15 minutes to deploy)
2) “…and low prime power operation.”

My next post to you will be in French.

(Continued)

(Continuation)

You wrote: “I assumed you were talking about using these countermeasures against missiles operating on ‘home-on-jam’ capability, which as I pointed out can be more simply defeated by cutting emissions. But it looks like you were talking about missiles operating in active radar mode.”

Wtf ? Now I’m confused: What ELSE in the World is there to JAM except

1) missile tracking radars (air-, land– and sea-based)

or

2) the signal of actively homing missiles?

(I’m not talking about Al-Jazeera or Radio Berlin)

(Continued)

(Continuation)

You wrote: “To power such decoys you’d either need to use batteries or generators. Battery technology hasn’t kept up with power-hungry technologies. A power generator would need some sort of fuel.”

Small capacitors should suffice to power a decoy for a few seconds. If you distrust their power, stick your fingers into your computer’s power supply unit even AFTER you pulled the plug out of the socket! But tell your family in advance that it wasn’t my idea.
Scientists already managed to store (a high percentage of) individual lightning’s energy on single (though rather big) capacitors. Ask your electrician.
Or better: Tell the U.S. American military-industrial complex to hire your electrician.

(Continued)

(Continuation and end)

Final wrap-up of my opinion about this topic: If every damn’ Vietnam-era carrier plane buzzes through the sky with a separate (detachable) ECM or EW pod as well as jettisonable flares and chaff to protect itself, why don’t ALL stationary and mobile A-A batteries, who serve to protect much larger targets than themselves, and who don’t have the same weight and inner space restrictions as aircraft, simply have expendable decoys ( = nothing but simple antennas with a power cable and a data cable!) as the best way to defeat anti-radiation missiles? Does it really trouble no one (maybe not after the last two glorious victories in Iraq and Afghanistan…) that the small, poor, besieged Serbs used OBSOLETE Soviet / Russian missiles INCLUDING THEIR DECOYS with such a success that they defeated N.A.T.O.’s airforces?

Paraphrasing Clint Eastwood: “Do you feel lucky, F-22 / F-35?”

P.S. : More than half of my multi-post answer to you is still waiting to “be approved by the site admins before it will appear publicly.”, courtesy of this new Web-site format or Leader of the Free World censorship…

Re: DoD Buzz — New comment requires moderation on: Next Predator, Stealthy And Fast Approve

Just because scientists already did it doesn’t mean the technology is readily available for deployment in the commercial or military sector. Many technologies take decades to be mature enough for practical application.

Small capacitors? Remember, tactical radars operate with peak power outputs of around 15 kW. These decoys will need a lot of power just to momentarily mimic these radar signals. Hence why we still use towed decoys such as the AN/ALE-50, and continue development of newer decoys such as the AN/ALE-55.

Because US doctrine relies more on air superiority than land-based anti-air systems. The AN/TLQ-32 is to defend against any attackers that manage to get past US fighters. Name a country hostile to the US that can challenge it’s air power in air-to-air combat? Don’t say Russia, majority of it’s fighters are grounded due to lack of maintenance.

“How does a stealth plane get rid of its low observability? ”

1) They can become more visible on radar when maneuvering. Flight control surfaces such as ailerons, speedbrakes, flaps, rudders and horizontal stabilators increase radar returns.

2) Radio emissions (communications and radar) can give their position away to passive receivers. All fighter aircraft contain Radar Warning Receivers. They can detect and discern if another aircraft is tracking or locking onto the aircraft. Current conventional RWR’s cannot detect emissions from AESA radars, but that’s merely a simple upgrade away.

3) Most low observable technologies are aimed at reducing enemy radar detection. However these don’t work against Infrared Search and Track systems. Modern fighters such as the F-22 do incorporate some features to reduce IR signatures and make them less observable to IRST, but not to the extent of radar.

“It’s NOT the decoys that need to be large and high-powered, it’s ONLY their BRAIN inside the plane that needs to be it! The decoys will just do what the plane’s onboard ECM / ECCM suite tells them to do, even after ejection! And what seems to be the so Sci-Fi about that? If modern torpedoes who travel 20+ km underwater can be wire-guided, why can’t a targeted plane, whose ECM suite computes the correct signal to fool a tracking radar or missile’s onboard radar, update this information to the free falling decoys through a comparatively short, thin wire?
From YOUR OWN description of the land-based “AN/TLQ-32 ARM-D” anti-A.R.M.-radar (did you even read it?) :
1) “…lightweight fibre optic interface between the radar and decoy emitter groups…” (that take 15 minutes to deploy)
2) “…and low prime power operation.” ”

You just described a towed decoy. The AN/ALE-50 does exactly that. The towed decoy system works mainly to jam enemy radar. If a launch still occurred, then it will attempt to jam the missile. If jamming still doesn’t work, then the decoy can be used to take the missile hit instead of the aircraft. The aircraft can then launch another towed decoy.

“Final wrap-up of my opinion about this topic: If every damn’ Vietnam-era carrier plane buzzes through the sky with a separate (detachable) ECM or EW pod as well as jettisonable flares and chaff to protect itself, why don’t ALL stationary and mobile A-A batteries, who serve to protect much larger targets than themselves, and who don’t have the same weight and inner space restrictions as aircraft, simply have expendable decoys ( = nothing but simple antennas with a power cable and a data cable!) as the best way to defeat anti-radiation missiles? Does it really trouble no one (maybe not after the last two glorious victories in Iraq and Afghanistan…) that the small, poor, besieged Serbs used OBSOLETE Soviet / Russian missiles INCLUDING THEIR DECOYS with such a success that they defeated N.A.T.O.’s airforces?

Paraphrasing Clint Eastwood: “Do you feel lucky, F-22 / F-35?”“
As I already mentioned, US doctrine is based on the fact that no one can challenge US air superiority. Look at the fact that the US, compared to other nations, deploys less ground-based anti-air defenses. Most other nations deploy layers upon layers of ground-based anti-air defenses, it’s cheaper to maintain and train personnel for SAM’s and AAA than it is to acquire and field fighter aircraft.

“P.S. : More than half of my multi-post answer to you is still waiting to “be approved by the site admins before it will appear publicly.”, courtesy of this new Web-site format or Leader of the Free World censorship… ”

I’d guess it’s because of you make sarcastic and insulting remarks. Keep it civil, and we can continue our debate without issues.

I also forgot to mention that aircraft that don’t feature all-aspect stealth increase radar returns when certain areas of the aircraft are facing the radar source. It’s still being debated whether or not the F-35 is all-aspect stealth or just stealth from the forward area while reduced-RCS in all other areas. The F-22, on the other hand, is all-aspect stealth but features the lowest radar return from the forward area.

Called AIM-88E AARGM advanced anti-radiation guided missile. However, current iterations of HARM also have the “last point of target” capability.

Can this weapon be used to fight against casino ponzicapitalistic criminalism

Is casino ponzicapitalistic criminalism the latest leftist buzzword or something? Capitalism is indeed not perfect, yet it is better than the alternatives.

Isn’t this discussion non sequitur to the article? Or at least a bit? Who cares if a UAV has the latest and greatest ECM suite on-board — It is an UNMANNED VEHICLE! If we loose it — who really cares? And how likely is a UAV to sustain a hit with such small stature and using violent maneuver that a pilot couldn’t take; it seems likely the thing could simply duck! Especially if it has vectored thrust like some of the new designs coming on-board.

HA! Is that your new term for what Wall Street did to the economy! Good one frost!

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement