Play War Thunder for free on PC, PlayStation®4 and Xbox One! Support Binkov and click here to get a free aircraft, tank or a ship; and three days of premium account time! gjn.link/WTBonusBinkovs
Camo is actually a bit more advanced than just that. The point of camo uniforms and painting is usually to obscure the outline of something so it becomes harder to recognize. It's not so much meant to blend in as it is to confuse our (or really our brains) eyes since the way we recognize objects is by finding contrasts and recognizing outlines. The camo makes that more difficult by providing a bunch of false contrasts that will throw off our object recognition. The human brain is an absolute master at recognizing patterns so that's why camo that just looks like nature usually isn't that effective because we'll still clearly recognize the human shape. This is also why digital camo makes sense, you'd of course never see square patterns like that in nature but if you're looking for a vehicle you're expecting to see shapes like that and providing some false shapes might make you think it's another vehicle. Though of course it also just looks cool and that's also pretty important for the parade ground.
Stealth works like this, imagine trying to distinguish a dark skinned person with asian features out of four brothers from far away verses some one with light skin tone with pronounced facial features. First case is harder but doable, thing is in the past 20 years radars are able to see better and see more and have caught up. I.e. you wearing eye glasses.
I Like to make this analogy: Stealth(radar) is like trying to sneak past someone in the dark. With a fully traditional jet, it's like you're trying to sneak past with a roadside flare in hand. With a stealth enhanced aircraft(F18, Rafale) it's like trying to sneak past with a cheap flashlight. With a true stealth aircraft, it's like trying to sneak past with a birthday candle. A person(radar) can see all of those, but the birthday candle is significantly harder.
Quantum radar uses a sensing technique called quantum illumination to detect and receive information about an object. At its core, it leverages the quantum principle of entanglement, where two photons form a connected, or entangled, pair. The method works by sending one of the photons to a distant object, while retaining the other member of the pair. Photons in the return signal are checked for telltale signatures of entanglement, allowing photons from the noisy environmental background to be discarded. This can greatly improve the radar signal-to-noise in certain situations. But in order for quantum radar to work in the field, researchers first need to realize a fast, on-demand source of entangled photons. "The goal for our project is to create a robust source of entangled photons that can be generated at the press of a button," said Baugh. To date, quantum illumination has only been explored in the laboratory. The Government of Canada, under the Department of National Defence's All Domain Situational Awareness (ADSA) Science & Technology program, is investing $2.7 million to expedite its use in the field. The 54 North Warning System (NWS) radar stations, based in the Arctic and operated by the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), are nearing the end of their life spans and could need to be replaced as early as 2025. "This project will allow us to develop the technology to help move quantum radar from the lab to the field," said Baugh. "It could change the way we think about national security."
one of the best video on youtube about stealth, and it's correct, stealth don't need to be the best from all angles, disrupting the missile targeting process is enough to gain an upper hand.
@@IpSyCo Canada has invested $2.7m (£1.93m) into developing quantum radar - a new technology that would greatly improve the detection of stealth aircraft. The technology is being developed by the University of Waterloo to replace existing Arctic radar stations. Quantum radar can detect objects with a greater level of accuracy than conventional radar including stealth planes as it is impossible to hide from it. This mean the vast sums spent on stealth were for nothing. It makes use of quantum illumination - the process of isolating pairs of entangled photons. Canada and the US jointly maintain 54 North Warning System (NWS) radar stations in the Arctic, which act as the first line of early warning atmospheric air defence for North America. These radar stations are approaching the end of their life spans, and could need to be replaced as early as 2025. Several other countries are also interested in developing quantum radar, including China and Russia. In November, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, in Shanghai, announced that its scientists were developing a new type of spy satellite that would be able to "uncover" stealth aircraft.
In most cases, once fire control radar is on, the target will know it is under attack, but stealth assets add that unpredictability into the equation, which can significantly reduce the effectiveness of response. This includes, for instance, the possibility to ambush the adversary sortie heading towards source of radiation, lure defensive assets away from the actual source of attack, or/and cause the adversary to underestimate the size of threat and send in an inadequate response or make other decisions based on incorrect information. Keep in mind that the adversaries will also have to achieve a lock on. They might be able to know that a threat exists and the whereabouts, but they need to get much closer to effectively engage a stealth target, and that gap allows for multiple attempts to neutralize them. Everything added together, stealth assets can definitely change the outcome of a battle.
Networked SAMs using fragmentation Warheads and with dual IR and Radar seekers on the Missiles counter many of the advantages you claim. Still too much emphasis put on interception by Aircraft. Highly mobile SAMs are also very good at providing Air Cover for advancing Ground Forces. On station 24x7. Not as good for the USA of course that is always involved in aggressive Wars well away from home rather than defending. My money now is on the Forces that operate an extensive system of Networked SAMs networked in with there Aircraft. That allows the Pilot to have very good situational awareness. He will be able to see everything the very powerful ground Radars in the network can see. AWACS can do the same but against a Peer enemy the AWACS have to survive. Of course SAMs can be taken out but I am certain it is going to prove costly. I thought we might see it in Syria but Russia seems determined to not take sides and not antagonize Israel when they attack Iranian assets in Syria. Overall Israel has stopped attacking Syrian Assets. Has the S300 in Syria ever been used? Obviously it is still in effect Russian even if supposedly given to Syria.
@@skippy5712 Even the best "anti-stealth" Radars "Networked" together have resolution cells to large for an optical sensor to scan and acquire a lock within the intercept time. For example if you network 3 NEBO variant radars (covering the different frequency bands) with an S-400 firing battery and tracking radar you would find that your effective firing distance with in service missiles against an F-35 would be around 10 km after factoring in jamming effect. If you add an IR seeker you will find that you soon come up against the IR seekers limited FOV and scan rate vs the large volume of airspace of the NEBO's resolution cell for a given range. Roughly, a 50% successful IR target track happens around ~30 km; including decoys, maneuvering and such that bring P:K to less than 15% even with a big ass 125kg proximity warhead. On top of this 30 Km is well within range of a multitude of A-G bombs, missiles and dedicated SEAD weapons from many nations. The Highly mobile aspect makes them harder to kill for sure but not harder to Neutralize. Standard SEAD practice is to launch HARM weapons so that they will arrive around the the radars estimated area at the same time the Strike package comes into range. This forced SAM fire control and Search radars offline lest the risk being destroyed by HARMs
@@skippy5712 There's still physical limits in regard to the radar technology. We can gauge the radar's operating band by the size of its T/R module. S-400's main component radars are 91N6 and 92N6, the former is a S-Band radar and the latter is a X/Ku-Band radar. Both radars use bands that the modern stealth aircraft can deflect/absorbs. The optional component, the Protivnik-GE use L-Band, which is more effective against stealth than the S-Band, but it's not really an "anti-stealth" radar despite the claim since the L-Band can be absorbed by modern materials. Only UHF and VHF radars, Russia have a lot of these: 55Zh6-1 Nebo UYe, Rezonans N/NE, 1L13-3 Nebo SV, 1L119 Nebo SVU, CETC JY-27, CETC YLC-8/8A, Vostok D/E, P-18-2/P-18M, Oborona-14 are all "anti-stealth" radars. Unfortunately (for Russia) that these radars are all as large as a building, and it'll take hours for them to disassemble and move, which makes them easy to spot and neutralize with cruise missiles and anti-radiation missiles, in the other words, they're all practically immobile, and they're not considered a component of the S-400.
@@mickeyg7219 I am no Expert. All I can rely on is what I read. You may like to comment. Quote: From Bulgarian Military Site. (Many others!) Optional elements of the S-400 (98ZH6E) include the 15I6ME-98ZH6E, with coverage of 30, 60 and 90 km beyond the 30K6E coverage. The 96L6E has a 300-kilometre (190 mi) detection range. The 40B6M is housing for the 92N6E or 96L6E radar. The Protivnik-GE is an anti-stealth UHF radar with a 400-kilometre (250 mi) range. The Moscow-1 passive sensor is 2 1⁄2 times more effective than the Protivnik, with a 400-kilometre (250 mi) range Orion for a target-designation on-the-air defence system, and the Avtobaza-M and Orion+ Avtobaza adds high-precision detection. With the Range they have I can't see it would be all that difficult to deploy and disguise them reasonably well in a Networked System. They would not need one for every Battalion. Most of these units from what I can see are mounted on 6/8 Wheeler Trucks and can be deployed within minutes. You though obviously have a lot more technical knowledge than I have.
Even before modern stealth, most air-to-air kills were by a plane that the target wasn't aware of. Imagine what it is like with stealth. The F-35 addresses both sides of the issue -- it is stealthy and it has great situational awareness.
If stealth wasn’t important countries wouldn’t have signed on with the F-35 and Russia/China wouldn’t have made their SU-57/J-20 programs respectively. Not to mention that the remaining three strategic bomber forces of the world are all moving towards stealth bombers as shown in the video. Great video!
The Chinese have like 10 H-6's, until they get the H-20 i wouldn't call them a "fleet". And if Russia ever finishes the Pak-da I will eat my hat. And it's a big fucking hat.
The F-22 goes into dogfight ranges in simulations. It turns out that getting behind and below a 4th gen jet, like literally right behind it, within guns range, is a lot easier if you see them from 100 km away and they never see you because you dodge the cone of their radar.
If you are referring to what i think you are that rafale and f22 started from a merge, as in they both knew about each other and had visual contact from the beginning. Stealth played no role. In real combat the rafale pilot would have to detect the f22 on its own, while the f22 enjoys almost free reign.
@@thepny_chasseur_de_tricera5361 thats a pretty desk warrior thing to say. sure, i know about long wave radar too, but no airplane carries one, and cant use it for in air detection and engagement. best they get is that they can be vectored onto an area to try and spot them on infrared.
The thing people dont realize about stealth as to why they still think it would an expensive failure, is that they think that if the airforce sent them out to attack a country with a bunch of S300s to S500s, they only imagine them being sent out in ones or twos. They dont, heck they dont even send them out as stealth only squadrons. If they attack, they would be complemented with an array of jammers, awacs, 4th gen planes, drones etc. People should really look at operation desert storm to get a glimpse of it, i remember that some of their first strikes made against iraqi radars where done by apache helicopters flying very low to avoid radar. Now imagine how they would attack in todays standards
That's a misunderstanding that occurred from movies. Although, stealth fighters don't really need anything else to help them avoid detection from enemy radars. Awacs, electronic warfare aircraft and drones are part of a bigger tactic that Air Forces tend to follow.
@@giorgosmavridis650 Jamming helps a lot. If you combine good jamming and stealth, you become nearly impossible to pick up on radar. Like, you'd be better served using the Mk1 Eyeball than a radar at that point.
Well, that would be the ideal use yes, but the price of upkeep on these 5th gen. planes is high enough for some new adopters to make it the only multi-role fighters in stock. It really depends on budget and military size.
@@artfact2 Honestly, the F-35 is competitively priced with modern 4th generation aircraft. Cost per flight hour is somewhat higher, but it's WELL worth the price of admission.
@D31 5M Really? I guess having more electronics than mechanics does help a lot. Still, their acquisition cost is huge so fielding many or mixed units will still be a budgetary wall. The bottom line is, I don't think that the complete replacement of fighters with F35's is a viable option, as some EU countries are planning on. Then again, we are more of a joint force dependent on each other worth more than the sum of the independent parts..
I love seeing how many military experts suddently show up on the comment section claiming this n that. As someone who worked closely with military neutical radar system. I can only giggle. Sadly but understandablem most of this type of information is classified. Binkovs video is as good analysis ans description you can get of stealth technology and its viability. Also remember. The tech dosnt just apply to air. But is also big thing in the navy and growing on ground forces. The tech will improve drastically as the tech gets used by many more fields and exposed to many different enviroments.
I'm no expert but my take is stealth isn't the end all be all of air warfare But it certainly gives a huge advantage to the stealth aircraft it's like being in a gunfight in the dark when your opponent has NVGs and a suppressed gun
In short story long: Stealth is great because even though it doesnt make plane invisible on radar, it makes a lot harder to be detected by radars, at shorter ranges, by ground radar, air radar on enemy fighters and anti air missile navigation. It just make it a lot lot harder for enemy to target such plane. It creates a lot more difficult combat situation for the enemy. Its not a zero sum game, whether you can or cant detect it all. Its like passive protection, it can be overcome but its still very useful to have.
Stealth Fighter is not that expensive as long as it always come back home from mission. A $60,000,000 Agile Fighter may be more cheaper than F-35, but if it gets easily shutdown, then it is VERY expensive.
don't you dare mention other factors like training more people to fly and maintain the things only flyaway cost is real, everything else is just the military industrial complex ripping off the taxpayer
Solo Queue Pixy if you can make defense assets cheaper pls go ahead and compete with the big guys and make a case that technology that defeats other countries technology can be made cheaper. Pls go ahed you have my support.
It's crucial if the adversary has some pretty advanced air defense networks, in which case the chance for the presence of counters to stealth also increase so to a point it's self-defeating.
At this time, the U.S. McDonald Douglas/Boeing f 15 is the most effective air to air and ground attack fighter ever produced (to date). The f35 and f22 are not tested. I do entirely appreciate your technical information in layman's language to describe how things work..I like your puppet too.
What exactly do you mean by that because if you're just talking about pure air kills then no matter what the winner is gonna be a WWII air craft simply because that's the conflict with the most extensive air combat ever. If you're trying to make a claim that the F-15 is better than modern air craft then well it's kinda only a question of time before you're proven wrong.
All this criticism of the F-35 could be overall a benefit as it doesn't have the problem so many weapons systems have: Excessively high expectations. People are really being dragged down to earth by F-35, and a new bit of tech being pushed to less than its limits is way better than it being pushed beyond it's limits. The worst failures of US airpower were when everyone had an excessively high opinion of the capability of their new aircraft.
NEWS FLASH !!!! NEWLY DISCOVERED QUANTUM RADAR IN CANADA CAN DETECT ALL STEALTH PLANES.....ALL THOSE TRILLIONS WASTED. CHECK IT IN GOOGLE...ETC..ETC...
@@MCAroon09 There's no way a mass produced stealth fighter made by one company was going to be made cheap. It's going to stay expensive until Lockheed starts licencing out production to competitors at a fair price as mediated by congress. But that would involve congress doing their job.
Bro that was awesome. The depth was very much appreciated. The generic f-35 videos that other channels make about the specs of the plane are so annoying
The stealth aspects of the F-22 and F-35 are absolutely incredible . The problem with the stealth on both of those aircraft is the AESA radar and the EW suite . They are both quite loud and proud . Look for the empty spot in the sky that's broadcasting loudly . I do suspect though , there is strict protocol regarding those two things .
Even the active or passive radar which can see "Stealth" it is surely Heavy, Big, Expensive and it easy target for HARM or other missiles. latest airborne radar, example E-2D Advanced Hawkeye with Counter Stealth software is good option the US, Japan has it. and France will replace E-2C soon
US engineers figured out decades ago that no one was going to use guns on airplanes it was always just going to be missile lock ons, and when everything is missile based the only thing that really matters is how far away you can get the lock on from. It's like a musket versus a rifle.
The chinese are still making a mistake by not having guns on j-20 it means that in a fight any j-20's which are easiest to see from behind btw that try and leave when out of missles are easy pickings for f-22 and 35 that chase them down
7:36 keep forgetting that those S-300/400, etc will give up their positions as they search with their radars. That means they are sitting ducks themselfs and will be taken out as a priority for the F-35. Its does not work the way you show. The F-35`s will have an important mission by taking out threats on the ground. That being radars and missile batteries.
You can't detect modern radars that easily. It's getting ever more difficult to differentiate a modern radar from the background noise due to constant frequency switching
@@sockaccount8116 It depends on the radar. Early warning radars that operates at lower frequency than the L-Band are immobile, or can't be relocated quickly - these kinds of radars can be seen with satellites imaging. While radar can switch the frequency, they're still limited to the range of bands they're designed to operate in. ELINT systems are getting smarter as well, so the electronic warfare is keeping up with the advancement in radar tech.
@@RR-us2kp Neither has anyone heard about assymetrical warfare. Anyone know the USA's position on the world powerlist back in 1965? Inva/ I mean assist a poor, undeveloped peasant nation in their struggle against evil Communist invaders? Sure, we got the best and most modern military hardware in the world! What could possible go wrong?
That’s kind of jarring to hear 8:33 when Binkov states, “older planes like the B-2 and F - 22..” it lets you know that time has passed since the mighty fifth gen F - 22 entered service, and just where we’re progressing in terms of stealth
One key think missing is how stealth works defensively. How do you attack an enemy which has stealth aircraft? Suddenly, your attacking fighters can't tell if there is a stealth aircraft near the target, they can't brining in long-wave radar AWAX type aircraft to even detect them (or else give up the show that they are attacking and need more aircraft to defend all these assets), and they never know how many aircraft might be patrolling at what altitude, etc. They could easily run into 4 F35s without warning. So now you need a lot more escort aircraft. All just to get to one target. I suspect attacking US carriers and bases are pretty much out of question for aircraft anymore. Even if stealth aircraft might be in the area, you can't risk attacking nearby ground targets either. You could easily not only be detect on your way in, but fired at when vulnerable, the target alerted, air defenses up, etc.
Of course advanced adversaries will research new technologies to counter stealth, and if there is a breakthrough the jets in question had better be able to stand up when detected. Highly advanced infrared and optical sensors that are a flow on from astronomy research. And advances in computer processing that can clear up the small return images that are received. The big risk is if stealth operators grow complacent and assume that their possible enemies will just sit around and twiddle their thumbs, instead of working out ways to pierce it. And unfortunately military history is full of cases where the more advanced side just assumed their enemies wouldn't think up work arounds and countermeasures - they didn't respect the intelligence of their foes. And if that happens, you'd better have a back up plan for if your ring of invisibility doesn't work against someone who has a ring to see invisible objects.
I think "invisibility" is a common misconception about stealth fighters. The point of stealth fighters isn't to be invisible; it's to be: 1) harder to detect in the first place, so that any interception attempts must be made with less early warning and therefore will be far less effective 2) harder to target, so that any weapons fired at the fighter will be less likely to hit Perhaps a better analogy: imagine you're in a gunfight against someone in near-pitch-black and you have night vision goggles and they don't. The fact that it's extremely difficult for them to see you doesn't make you invincible, but it certainly means that you have a strong advantage. Of course, your point about complacency stands. It's easy to think "my advantage makes me unbeatable" when you're really not unbeatable.
@RW I imagine you think I'm making a nitpicky semantic argument, but I'm not. I think, if you replace "invisiblity" with "low observability" (say, LO for short), it irreparably changes OP's argument. Basically, I think LO works for jet fighters like a camouflage uniform works for infantry soldiers. By no means has any infantry soldier in the history of mankind ever thought that their camouflage uniform made them impossible to detect. Further, no infantry soldier in the history of warfare has ever thought, "I'm wearing a camouflage uniform, so I don't need to work hard on the other principles of camouflage, such as concealment/cover, shape, shine, silhouette, etc". As far as I know, modern infantry soldiers still spend a significant chunk of their training time on how to camouflage themselves, despite having had many decades (some would argue, a century: subdued uniforms were first introduced in WWI, but I understand if you don't feel that plain old khaki counts as "camouflage") to grow complacent thanks to the privilege of camouflage uniforms. Despite all the advancements in camouflage patterns since Woodland became a thing, if anything, they might work even harder on camouflage than soldiers who fought wars before camouflage uniforms were invented. Likewise, I don't think any air tactician has ever thought, "they are LO fighters, so I don't need to worry about the other principles of air combat, such as flying low to avoid radar, using terrain to block line-of-sight with enemy radars, keeping the active radar on the jet turned off in order to avoid spotlighting oneself, etc". If anything, they probably think MORE about these things now than they ever have. If you watched the video, you would know that tacticians now need to concern themselves with thinks like, "what direction will the LO jet fly in order to reduce the apparent RCS to enemy radars?" I don't think tacticians worried as much about this in the days of the F4 Phantoms. In other words, if you're in a NATO country, rest assured that the leaders in your country's armed forces are probably not stupid. They know the strengths and weaknesses of their tech. If the enemy develops new technologies to "counter" LO jet fighters, your armed forces' tacticians will probably quickly develop new tactics to counter the counter. And if, in the worst case scenario, LO becomes worse than non-LO, I'm confident that NATO forces will simply switch back to building non-LO fighters.
It wouldn't be US and their allies as most of their allies have already pulled out of the region after the US's latest shitshow. Like the US has only managed to place all of Europe on Iran's side by escalating tensions, at best they'll stay out of a conflict at worst they'll actively try to end it with a return to status quo.
@@bruceu2274 AMRAAM and all other ARH missiles are only going active when it's around 10 to 15 nautical miles away from the target. It also still needs a decent fire control solution which the radar can only provide data for the missile. Once the missile is launched, it needs midcourse updates so that's why ARH missiles have datalinks. ARH behaves like SARH in a way that the plane (or other platforms if it's CEC capable) has to continuously lock (or at least have enough resolution) on to the target during it's flight path. The way ARH missiles differ from SARH ones is the on-board radar that will provide the terminal guidance. Besides, radar seekers on AAMs are too small to provide enough power nor range to be Maddog'ed at BVR ranges.
@@bruceu2274 That didnt take anything from my point. Optical sensors are only good for observation and identification within very dangerous ranges for air to air combat.
Stealth planes are valuable in an airforce with conventional aircraft. If the skies are full of conventional aircraft, then stealthier aircraft on high priority missions are more likely to go unnoticed.
Agreed, everyone seems to always think if a new tech comes in, it always mean its replacing something and never supplement or join with the older tech!
It'll be a supplement for the next several decades or so. However, eventually it'll be a default features for every jet fighters and bombers since stealth technology are getting cheaper. F-35A now costs less than Eurofighter Typhoon, and on par with Rafale. It's like cars, pretty much all new cars nowadays use automatic transmission and featured a USB port.
@@mickeyg7219 Well I get what your saying there and mostly agree with you. However with cars thats more down to preference and need and what the driver wants. For instance here in europe despite auto being around a lot of people such as myself who prefer manuels due to skill, dun and having a bit more extra control over the gears and it will most likey remain like that unless electric vehicles don't find a manuel substitute for electric. Also again with cars, although I use usb and bluetooth etc I can still and do use cd because I like to, I feel like I am not the only one.
btw, not true that weapons carried inside in a Stealth plane slows the plane vs same loadout on similarly powered plane with weapons carried outside..... weapons outside increase drag, which reduces max speed of a plane and prevents it from doing higher G maneuvers....
The advantage is that once the weapons mounted externally are dropped either on target or to reduce weight for combat the plane has a significant advantage
@@antimatter4733 no it doesnt.. because it doesnt have weapons... without weapons its useless... F35 with full weapon loadout inside is capable flying and maneuvering within its capabilities..
@@JaM-R2TR4 I'm obviously talking about bombs and air to ground missiles not air to air missiles. Not to mention that in order to fire those missiles it has to open it's bomb doors which makes it a bigger target and wastes time.
@@antimatter4733 those doors are quite quick... can be opened and closed in seconds... so having spike of RCS for few seconds is not a big deal... you need continuous lock to be able to guide a missile... few seconds wont do anything... and even Air to Air missiles increase drag of airplane...
When we are talking about maintenance, we also must keep in mind maintenance crew. To upkeep complex fight you need more hours/crew members, specially trained engineers. And due to the fact, that USA Air Force (main stealth fighter operator)had already problems with upkeeping their air fleet, it will probably affect final numbers of actually operable machines in the end. Especially, compared to 4th generation jets. The same problem to any other operator of a more sophisticated complexes. You need to afford it. And not only in financial level.
Canada has invested $2.7m (£1.93m) into developing quantum radar - a new technology that would greatly improve the detection of stealth aircraft. The technology is being developed by the University of Waterloo to replace existing Arctic radar stations. Quantum radar can detect objects with a greater level of accuracy than conventional radar including stealth planes as it is impossible to hide from it. This mean the vast sums spent on stealth were for nothing. It makes use of quantum illumination - the process of isolating pairs of entangled photons. Canada and the US jointly maintain 54 North Warning System (NWS) radar stations in the Arctic, which act as the first line of early warning atmospheric air defence for North America. These radar stations are approaching the end of their life spans, and could need to be replaced as early as 2025. Several other countries are also interested in developing quantum radar, including China and Russia. In November, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, in Shanghai, announced that its scientists were developing a new type of spy satellite that would be able to "uncover" stealth aircraft.
5 ปีที่แล้ว +4
The canopies are actually infused with gold.... can you imagine how fucking expensive that gets?!? Crazy tech
How to beat a stealth aircraft: 1. IFF tones check 2. Radar emission 3. Communication emission Stealth fighter will reveal itself because they have to communicate or at least having a satellite communication, but still emits something. Notice that the stealth aircraft has to fly low, otherwise giant static radar that capable to track icbm would detect them. No one escape that ion AM radars, not even a bird.
IFF Tones Check won't work to detect a plane, only to confirm that an already detected plane isn't a friendly. Radar emission only works if the stealth plane is being dumb and radiating away with its radar. Communication emission only works if the stealth plane is being dumb and not following radio silence. It's pretty standard for even non-stealth planes to fly with zero communication until they are over friendly territory again. I get that stealth is not some magical invincibility shield, but I think you're oversimplifying the task of combating it.
Remember when the USAF found out about the MiG-25 and shat themselves thinking it was better than every Western fighter plane in every way? They completely overestimated it and built the best fighters in the world -- the F-14 and F-15 -- to try to counter it. How did we go from that attitude to looking at brand new Russian and Chinese planes and deciding without knowledge that they're useless knockoffs? How did we get so complacent?
Russia had a massive development gap and doesn't even have the budget to catch up. They've been struggling to get AESA working on combat aircraft, developing serious stealth and so on. They basically stuck to what they were already good at without sufficient improvement to provide serious equivalents to the most modern western aircraft. Mainly, if you look at the F-35 and the insane amount of technology developed for the project (new pilot display helmet, sensor fusion, advanced data links, data processing and so on), it's very difficult to take the already underwhelming Russian claims seriously when they don't even materialize. Sorry to say, but they aren't the Soviets anymore. China has a gap in technology because they're catching up, but they are a very serious threat. Not quite there yet, but they have the ability to catch up and even surpass western powers. In this case it is infuriating to see people behaving exactly like they did with Japan.
@@ivanlagrossemoule Soviet Russia is much different than Russia. Most weapon programs Russia use today have their R&D done during Soviet times. Today China got a lot of 5th gen research through data theft. China was suspected of being behind a reported 2009 cyber intrusion that resulted in the theft of a huge amount of design and electronics data on the F-35. Chinese copied a lot things from Russia especially the engines and US they copied stealth. They saved themselves the time and resources for R&D. US will still lead in stealth fighter next gen or two more, but eventually the gap will close. Russia is far behind, mostly due to lack of research funding.
Come on people, all stealth does is to reduce radar detection. Only wonder woman has the invisible plane. What should be discussed is SEAD which is all about counter measure and counter counter measure in the electronic warfare spectrum. What is not mentioned is the RADAR OPERATOR and a very good radar operator that is not playing games on the phone can turn your day into SHT.
Binkov didnt mention Electronic warfare(I assume he will on the next episode). EW can easily blind(degrade) Surface to Air radars, making stealth planes even more deadly
@@Anderson_Hwang While EW can hide your position it also screams to anyone listening: "I am here". It just makes it difficult to determine exactly where "here" is.
@@Schlachti10 Isnt that the goal of EW? A well defended country would have early warning radars with long wavelengths that can detect stealth planes anyways, but unable to pinpoint them. EW makes it much more difficult for the defending country to know where "here" is.
@@Anderson_Hwang SEAD has two basic categories soft kill thru chaff and jamming and hard kill thru anti radiation missile or cluster bombs. what the arm chair generals that are totally behind the stealth aircraft or the invincible SAM system is neither is 100 percent fool proof. The side that will have the advantage will be the one that thinks outside of the box. Like Israel mounting Shrike ARM missiles on Sherman tanks and launched them in a surface to surface role on hostile SAM batteries or in 91using Apache gunships to take out air defense radars, it is a good bet the radar operators were looking for wild weasel launches when the hellfire missiles came raining down.
@@Anderson_Hwang Early warning radars are large and can't be relocated quickly, it'll be a priority target for cruise missiles/artillery/anti-radiation missiles strike in the early phase of the war - it'll a necessity to take them out before sending your aircraft deep into the enemy's territory in a modern war.
Lot of people seem to think the videos in this channel are accurate and realistic. So if this channel was to make a video on United States vs North Vietnam in 1950's video, who would they think would win? There's your proof that TH-cam channels are useless in realistic scenarios.
@@RR-us2kp Well, these aren't realistic scenario. Binkov is comparing number to number, quality to quality. No modern war is worn through pure attrition, it involves a lot of things, including politics and logistics. On paper, the US should win against North Vietnam in an all-out war, but in reality, it's not an all-out war, no countries actually "fought to the last man." In a very unrealistic scenario, if both sides wouldn't give up, they'll literally fight until there's no one physically strong enough left to fight, and the US should have that advantage due to larger population and military assets. Remember that China lost in Vietnam as well, and the Soviet Union lost in Afghanistan despite having fought stronger enemies before. Saddam thought he could win against the US because the US lost to Vietnam, well, the Gulf War in the 90s prove that this is nothing more than a logical fallacy.
@@motmontheinternet when another fighter(s) is chasing you and looking to put you down from the sky ... you can afford to go with the radar turned off ? I just ask .
We likely won't know until these planes meet in serious combat. If a stealth plane meets a non-stealth plane I think the non-stealth plane is toast. Interestingly, if two stealth planes go head-to-head the outcome may depend on the eyesight of the pilots. Much like world War 2 and earlier, victory goes to the pilot that spots the enemy first!
If you ask me, it depends on who gets the jump on who. A stealth plane would have a much easier time getting close and behind their enemy than a non-stealth, but with the reduced detection, agility, and response a stealth plane might have a much harder challenge escaping.
@@EmperorLionflame Actually, the Gripen does not have digital stealth - SAAB does not make first-strike weapons (officially) - but it has digital anti-missile/anti-tracking interference and extensive cyberwarfare suites. Aside from being made from composites that don't reflect RADAR too well, you'll see a JAS-39 Gryphon plain as day: but your missiles won't, the targeting on your autocannon will get interfered with, and early-detection systems will be filled with false contacts. If you ask me, what makes the Gripen great is that it can defeat an enemy squadron without firing a shot. As for evolving detection, I don't know about other countries but the early-detection arrays of the swedish navy and air force are being upgraded to electro-magnetic, thermal, and electronic tracking. Merely engaging their navigation RADAR is a dead giveaway for American and Russian planes, so is the hot exhaust plume they leave behind as well as the electronics that make the planes fly in the first place. But as detection evolves, so does stealth. It probably won't be long until we start seeing planes with both RADAR, thermal, and electronic reduction, as well as extensive ECM take to the skies. As for combat analysis, I stand by my original point: if you can ambush your enemy, stealth is great, but a stealth plane has no other options. Conventional fighters with electronic warfare has all the options. A stealth plan can be out-run, out-gunned, out-maneuvered, and out-climbed by non-stealth designs.
@@DavidBarkland i like how real life is balanced so that stealth aircraft have minmaxed entirely for passive anti-detection measures and somehow cannot maneuver nor use ECM of their own while non-stealth planes will literally search the entire sky at once with IRST that isn't attenuated by anything whatsoever because quantum mechanics
OSSUS MAXXIMUS Defence updates channel other media sources that constantly talk about the conflicts in the Middle East, pilots tend to talk to other pilots about crazy shit they’ve seen so when they successfully dodge s400 radars they’re going to brag.
@@zeuscaesar4845 oh, so because some pilot said they did? Russia has an agreement with Israel not to engage their planes as long as Israel doesn't attack any Russian troops
4:00 segment: do you actually think S-400 in the war scenario will act like a group of teenagers in a horror movie? "We heard some noise from the basement... Lets split up and find out!" No! I think it will be something closer to: - Тут какая-то хуйня подлетает. - Ебашь!
Ace of Spades to be fair, the Pantsir is a point defense asset and the one you referred to seemed to have exhausted its ammunition when it was attacked, so even if it was on it would not make much difference. In fact, it might be the reason why it was turned off the first place.
As important as stealth aircraft are, I think their years may already be somewhat numbered, as there is only so much improvements one can do to Stealth aircraft technology. I think Air Defense techology will eventually improve to the point where even Stealth planes will be quite vulnerable. The more long term approach, I think, is investing in more capable and multi-platform jamming and cyber assets to affect the enemy Air Defenses directly. Stealth is ultimately a passive approach, to really defeat enemy IADS, you gotta go with an Active approach: Cyber attacks, multi-spectrum jamming, and physical attacks on Radar and SAM sites, this could even include what I call TEMPO (Tactical Electromagnetic Pulse Ordinance). I think the upcoming tech for the latter could include small kamikaze drones packed with explosives, if you could find an effective 'fire and forget' method of targeting them to hit the Radar antenna.
@FBI Basically the equivalent of someone in plate armor showing up at the exact same time and place over and over and the enemy getting the idea to drop a rock on him since they know exactly where he's going to be and that he's not going to defend himself. Yes, you could definitely kill someone in full armor if they're practically ignoring your attempts to kill him. Zoltan Dani did that in the first week of NATO airstrikes. Over the next ten weeks of airstrikes, a whopping single-digit number of manned NATO aircraft were lost, none of which were F-117s.
Enemy nations of US will one day see a coordinated attack targeting SAM radar, tactical radar (both air and ground based) by F-35, B-2 and F-22 which will open wide swaths of territory for F-18, F-15 and B-52 strikes. Not just stealth, coordination between stealth assets. This is what keeps potential opponents from sleeping well at night.
Open and full conventional war doesn't happen anymore in nowadays global circumstances. The threshold happens in cyberwar, satellites and these related strategic levels... everything else falls down like a domino after that.
@@flywheel9759 Just to maintain the whole chain of things running and covered without gaps. They support and are not meant to prevail or duel between enemy themselves but to fill the gaps of the whole structure and escalate the responsibility of victory to the higher layers. Conventional conflicts are each time more limited to asymmetrical battles and guerrillas.
@@flywheel9759 Yes, and the paws&Knights and so on do not capture automatically, so they just need to assure they can execute their primary function to support the main scheme. But I mean asymmetric between the opponents, in that highly technical combats are not going to happen between superpowers because in their case thing will be solved in a higher level, while in the asymmetric one there will be no need to such complexity since the enemy will, for instance, not even have an air-force or something like that...
It's an interesting thing to ponder, but we build them, so yes they're good. Are they too expensive? What's a pilot's life worth? What is winning a war worth? They're expensive, but not too expensive. We need them so that we don't have to need them, but if we do need them, we have them.
@@uncreativename9936 Considering that the F-35A cost is now comparable to Rafale M, it's not financially impractical to turn all jet fighters stealth, not to mention that the USAF's F-35 is the cheapest variant. Stealth technology is getting cheaper while performing better, so eventually, all planes will be stealth. Remember back when computers are prohibitively expensive? Now it's pretty much ubiquitous.
@@uncreativename9936 helps with support and other missions, and give them the ability to react to unknowns, the enemy will often have radars you don’t know about
Stealth is a First Strike Weapon, Well worth the Cost if it takes out enough of the Enemy Radar's, SAM Sites, Airfields and CAP's so that Conventional Planes can then operate with minimal risks
@@AudieHolland The Artic. Russia, USA, a bunch of countries and even China however laughable that may be is laying claims up north. That would be the new middle east of the late 21st century .
@@Tonius126 I can't find a pretty good reason to use stealth aircraft in the North. I mean, they can do it with 4th gene aircrafts too as there are less air-defense systems on the north side of the globe.
@@giorgosmavridis650 Not yet but also if you do some research Alaska has a pretty sizeable squadron of F-22. Military build up in the artic is slow but steady. Just look at Russia, they are slowly reviving old Soviet bases up north and NORAD has been modernized to face future conflict.
Can you make a video with more than 2 countries present? Not like nato vs Warsaw pact but more like 3rd balkan war or iran and pakistan/Afghanistan vs Saudi Arabia and Iraq for example.
Lot of people seem to think the videos in this channel are accurate and realistic. So if this channel were to make a video on United States vs North Vietnam in 1950's video, who would they think would win? There's your proof that TH-cam channels are useless in realistic scenarios.
Don't forget to that pretty much all modern air defense systems have Radars on the ground and a radar in the missile and they need to share a Telemetry up link for a successful engagement the ground radar may be able to see the plane but the missile radar cannot because it's slower Tech and smaller
Fun fact #2 Serbs also shot duke Franz Ferdinand kicking off WW1, the results of which directly caused WW2 with a combined death toll estimated by some at over 100 million people. Well done Serbs, nice one.
You should do a video about a Belgian internal war where Flanders and Wallonia (roughly equal in size) fight each other over a breaking up of the country. Wallonia has more military bases and a weapons factory but Flanders has import harbours to acquire weapons on top of a larger economy and population.
Damo2690 they are under joint command and in the same army units to bolster unity, though Dutch and french speaking units are usually stationed in respective language provinces to improve overall communication
Stealth is worth it because it is not the end all be all. The ultimate goal is complete invisibility but the technology is not there yet. But as with all technology, it takes time and baby steps to develop. Stealth is/was just one of those steps so it serves a purpose and it does work against older technologies by far such as if the U.S. and Iran went at it as an example. More modern clashes such as the U.S. vs. China, it would probably not make a significant difference since both sides have stealth tech and detection.
They also discount the Human Eyeball V1.0 and the Human Ear V1.0. The best stealth on the planet is still very visible to a dedicated group of humans who are specifically placed to visually spot or hear an aircraft passing overhead. Much like during WW2, in the pre-radar era, which you could say is similar to the current stealth era ie you didnt know when or where the enemy was. But a bunch of old men, women and kids with notebooks and telephones were an extremely effective early warning system.
@Mae ! Perhaps, but knowing that they are there is a massive part of defending against them in the first place. If you dont know they are there, how do you shoot them down?
I hope this video has brought up fake targets we include in our ICBMs alongside proper warheads and how the whole point of stealth irl is to make planes indistinguishable from chaff and flares in presence of active electronic countermeasures.
Stealth planes dont' win wars, they are astronomical cost first strike weapons (take out enemy radar, planes, and ground defenses), clearing the way for conventional non-stealth planes, drones, and ground troops to take control of the battle/war.
War is attrition in any form, be it people, resources, will, time, etc it is always attrition based. I agree with you tho, they are not intended for large scale war but used as a (hopefully) tipping point on the start of war to take out assets of their rivals. Stealth as a technology fits very well into the idea of attrition, if you make a $100 million dollar plane you do not want it to be shot down by a $1 million missile, stealth in this sense gives the owner an advantage to eliminate resources at a much cheaper price tag. Even if you have to fire 100 missiles and you only manage to shot down 10 planes you still come out costing your rival 10 times as much so the goal is to avoid missile tracking which is primarily done by radar and to a minor degree inferred. The goal of war is to cost your enemy the most while costing you significantly less be it a land invasion or a bombing campaign stealth gives you benefits one of which is normally being the first to react. Stealth planes are expensive they really are but in the long run if it gives you time to target your enemy and deal them more damage (and expense) than it is worth it. Stealth isn't intended to rule the skies being invisible to all it most likely will never progress that far but if it gives you the opportunity to destroy aircraft or other targets with your significantly cheaper missiles (while reducing your risk of coming to the same demise) than it's worth it. Frankly the era of WW2 dog fights is long gone, most missiles can track a target from 100+ miles with ease. It is now the preferred way to fight if they ever get close enough to dog fight than something has gone horribly wrong.
@@macculu501 Vietnam started in 1955 and aircraft where mostly limited to bombing runs with ww2 era bombs, folks where not firing missiles from hundreds of miles away they there over the fields. Situation like that called for it as interceptions where always possibly. A main gun on an aircraft is never a bad idea that doesn't mean it's nearly as effective today. Missiles are far more deadly and take out significantly more planes than main guns, even than it's not bad to have them but the F22 can travel in excess of 1500mph (which really isn't that fast compared to many older super sonic aircraft. The average person can see about 20 miles in clear skies if two jets are coming at each other (completely out of missiles) they will have a line of sight (with each other) for less than 40 seconds at best case. Realistically they would need to be within two miles of each other (at the same attitude) giving each slightly under 3 seconds to see and engage the other. Once they pass that is basically it, the other will take several mins to catch up if lucky traveling faster than 1500 mph. If one turns slightly their aim is off, if one rises slightly their aim is off at those speeds the margin of error is simply to great for a person to engage with a main gun. They simply travel too fast to dog fight for that 3 seconds to be viable while missiles can be locked on and fired several mins in advance with far better accuracy than a main gun. If one jet has missiles and the other does not than it's simply over before it even started. Main guns are not bad weapons (I absolutely love the A10) but technology has progressed far enough to the point where dog fighting is unrealistic when they have so many other tools at their disposal.
@@macculu501 The actual lesson learned from Vietnam was that good training is worth a lot more than a gun. The US Air Force got guns for their Phantoms. Kill ratio - 2:1. In the same timeframe, the US Navy kill ratio was 6:1. They formed the USN Fighter Weapons School ("TOPGUN") and improved their missile tactics and maintenance instead of blaming the lack of gun or doing shit like hastily putting bomber pilots into fighters.
The FCAS main focus is rather on speed than stealth. Btw, the german company Hensoldt has developed a new type of passive radar to counter stealth more effectivly than before.
This might be a stupid question, but could a modernized form of flak work against stealth planes? Like could unguided small missiles be filled with metal bits and be fired in mass where a stealth plane is heading, thus when the aircraft flys through it it’s armor is riddled with a whole bunch of small metal bits that can be targeted? The point of it wouldn’t be to destroy the aircraft but to make it targetable. However I don’t know anything on if that would actually work just do to speed. And it is also dependent on if the aircraft could be detected and the system fired in time. And also the fast then sound the aircraft flys at. Maybe it’s just a novel idea.
It would be a good idea, but if you don't know where the plane is you don't know where to hit their skin. Only a sandstorm or blizzard could help you with that huge volume to cover You're describing a SAM system with the metal pieces hitting aircraft
Modern guided missiles already function a bit like this. Missiles are not designed to hit the target, as that would be incredibly hard. Instead, they are designed to explode in the general vecinity of an aircraft and aim to kill it with the massed flak from the explosion.
Missiles already do that for decades, it's called blast fragmentation, but it's short-ranged. You still need to be able to see something before you lob missiles at, and seeing is not enough, you need to get a lock too. For your idea, it's not workable since metals would also create a disturbance on your radar. The most effective way to counter stealth is to just deploy as many radars as you can, and invest in a lot of interceptors. Fighting stealth aircraft, contrary to popular belief, isn't cheap. What stealth planes do is reduce the detection range, so you need to buy more radars to cover the gap. Targeting radar, which use X and C-bands suffer the worst.
Canada has invested $2.7m (£1.93m) into developing quantum radar - a new technology that would greatly improve the detection of stealth aircraft. The technology is being developed by the University of Waterloo to replace existing Arctic radar stations. Quantum radar can detect objects with a greater level of accuracy than conventional radar including stealth planes as it is impossible to hide from it. This mean the vast sums spent on stealth were for nothing. It makes use of quantum illumination - the process of isolating pairs of entangled photons. Canada and the US jointly maintain 54 North Warning System (NWS) radar stations in the Arctic, which act as the first line of early warning atmospheric air defence for North America. These radar stations are approaching the end of their life spans, and could need to be replaced as early as 2025. Several other countries are also interested in developing quantum radar, including China and Russia. In November, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, in Shanghai, announced that its scientists were developing a new type of spy satellite that would be able to "uncover" stealth aircraft.
Can you make a video on how incomprehensible expensive war is getting? A total war like in ww2 would completely bleed even the strongest economy dry in a matter of months The amout of money tanks aircraft and ships cost is all nice inpeace times however in a total war replacing losses will be very expensive
That's an economic discussion to be had and economics is complicated (understatement of the year). It requires dedicated experts to really piece the parts together. While modern equipment is expensive, it's important to remember that (using your example) WWII was also extremely expensive, and when it became too much, varying nations used a variety of methods to come up with the cash. But you're right that a prolonged modern conflict would probably result in many bankrupted nations if it didn't result in annihilation.
@@RR-us2kp RW Alright mate, I will tell ya. It's a joke about crappy quality of russkie-build s300/s400 SAMs. It originated back then in 2018 when some Israeli jet fighters entered a syrian gov terrorist base, guarded by russkie s400s. Israelis done their job and run away intact. When audience asked about why no israeli jets were shot down, one of a russkie officials said that Earth curvature impeded s400 to perform a successful shot.
@@lenthokchom they're supposed to be the main partner but calling it the FGFA or something like that. Since India and China has issues with each other, its the most likely place where we might see an Su-50 derivative vs the J-20
@@nimaiiikun india is actually out of this competition. India is also no longer in the project of stealth fighter with russia. China compete with the UnitedStates not with india. So bringing in india on this field is a little awkward.
india pulled out of the SU-57 project years ago. and even if they stayed and bought the Su-57, it's still no match for the J-20. sure the Su-57 is more maneuverable, but it has some very poor designs features making it not a fully stealth plane on the level of J-20 or F-35. one look at the exposed engines of the Su-57 would tell you that. Also I have yet to see any videos of the Su-57 where it had their internal weapons bay opened, I even doubt the existence of internal weapons bay, if that's the case then Su-57 would be somewhat stealther than the F-18 or Rafale, but nowhere near J-20 and F-35
@@obsidianstatue Su57 has two centerd weapon bays between two engines. They are placed in a line. Unlike F22 and J20, it does not have side weapon bay for short range air to air missiles.
@@zeffez8161 no argument there. So much more could be accomplished with all that money wasted on fighting one another when we are all apart of the human race and we all should treat each other as brother and sisters
Why? To answer the question without seeing the video, they see first, they shoot first. Learn a lesson from Bug Wars. The bug that strikes first usually wins.
Was gonna say this myself - not including active stealth leaves out the last 20 years or so of deployed technology. Of course, this may have been an intentional omission from an otherwise informative and comprehensive video. TY!
"Active stealth" is just a buzz word to make ECM systems look more significant. They are useful, yes, but they can't replace low radar cross section. 1) The plane will be perfectly visible. ECM makes it harder to lock on weapons from long range but it doesn't give "silent strike" capability. 2) Modern AA missiles have "home on jam" capabilities.
@@vantuz8264 No it´s NOT a buzz world. You actually makes the radar not seeing you. The missiles can´t "home in to the jamming". Radar guided missiles home into radar not ECM. The AREXIS EW suite can also use spoofing, make the radar see targets where there are none....etc... Look at 1.50 in this video... saab.com/gripen/our-fighters/gripen-fighter-system/gripen-e-series/gripen-e/infact Gripen E has more capabilities then F18 growler..the AREXIS EW suite is the only EW suite far that uses the latest GaN technology.
@@JorgenPersson-jo4sc >>You actually makes the radar not seeing you. For a plane without stealth capabilities there are only 2 options: 1) Somehow "intercept" the incoming radar wave and redirect it. I'm not sure if it's even physically possible. But if it's possible, ECM station must know in advance about incoming waves: their direction, frequency, power. Modern radars automatically change their frequency, making such knowledge impossible. 2) "Blind" the radar by transmitting a very strong continuous signal on the same frequency. However it requires capabilities to transmit on the same frequency (small antenna can't transmit long waves) and a lot of power. More power than the radar itself needs. Needless to say that this mode makes the plane vulnerable to homing on jam. All other modes don't make the plane invisible at ranges where stealth planes are invisible. Just more difficult to lock. But "difficult" doesn't mean "impossible". >>The missiles can´t "home in to the jamming". What is your proof? Home-on-jam capabilities are declared for many modern AA missiles such as R-77 or AIM-120. >>Look at 1.50 in this video... Page not found. Check the link.
Good networked SAMs are the best counter to stealth. The very reason many new SAM Missiles don't have to be guided exactly to the target and use fragmentation warheads. Even there own Radars don't have to hit to kill.
@@user-ym8ic8r Once close a normal SBand Radar seeker can see Stealth Aircraft. Same with IR. They all emit heat. The ground radars will pick up Stealth Aircraft hundreds of km away. Not hard if they are all networked to work out where they are heading and the speed they are travelling etc. They call it Triangulation. Network Computers will work all that out. They will even have a good idea of its elevation. The Radars on say a S400 are multi Band. As they get closer there VHF Radars can be queued onto the incoming and track the Stealth Aircraft even more accurately. Russia claims they can guide there Missiles using VHF very close to a stealth target. Once close the S Band Radar or IR seeker on the Missile will pick up the target. Stealth Aircraft are not invisible.
Ok Id say Skippy you havent been reading the news from 2019 - 2018. [New release on the history of the F117 came out about its Iraq sortie's and Serbian misadventure.] 1. Against IRAQ "desert Storm" the F117 was expected to lose over 5% of its planes in each sortie and lost none in over 1350 sorties. They had no idea how good they were against the S300 and S400 /Russian made radars in IRAQ but they kicked ass. 2. The UK proved that 4th Gen planes can effectively Kick ass against the Modern Russian S300 and S400 radar passive systems in Syria when they took out the Weapons munitions factories in Syria (job done).. (who knows how good the UK F-35 are) 3. Early 2019 IRAN were boasting about how they were going to build Nukes and had nuclear grade uranium. Israel were saying we have to invade before they do this.. Israel were being reported as having been flying over IRAN for 2 weeks. The local IMAM for IRAN only found this out after reading a Kuwaiti newspaper.... IRAN promptly sacked its Air force General and restarted denuclearisation talks with France. The French plane Desault is over US$300 million each. At $110million is so cheap and has better upgrades than the Desault. I like the Desault, but the Allied buck goes a lot further and has far more capability...
Play War Thunder for free on PC, PlayStation®4 and Xbox One! Support Binkov and click here to get a free aircraft, tank or a ship; and three days of premium account time! gjn.link/WTBonusBinkovs
COOL DUDE!
Nato+Eu+Japan South Korea Australia Philippines and New Zeland vs Csto Sco BRICS and North Korea
Usa vs Eu and China
How is the comment 2 days old but the video is new
If you're a country with bad RoE what is preventing you from firing before you identify an aircraft?
I think of stealth like camo. It doesn’t make you invisible but it helps.
Camo is actually a bit more advanced than just that. The point of camo uniforms and painting is usually to obscure the outline of something so it becomes harder to recognize. It's not so much meant to blend in as it is to confuse our (or really our brains) eyes since the way we recognize objects is by finding contrasts and recognizing outlines. The camo makes that more difficult by providing a bunch of false contrasts that will throw off our object recognition. The human brain is an absolute master at recognizing patterns so that's why camo that just looks like nature usually isn't that effective because we'll still clearly recognize the human shape. This is also why digital camo makes sense, you'd of course never see square patterns like that in nature but if you're looking for a vehicle you're expecting to see shapes like that and providing some false shapes might make you think it's another vehicle. Though of course it also just looks cool and that's also pretty important for the parade ground.
But camo does make things invisible.
JK
@@davidlow8104
Technically correct, anything is invisible if you're far away enough.
Excellent definition… it’s like a leopard, their stripes make them stealthy in the bush…. You don’t see them until it’s to late..
Stealth works like this, imagine trying to distinguish a dark skinned person with asian features out of four brothers from far away verses some one with light skin tone with pronounced facial features. First case is harder but doable, thing is in the past 20 years radars are able to see better and see more and have caught up. I.e. you wearing eye glasses.
I Like to make this analogy:
Stealth(radar) is like trying to sneak past someone in the dark. With a fully traditional jet, it's like you're trying to sneak past with a roadside flare in hand. With a stealth enhanced aircraft(F18, Rafale) it's like trying to sneak past with a cheap flashlight. With a true stealth aircraft, it's like trying to sneak past with a birthday candle.
A person(radar) can see all of those, but the birthday candle is significantly harder.
Are they to expensive?
Gen 6 aircraft: allow us to introduce ourselves
Quantum radar uses a sensing technique called quantum illumination to detect and receive information about an object. At its core, it leverages the quantum principle of entanglement, where two photons form a connected, or entangled, pair.
The method works by sending one of the photons to a distant object, while retaining the other member of the pair. Photons in the return signal are checked for telltale signatures of entanglement, allowing photons from the noisy environmental background to be discarded. This can greatly improve the radar signal-to-noise in certain situations.
But in order for quantum radar to work in the field, researchers first need to realize a fast, on-demand source of entangled photons.
"The goal for our project is to create a robust source of entangled photons that can be generated at the press of a button," said Baugh.
To date, quantum illumination has only been explored in the laboratory. The Government of Canada, under the Department of National Defence's All Domain Situational Awareness (ADSA) Science & Technology program, is investing $2.7 million to expedite its use in the field.
The 54 North Warning System (NWS) radar stations, based in the Arctic and operated by the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), are nearing the end of their life spans and could need to be replaced as early as 2025.
"This project will allow us to develop the technology to help move quantum radar from the lab to the field," said Baugh. "It could change the way we think about national security."
one of the best video on youtube about stealth, and it's correct, stealth don't need to be the best from all angles, disrupting the missile targeting process is enough to gain an upper hand.
BREAKING NEWS. QUANTUM RADAR DISCOVERED IN CANADA MAKES ANY STEALTH PLANE DETECTABLE.... GOOGLE IT. READ AND WEEP. ALL THOSE TRILLIONS WASTED.
@@IpSyCo Canada has invested $2.7m (£1.93m) into developing quantum radar - a new technology that would greatly improve the detection of stealth aircraft.
The technology is being developed by the University of Waterloo to replace existing Arctic radar stations.
Quantum radar can detect objects with a greater level of accuracy than conventional radar including stealth planes
as it is impossible to hide from it.
This mean the vast sums spent on stealth were for nothing.
It makes use of quantum illumination - the process of isolating pairs of entangled photons.
Canada and the US jointly maintain 54 North Warning System (NWS) radar stations in the Arctic, which act as the first line of early warning atmospheric air defence for North America.
These radar stations are approaching the end of their life spans, and could need to be replaced as early as 2025.
Several other countries are also interested in developing quantum radar, including China and Russia.
In November, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, in Shanghai, announced that its scientists were developing a new type of spy satellite that would be able to "uncover" stealth aircraft.
In most cases, once fire control radar is on, the target will know it is under attack, but stealth assets add that unpredictability into the equation, which can significantly reduce the effectiveness of response. This includes, for instance, the possibility to ambush the adversary sortie heading towards source of radiation, lure defensive assets away from the actual source of attack, or/and cause the adversary to underestimate the size of threat and send in an inadequate response or make other decisions based on incorrect information. Keep in mind that the adversaries will also have to achieve a lock on. They might be able to know that a threat exists and the whereabouts, but they need to get much closer to effectively engage a stealth target, and that gap allows for multiple attempts to neutralize them. Everything added together, stealth assets can definitely change the outcome of a battle.
Networked SAMs using fragmentation Warheads and with dual IR and Radar seekers on the Missiles counter many of the advantages you claim. Still too much emphasis put on interception by Aircraft.
Highly mobile SAMs are also very good at providing Air Cover for advancing Ground Forces. On station 24x7.
Not as good for the USA of course that is always involved in aggressive Wars well away from home rather than defending.
My money now is on the Forces that operate an extensive system of Networked SAMs networked in with there Aircraft. That allows the Pilot to have very good situational awareness. He will be able to see everything the very powerful ground Radars in the network can see. AWACS can do the same but against a Peer enemy the AWACS have to survive.
Of course SAMs can be taken out but I am certain it is going to prove costly.
I thought we might see it in Syria but Russia seems determined to not take sides and not antagonize Israel when they attack Iranian assets in Syria. Overall Israel has stopped attacking Syrian Assets.
Has the S300 in Syria ever been used? Obviously it is still in effect Russian even if supposedly given to Syria.
@@skippy5712 Even the best "anti-stealth" Radars "Networked" together have resolution cells to large for an optical sensor to scan and acquire a lock within the intercept time.
For example if you network 3 NEBO variant radars (covering the different frequency bands) with an S-400 firing battery and tracking radar you would find that your effective firing distance with in service missiles against an F-35 would be around 10 km after factoring in jamming effect.
If you add an IR seeker you will find that you soon come up against the IR seekers limited FOV and scan rate vs the large volume of airspace of the NEBO's resolution cell for a given range. Roughly, a 50% successful IR target track happens around ~30 km; including decoys, maneuvering and such that bring P:K to less than 15% even with a big ass 125kg proximity warhead.
On top of this 30 Km is well within range of a multitude of A-G bombs, missiles and dedicated SEAD weapons from many nations.
The Highly mobile aspect makes them harder to kill for sure but not harder to Neutralize. Standard SEAD practice is to launch HARM weapons so that they will arrive around the the radars estimated area at the same time the Strike package comes into range. This forced SAM fire control and Search radars offline lest the risk being destroyed by HARMs
@@loxachi1291 Maybe you are correct. Maybe not. There are still many aspects of the S400 Radars not known. Maybe we will find out one day?
@@skippy5712
There's still physical limits in regard to the radar technology. We can gauge the radar's operating band by the size of its T/R module. S-400's main component radars are 91N6 and 92N6, the former is a S-Band radar and the latter is a X/Ku-Band radar. Both radars use bands that the modern stealth aircraft can deflect/absorbs. The optional component, the Protivnik-GE use L-Band, which is more effective against stealth than the S-Band, but it's not really an "anti-stealth" radar despite the claim since the L-Band can be absorbed by modern materials. Only UHF and VHF radars, Russia have a lot of these: 55Zh6-1 Nebo UYe, Rezonans N/NE, 1L13-3 Nebo SV, 1L119 Nebo SVU, CETC JY-27, CETC YLC-8/8A, Vostok D/E, P-18-2/P-18M, Oborona-14 are all "anti-stealth" radars. Unfortunately (for Russia) that these radars are all as large as a building, and it'll take hours for them to disassemble and move, which makes them easy to spot and neutralize with cruise missiles and anti-radiation missiles, in the other words, they're all practically immobile, and they're not considered a component of the S-400.
@@mickeyg7219 I am no Expert.
All I can rely on is what I read. You may like to comment.
Quote: From Bulgarian Military Site. (Many others!)
Optional elements of the S-400 (98ZH6E) include the 15I6ME-98ZH6E, with coverage of 30, 60 and 90 km beyond the 30K6E coverage. The 96L6E has a 300-kilometre (190 mi) detection range. The 40B6M is housing for the 92N6E or 96L6E radar. The Protivnik-GE is an anti-stealth UHF radar with a 400-kilometre (250 mi) range. The Moscow-1 passive sensor is 2 1⁄2 times more effective than the Protivnik, with a 400-kilometre (250 mi) range Orion for a target-designation on-the-air defence system, and the Avtobaza-M and Orion+ Avtobaza adds high-precision detection.
With the Range they have I can't see it would be all that difficult to deploy and disguise them reasonably well in a Networked System.
They would not need one for every Battalion.
Most of these units from what I can see are mounted on 6/8 Wheeler Trucks and can be deployed within minutes.
You though obviously have a lot more technical knowledge than I have.
Even before modern stealth, most air-to-air kills were by a plane that the target wasn't aware of. Imagine what it is like with stealth. The F-35 addresses both sides of the issue -- it is stealthy and it has great situational awareness.
If stealth wasn’t important countries wouldn’t have signed on with the F-35 and Russia/China wouldn’t have made their SU-57/J-20 programs respectively. Not to mention that the remaining three strategic bomber forces of the world are all moving towards stealth bombers as shown in the video.
Great video!
It's a psychological warfare, it's meant to dissuade the public opinion of the enemy's nation from supporting the procurement of stealth planes.
The Chinese have like 10 H-6's, until they get the H-20 i wouldn't call them a "fleet".
And if Russia ever finishes the Pak-da I will eat my hat.
And it's a big fucking hat.
The F-22 goes into dogfight ranges in simulations. It turns out that getting behind and below a 4th gen jet, like literally right behind it, within guns range, is a lot easier if you see them from 100 km away and they never see you because you dodge the cone of their radar.
But the F-22 Lost against a Rafale
If you are referring to what i think you are that rafale and f22 started from a merge, as in they both knew about each other and had visual contact from the beginning. Stealth played no role. In real combat the rafale pilot would have to detect the f22 on its own, while the f22 enjoys almost free reign.
@@ravener96 every superpower get the radar to detect stealth aircraaft
@@thepny_chasseur_de_tricera5361 thats a pretty desk warrior thing to say. sure, i know about long wave radar too, but no airplane carries one, and cant use it for in air detection and engagement. best they get is that they can be vectored onto an area to try and spot them on infrared.
The thing people dont realize about stealth as to why they still think it would an expensive failure, is that they think that if the airforce sent them out to attack a country with a bunch of S300s to S500s, they only imagine them being sent out in ones or twos. They dont, heck they dont even send them out as stealth only squadrons. If they attack, they would be complemented with an array of jammers, awacs, 4th gen planes, drones etc. People should really look at operation desert storm to get a glimpse of it, i remember that some of their first strikes made against iraqi radars where done by apache helicopters flying very low to avoid radar. Now imagine how they would attack in todays standards
That's a misunderstanding that occurred from movies. Although, stealth fighters don't really need anything else to help them avoid detection from enemy radars. Awacs, electronic warfare aircraft and drones are part of a bigger tactic that Air Forces tend to follow.
@@giorgosmavridis650 Jamming helps a lot. If you combine good jamming and stealth, you become nearly impossible to pick up on radar. Like, you'd be better served using the Mk1 Eyeball than a radar at that point.
Well, that would be the ideal use yes, but the price of upkeep on these 5th gen. planes is high enough for some new adopters to make it the only multi-role fighters in stock. It really depends on budget and military size.
@@artfact2 Honestly, the F-35 is competitively priced with modern 4th generation aircraft. Cost per flight hour is somewhat higher, but it's WELL worth the price of admission.
@D31 5M Really? I guess having more electronics than mechanics does help a lot. Still, their acquisition cost is huge so fielding many or mixed units will still be a budgetary wall. The bottom line is, I don't think that the complete replacement of fighters with F35's is a viable option, as some EU countries are planning on. Then again, we are more of a joint force dependent on each other worth more than the sum of the independent parts..
War Thunder:
"Hey you haven't been here in a while, here's 15GB of updates".
The updates won't even save I have to download it again and again 😢 help me
most games do that
Laughs in minecraft
My Minecraft version is from 2013
I love seeing how many military experts suddently show up on the comment section claiming this n that.
As someone who worked closely with military neutical radar system. I can only giggle.
Sadly but understandablem most of this type of information is classified.
Binkovs video is as good analysis ans description you can get of stealth technology and its viability.
Also remember. The tech dosnt just apply to air. But is also big thing in the navy and growing on ground forces.
The tech will improve drastically as the tech gets used by many more fields and exposed to many different enviroments.
I'm no expert but my take is stealth isn't the end all be all of air warfare
But it certainly gives a huge advantage to the stealth aircraft
it's like being in a gunfight in the dark when your opponent has NVGs and a suppressed gun
@troll oracle yeah or they think everything Pierre spray says is gospel
In short story long: Stealth is great because even though it doesnt make plane invisible on radar, it makes a lot harder to be detected by radars, at shorter ranges, by ground radar, air radar on enemy fighters and anti air missile navigation. It just make it a lot lot harder for enemy to target such plane. It creates a lot more difficult combat situation for the enemy.
Its not a zero sum game, whether you can or cant detect it all. Its like passive protection, it can be overcome but its still very useful to have.
@David Lee hmm even the long range radars will have trouble to detect them
@@Kaxcer The french transhorizon ground radar Nostradamus detected taking-off "stealth" planes over the ocean...
Stealth Fighter is not that expensive as long as it always come back home from mission.
A $60,000,000 Agile Fighter may be more cheaper than F-35, but if it gets easily shutdown, then it is VERY expensive.
don't you dare mention other factors like training more people to fly and maintain the things
only flyaway cost is real, everything else is just the military industrial complex ripping off the taxpayer
Solo Queue Pixy if you can make defense assets cheaper pls go ahead and compete with the big guys and make a case that technology that defeats other countries technology can be made cheaper. Pls go ahed you have my support.
@@rolandjosef7961 for my next trick, i will obsolete infantry by killing them with a very cheap weapon: bullets
It's crucial if the adversary has some pretty advanced air defense networks, in which case the chance for the presence of counters to stealth also increase so to a point it's self-defeating.
All stealth paint has an expired date. The skincare is expensive
At this time, the U.S. McDonald Douglas/Boeing f 15 is the most effective air to air and ground attack fighter ever produced (to date). The f35 and f22 are not tested. I do entirely appreciate your technical information in layman's language to describe how things work..I like your puppet too.
*McDonnell
F-15 variant is masterpiece
F-22 is superior for Air Superiority
What exactly do you mean by that because if you're just talking about pure air kills then no matter what the winner is gonna be a WWII air craft simply because that's the conflict with the most extensive air combat ever. If you're trying to make a claim that the F-15 is better than modern air craft then well it's kinda only a question of time before you're proven wrong.
riight. that is why the air force is purchasing more f15s and not buying stealth planes... oh wait
Wow! This might be the best well balanced video on stealth.
This, my good fellow, is the best, most informative video on youtube, about stealth.
All this criticism of the F-35 could be overall a benefit as it doesn't have the problem so many weapons systems have: Excessively high expectations.
People are really being dragged down to earth by F-35, and a new bit of tech being pushed to less than its limits is way better than it being pushed beyond it's limits. The worst failures of US airpower were when everyone had an excessively high opinion of the capability of their new aircraft.
NEWS FLASH !!!! NEWLY DISCOVERED QUANTUM RADAR IN CANADA CAN DETECT ALL STEALTH PLANES.....ALL THOSE TRILLIONS WASTED. CHECK IT IN GOOGLE...ETC..ETC...
The main problem with F-35 is that Industry has found ways to siphon off tons of money
@@MCAroon09 There's no way a mass produced stealth fighter made by one company was going to be made cheap.
It's going to stay expensive until Lockheed starts licencing out production to competitors at a fair price as mediated by congress.
But that would involve congress doing their job.
Bro that was awesome. The depth was very much appreciated. The generic f-35 videos that other channels make about the specs of the plane are so annoying
The stealth aspects of the F-22 and F-35 are absolutely incredible . The problem with the stealth on both of those aircraft is the AESA radar and the EW suite . They are both quite loud and proud .
Look for the empty spot in the sky that's broadcasting loudly . I do suspect though , there is strict protocol regarding those two things .
The AESA on the F-22 is extremely hard to detect. And it has one of the best ESM suites in the world.
The B-2 is still pretty amazing
I'm pretty sure the the F-22 and F-35 both have low probability of intercept radars.
The radars on both the F-35 and F-22 are best and most advanced AESA radars in the world, they are EXTREMELY difficult to detect.
Cant lock a missile on "empty" sky though
Even the active or passive radar which can see "Stealth"
it is surely Heavy, Big, Expensive and it easy target for HARM or other missiles.
latest airborne radar, example E-2D Advanced Hawkeye with Counter Stealth software is good option
the US, Japan has it. and France will replace E-2C soon
BREAKING NEWS. QUANTUM RADAR DISCOVERED IN CANADA MAKES ANY STEALTH PLANE DETECTABLE.... GOOGLE IT. READ AND WEEP. ALL THOSE TRILLIONS WASTED.
Spain is also on the FCAS program!
US engineers figured out decades ago that no one was going to use guns on airplanes it was always just going to be missile lock ons, and when everything is missile based the only thing that really matters is how far away you can get the lock on from. It's like a musket versus a rifle.
The chinese are still making a mistake by not having guns on j-20 it means that in a fight any j-20's which are easiest to see from behind btw that try and leave when out of missles are easy pickings for f-22 and 35 that chase them down
@@anguswaterhouse9255 a gun on a plane is one of the most important things to have
@@hzchase7696 I said it was a mistake not to have them didn't I?
7:36 keep forgetting that those S-300/400, etc will give up their positions as they search with their radars. That means they are sitting ducks themselfs and will be taken out as a priority for the F-35.
Its does not work the way you show. The F-35`s will have an important mission by taking out threats on the ground. That being radars and missile batteries.
When invading other countries.
You can't detect modern radars that easily. It's getting ever more difficult to differentiate a modern radar from the background noise due to constant frequency switching
@@sockaccount8116
It depends on the radar. Early warning radars that operates at lower frequency than the L-Band are immobile, or can't be relocated quickly - these kinds of radars can be seen with satellites imaging. While radar can switch the frequency, they're still limited to the range of bands they're designed to operate in. ELINT systems are getting smarter as well, so the electronic warfare is keeping up with the advancement in radar tech.
So here's proof that not everyone on TH-cam understands science.
@@RR-us2kp Neither has anyone heard about assymetrical warfare. Anyone know the USA's position on the world powerlist back in 1965?
Inva/ I mean assist a poor, undeveloped peasant nation in their struggle against evil Communist invaders? Sure, we got the best and most modern military hardware in the world! What could possible go wrong?
That’s kind of jarring to hear 8:33 when Binkov states, “older planes like the B-2 and F - 22..” it lets you know that time has passed since the mighty fifth gen F - 22 entered service, and just where we’re progressing in terms of stealth
personally i'm waiting for energy shields!
Very well done. A subject I wasn't very knowledgeable of and you did a good job of explaining the basics.:)
My bad dragons are too expensive but definitely in stealth mode.
One key think missing is how stealth works defensively. How do you attack an enemy which has stealth aircraft? Suddenly, your attacking fighters can't tell if there is a stealth aircraft near the target, they can't brining in long-wave radar AWAX type aircraft to even detect them (or else give up the show that they are attacking and need more aircraft to defend all these assets), and they never know how many aircraft might be patrolling at what altitude, etc. They could easily run into 4 F35s without warning. So now you need a lot more escort aircraft. All just to get to one target.
I suspect attacking US carriers and bases are pretty much out of question for aircraft anymore. Even if stealth aircraft might be in the area, you can't risk attacking nearby ground targets either. You could easily not only be detect on your way in, but fired at when vulnerable, the target alerted, air defenses up, etc.
Of course advanced adversaries will research new technologies to counter stealth, and if there is a breakthrough the jets in question had better be able to stand up when detected.
Highly advanced infrared and optical sensors that are a flow on from astronomy research. And advances in computer processing that can clear up the small return images that are received.
The big risk is if stealth operators grow complacent and assume that their possible enemies will just sit around and twiddle their thumbs, instead of working out ways to pierce it.
And unfortunately military history is full of cases where the more advanced side just assumed their enemies wouldn't think up work arounds and countermeasures - they didn't respect the intelligence of their foes.
And if that happens, you'd better have a back up plan for if your ring of invisibility doesn't work against someone who has a ring to see invisible objects.
I think "invisibility" is a common misconception about stealth fighters. The point of stealth fighters isn't to be invisible; it's to be:
1) harder to detect in the first place, so that any interception attempts must be made with less early warning and therefore will be far less effective
2) harder to target, so that any weapons fired at the fighter will be less likely to hit
Perhaps a better analogy: imagine you're in a gunfight against someone in near-pitch-black and you have night vision goggles and they don't. The fact that it's extremely difficult for them to see you doesn't make you invincible, but it certainly means that you have a strong advantage.
Of course, your point about complacency stands. It's easy to think "my advantage makes me unbeatable" when you're really not unbeatable.
@@fi4re I think he didn't mean completely invisible. It's just easier say invisible rather than saying low observability or difficult to detect.
@RW I imagine you think I'm making a nitpicky semantic argument, but I'm not. I think, if you replace "invisiblity" with "low observability" (say, LO for short), it irreparably changes OP's argument.
Basically, I think LO works for jet fighters like a camouflage uniform works for infantry soldiers. By no means has any infantry soldier in the history of mankind ever thought that their camouflage uniform made them impossible to detect. Further, no infantry soldier in the history of warfare has ever thought, "I'm wearing a camouflage uniform, so I don't need to work hard on the other principles of camouflage, such as concealment/cover, shape, shine, silhouette, etc". As far as I know, modern infantry soldiers still spend a significant chunk of their training time on how to camouflage themselves, despite having had many decades (some would argue, a century: subdued uniforms were first introduced in WWI, but I understand if you don't feel that plain old khaki counts as "camouflage") to grow complacent thanks to the privilege of camouflage uniforms. Despite all the advancements in camouflage patterns since Woodland became a thing, if anything, they might work even harder on camouflage than soldiers who fought wars before camouflage uniforms were invented.
Likewise, I don't think any air tactician has ever thought, "they are LO fighters, so I don't need to worry about the other principles of air combat, such as flying low to avoid radar, using terrain to block line-of-sight with enemy radars, keeping the active radar on the jet turned off in order to avoid spotlighting oneself, etc". If anything, they probably think MORE about these things now than they ever have. If you watched the video, you would know that tacticians now need to concern themselves with thinks like, "what direction will the LO jet fly in order to reduce the apparent RCS to enemy radars?" I don't think tacticians worried as much about this in the days of the F4 Phantoms.
In other words, if you're in a NATO country, rest assured that the leaders in your country's armed forces are probably not stupid. They know the strengths and weaknesses of their tech. If the enemy develops new technologies to "counter" LO jet fighters, your armed forces' tacticians will probably quickly develop new tactics to counter the counter.
And if, in the worst case scenario, LO becomes worse than non-LO, I'm confident that NATO forces will simply switch back to building non-LO fighters.
Please make a video on a world war 3 scenario involving US and their allies and Iran and their allies
@mohammad ezatzadeh why do you want to lose so baddly they already made a video about it
@mohammad ezatzadeh they already did a us vs iran, Us dominated
Iran really doesn’t have many allies, at all
We would turn Iran into a parking lot. F-ing sh!tskins
It wouldn't be US and their allies as most of their allies have already pulled out of the region after the US's latest shitshow. Like the US has only managed to place all of Europe on Iran's side by escalating tensions, at best they'll stay out of a conflict at worst they'll actively try to end it with a return to status quo.
The new optical sensors are supposed to track target over 100 miles away, better range than some radars. That should be a game changer
Older aircraft radars like the APG-77 can still track some targets out to 400km
@@zeffez8161 You cant lock AMRAAMs, sidewinders or their equivalents with optical sensors either
@@huntermurphy2148 The AMRAAM has a built in radar so you can fire it without having a lock, the AMRAAM will lock on itself when coming in closer.
@@bruceu2274 AMRAAM and all other ARH missiles are only going active when it's around 10 to 15 nautical miles away from the target. It also still needs a decent fire control solution which the radar can only provide data for the missile. Once the missile is launched, it needs midcourse updates so that's why ARH missiles have datalinks. ARH behaves like SARH in a way that the plane (or other platforms if it's CEC capable) has to continuously lock (or at least have enough resolution) on to the target during it's flight path. The way ARH missiles differ from SARH ones is the on-board radar that will provide the terminal guidance.
Besides, radar seekers on AAMs are too small to provide enough power nor range to be Maddog'ed at BVR ranges.
@@bruceu2274 That didnt take anything from my point. Optical sensors are only good for observation and identification within very dangerous ranges for air to air combat.
Stealth planes are valuable in an airforce with conventional aircraft. If the skies are full of conventional aircraft, then stealthier aircraft on high priority missions are more likely to go unnoticed.
Explained it outstandingly!
If you could please do a video on the self-defense capability of SEA countries against China?
Thanks for all the research you put into these videos.
I still see stealth fighters as a force multiplier used to supplement, not totally supplant non stealth aircraft.
Agreed, everyone seems to always think if a new tech comes in, it always mean its replacing something and never supplement or join with the older tech!
It'll be a supplement for the next several decades or so. However, eventually it'll be a default features for every jet fighters and bombers since stealth technology are getting cheaper. F-35A now costs less than Eurofighter Typhoon, and on par with Rafale. It's like cars, pretty much all new cars nowadays use automatic transmission and featured a USB port.
@@mickeyg7219 Well I get what your saying there and mostly agree with you. However with cars thats more down to preference and need and what the driver wants. For instance here in europe despite auto being around a lot of people such as myself who prefer manuels due to skill, dun and having a bit more extra control over the gears and it will most likey remain like that unless electric vehicles don't find a manuel substitute for electric. Also again with cars, although I use usb and bluetooth etc I can still and do use cd because I like to, I feel like I am not the only one.
btw, not true that weapons carried inside in a Stealth plane slows the plane vs same loadout on similarly powered plane with weapons carried outside..... weapons outside increase drag, which reduces max speed of a plane and prevents it from doing higher G maneuvers....
You are correct sir . Both the F-22 and F-35 can dogfight more efficiently than previous aircraft with a full weapons load out.
The advantage is that once the weapons mounted externally are dropped either on target or to reduce weight for combat the plane has a significant advantage
@@antimatter4733 no it doesnt.. because it doesnt have weapons... without weapons its useless... F35 with full weapon loadout inside is capable flying and maneuvering within its capabilities..
@@JaM-R2TR4 I'm obviously talking about bombs and air to ground missiles not air to air missiles. Not to mention that in order to fire those missiles it has to open it's bomb doors which makes it a bigger target and wastes time.
@@antimatter4733 those doors are quite quick... can be opened and closed in seconds... so having spike of RCS for few seconds is not a big deal... you need continuous lock to be able to guide a missile... few seconds wont do anything... and even Air to Air missiles increase drag of airplane...
Sounds like what you really should do is fill a B2 with AMRAAM and ASRAAM.
Why?
A better combo would be the LRASM and Meteor.
When we are talking about maintenance, we also must keep in mind maintenance crew. To upkeep complex fight you need more hours/crew members, specially trained engineers. And due to the fact, that USA Air Force (main stealth fighter operator)had already problems with upkeeping their air fleet, it will probably affect final numbers of actually operable machines in the end. Especially, compared to 4th generation jets. The same problem to any other operator of a more sophisticated complexes. You need to afford it. And not only in financial level.
Canada has invested $2.7m (£1.93m) into developing quantum radar - a new technology that would greatly improve the detection of stealth aircraft.
The technology is being developed by the University of Waterloo to replace existing Arctic radar stations.
Quantum radar can detect objects with a greater level of accuracy than conventional radar including stealth planes
as it is impossible to hide from it.
This mean the vast sums spent on stealth were for nothing.
It makes use of quantum illumination - the process of isolating pairs of entangled photons.
Canada and the US jointly maintain 54 North Warning System (NWS) radar stations in the Arctic, which act as the first line of early warning atmospheric air defence for North America.
These radar stations are approaching the end of their life spans, and could need to be replaced as early as 2025.
Several other countries are also interested in developing quantum radar, including China and Russia.
In November, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, in Shanghai, announced that its scientists were developing a new type of spy satellite that would be able to "uncover" stealth aircraft.
The canopies are actually infused with gold.... can you imagine how fucking expensive that gets?!? Crazy tech
Airliners canopies also use a thin layer of metal, used for de-icing/de-fogging. Gold is the best metal, of course.
Its a thin layer so less expensive than you'd think but still pricy
How to beat a stealth aircraft:
1. IFF tones check
2. Radar emission
3. Communication emission
Stealth fighter will reveal itself because they have to communicate or at least having a satellite communication, but still emits something. Notice that the stealth aircraft has to fly low, otherwise giant static radar that capable to track icbm would detect them. No one escape that ion AM radars, not even a bird.
IFF Tones Check won't work to detect a plane, only to confirm that an already detected plane isn't a friendly. Radar emission only works if the stealth plane is being dumb and radiating away with its radar. Communication emission only works if the stealth plane is being dumb and not following radio silence. It's pretty standard for even non-stealth planes to fly with zero communication until they are over friendly territory again. I get that stealth is not some magical invincibility shield, but I think you're oversimplifying the task of combating it.
@@nuclearattackwombat8390 hmmm....interesting points...
AM radar!?
You should see if Lockheed Martin will sponsor a video LOL
Remember when the USAF found out about the MiG-25 and shat themselves thinking it was better than every Western fighter plane in every way? They completely overestimated it and built the best fighters in the world -- the F-14 and F-15 -- to try to counter it.
How did we go from that attitude to looking at brand new Russian and Chinese planes and deciding without knowledge that they're useless knockoffs? How did we get so complacent?
If TH-cam existed back then, you would hear about the same type of things from the internet experts.
Russia had a massive development gap and doesn't even have the budget to catch up. They've been struggling to get AESA working on combat aircraft, developing serious stealth and so on. They basically stuck to what they were already good at without sufficient improvement to provide serious equivalents to the most modern western aircraft. Mainly, if you look at the F-35 and the insane amount of technology developed for the project (new pilot display helmet, sensor fusion, advanced data links, data processing and so on), it's very difficult to take the already underwhelming Russian claims seriously when they don't even materialize. Sorry to say, but they aren't the Soviets anymore.
China has a gap in technology because they're catching up, but they are a very serious threat. Not quite there yet, but they have the ability to catch up and even surpass western powers. In this case it is infuriating to see people behaving exactly like they did with Japan.
Better intel
@@ivanlagrossemoule Soviet Russia is much different than Russia. Most weapon programs Russia use today have their R&D done during Soviet times. Today China got a lot of 5th gen research through data theft. China was suspected of being behind a reported 2009 cyber intrusion that resulted in the theft of a huge amount of design and electronics data on the F-35. Chinese copied a lot things from Russia especially the engines and US they copied stealth. They saved themselves the time and resources for R&D. US will still lead in stealth fighter next gen or two more, but eventually the gap will close. Russia is far behind, mostly due to lack of research funding.
Come on people, all stealth does is to reduce radar detection. Only wonder woman has the invisible plane.
What should be discussed is SEAD which is all about counter measure and counter counter measure in the electronic warfare spectrum.
What is not mentioned is the RADAR OPERATOR and a very good radar operator that is not playing games on the phone can turn your day into SHT.
Binkov didnt mention Electronic warfare(I assume he will on the next episode). EW can easily blind(degrade) Surface to Air radars, making stealth planes even more deadly
@@Anderson_Hwang While EW can hide your position it also screams to anyone listening: "I am here". It just makes it difficult to determine exactly where "here" is.
@@Schlachti10 Isnt that the goal of EW? A well defended country would have early warning radars with long wavelengths that can detect stealth planes anyways, but unable to pinpoint them. EW makes it much more difficult for the defending country to know where "here" is.
@@Anderson_Hwang SEAD has two basic categories soft kill thru chaff and jamming and hard kill thru anti radiation missile or cluster bombs. what the arm chair generals that are totally behind the stealth aircraft or the invincible SAM system is neither is 100 percent fool proof. The side that will have the advantage will be the one that thinks outside of the box.
Like Israel mounting Shrike ARM missiles on Sherman tanks and launched them in a surface to surface role on hostile SAM batteries or in 91using Apache gunships to take out air defense radars, it is a good bet the radar operators were looking for wild weasel launches when the hellfire missiles came raining down.
@@Anderson_Hwang
Early warning radars are large and can't be relocated quickly, it'll be a priority target for cruise missiles/artillery/anti-radiation missiles strike in the early phase of the war - it'll a necessity to take them out before sending your aircraft deep into the enemy's territory in a modern war.
Could you do F-16 vs Eurofighter?
Lot of people seem to think the videos in this channel are accurate and realistic.
So if this channel was to make a video on United States vs North Vietnam in 1950's video, who would they think would win?
There's your proof that TH-cam channels are useless in realistic scenarios.
@@RR-us2kp
Well, these aren't realistic scenario. Binkov is comparing number to number, quality to quality. No modern war is worn through pure attrition, it involves a lot of things, including politics and logistics. On paper, the US should win against North Vietnam in an all-out war, but in reality, it's not an all-out war, no countries actually "fought to the last man." In a very unrealistic scenario, if both sides wouldn't give up, they'll literally fight until there's no one physically strong enough left to fight, and the US should have that advantage due to larger population and military assets. Remember that China lost in Vietnam as well, and the Soviet Union lost in Afghanistan despite having fought stronger enemies before. Saddam thought he could win against the US because the US lost to Vietnam, well, the Gulf War in the 90s prove that this is nothing more than a logical fallacy.
@@mickeyg7219 That's exactly why I said, these comparisons are idiotic.
One important thing: stealth aircraft can't use active radars themselves. Otherwise it's like trying to hide in the darknes with a headlamp on.
They can to a degree.
AESA radars have a mode called LPI or low probability of intercept.
It makes them harder to track even when turned on.
They can also just turn the radars off when they don't need it.
@@motmontheinternet when another fighter(s) is chasing you and looking to put you down from the sky ... you can afford to go with the radar turned off ? I just ask .
@@bulllea Yes, that's the whole point of networked fighters. The F-35 in particular is noted for this.
our local Armchair generals will soon say stealth is as worthless as a carrier.
"AkTsHuAlLy It'Th UtHeLeSTh"
-Your non-friendly local armchair general
@@massineben7198 actually it... I can't even read it
We likely won't know until these planes meet in serious combat. If a stealth plane meets a non-stealth plane I think the non-stealth plane is toast. Interestingly, if two stealth planes go head-to-head the outcome may depend on the eyesight of the pilots. Much like world War 2 and earlier, victory goes to the pilot that spots the enemy first!
depends, if the non-stealth has powerfull and advanced radar it might have the upper hand since its more manovoruble etc.
If you ask me, it depends on who gets the jump on who. A stealth plane would have a much easier time getting close and behind their enemy than a non-stealth, but with the reduced detection, agility, and response a stealth plane might have a much harder challenge escaping.
@@EmperorLionflame Actually, the Gripen does not have digital stealth - SAAB does not make first-strike weapons (officially) - but it has digital anti-missile/anti-tracking interference and extensive cyberwarfare suites. Aside from being made from composites that don't reflect RADAR too well, you'll see a JAS-39 Gryphon plain as day: but your missiles won't, the targeting on your autocannon will get interfered with, and early-detection systems will be filled with false contacts. If you ask me, what makes the Gripen great is that it can defeat an enemy squadron without firing a shot.
As for evolving detection, I don't know about other countries but the early-detection arrays of the swedish navy and air force are being upgraded to electro-magnetic, thermal, and electronic tracking. Merely engaging their navigation RADAR is a dead giveaway for American and Russian planes, so is the hot exhaust plume they leave behind as well as the electronics that make the planes fly in the first place.
But as detection evolves, so does stealth. It probably won't be long until we start seeing planes with both RADAR, thermal, and electronic reduction, as well as extensive ECM take to the skies.
As for combat analysis, I stand by my original point: if you can ambush your enemy, stealth is great, but a stealth plane has no other options. Conventional fighters with electronic warfare has all the options. A stealth plan can be out-run, out-gunned, out-maneuvered, and out-climbed by non-stealth designs.
@@EmperorLionflame That pretty much summs it up, yes.
Going to take a decade or two for stealth to catch up.
@@DavidBarkland i like how real life is balanced so that stealth aircraft have minmaxed entirely for passive anti-detection measures and somehow cannot maneuver nor use ECM of their own while non-stealth planes will literally search the entire sky at once with IRST that isn't attenuated by anything whatsoever because quantum mechanics
Israeli F35 breached Syrian air space bypassing the new I400s stationer there about a month ago.
Source for your outrageous claim? I don't think full s400 suite was in effect. Also s400 most likely wouldn't engage due to political reasons
OSSUS MAXXIMUS Defence updates channel other media sources that constantly talk about the conflicts in the Middle East, pilots tend to talk to other pilots about crazy shit they’ve seen so when they successfully dodge s400 radars they’re going to brag.
Israel killed 20 russian mercirnary shitheads operating Panzir systems. Hahahaha I laughed so hard. I love I$RAEL
@@zeuscaesar4845 oh, so because some pilot said they did? Russia has an agreement with Israel not to engage their planes as long as Israel doesn't attack any Russian troops
Completely braindead
4:00 segment: do you actually think S-400 in the war scenario will act like a group of teenagers in a horror movie? "We heard some noise from the basement... Lets split up and find out!" No! I think it will be something closer to:
- Тут какая-то хуйня подлетает.
- Ебашь!
I think it means "let's disintegrate whatever that thing is and then identfy it from its wreckage!"
Ace of Spades to be fair, the Pantsir is a point defense asset and the one you referred to seemed to have exhausted its ammunition when it was attacked, so even if it was on it would not make much difference. In fact, it might be the reason why it was turned off the first place.
As important as stealth aircraft are, I think their years may already be somewhat numbered, as there is only so much improvements one can do to Stealth aircraft technology. I think Air Defense techology will eventually improve to the point where even Stealth planes will be quite vulnerable. The more long term approach, I think, is investing in more capable and multi-platform jamming and cyber assets to affect the enemy Air Defenses directly. Stealth is ultimately a passive approach, to really defeat enemy IADS, you gotta go with an Active approach: Cyber attacks, multi-spectrum jamming, and physical attacks on Radar and SAM sites, this could even include what I call TEMPO (Tactical Electromagnetic Pulse Ordinance). I think the upcoming tech for the latter could include small kamikaze drones packed with explosives, if you could find an effective 'fire and forget' method of targeting them to hit the Radar antenna.
BREAKING NEWS. QUANTUM RADAR DISCOVERED IN CANADA MAKES ANY STEALTH PLANE DETECTABLE.... GOOGLE IT. READ AND WEEP. ALL THOSE TRILLIONS WASTED.
Also got something for existing War Thunder users?
Really nice arguements! Thx for video!
America: We have Best "Stealth" planes in the world.
Serbia: Hold my Soviet Rocket launcher from 60s.
I didn't get it
@FBI with an S125 anti air missile battery yes
@FBI Basically the equivalent of someone in plate armor showing up at the exact same time and place over and over and the enemy getting the idea to drop a rock on him since they know exactly where he's going to be and that he's not going to defend himself.
Yes, you could definitely kill someone in full armor if they're practically ignoring your attempts to kill him. Zoltan Dani did that in the first week of NATO airstrikes. Over the next ten weeks of airstrikes, a whopping single-digit number of manned NATO aircraft were lost, none of which were F-117s.
One stealth aircraft shot down . Ever . Seems like a good record to me .
Thanks for the good Video Binkov
Excellent work. 🤗
Enemy nations of US will one day see a coordinated attack targeting SAM radar, tactical radar (both air and ground based) by F-35, B-2 and F-22 which will open wide swaths of territory for F-18, F-15 and B-52 strikes. Not just stealth, coordination between stealth assets. This is what keeps potential opponents from sleeping well at night.
Open and full conventional war doesn't happen anymore in nowadays global circumstances. The threshold happens in cyberwar, satellites and these related strategic levels... everything else falls down like a domino after that.
@@malokegames Not true? Why all of the military spending then? You are correct about the importance of cyber warfare.
@@flywheel9759 Just to maintain the whole chain of things running and covered without gaps. They support and are not meant to prevail or duel between enemy themselves but to fill the gaps of the whole structure and escalate the responsibility of victory to the higher layers. Conventional conflicts are each time more limited to asymmetrical battles and guerrillas.
@@malokegames Pawn moving is always asymmetric, moving knights, bishops and rooks require symmetry in tactics and strategy to win
@@flywheel9759 Yes, and the paws&Knights and so on do not capture automatically, so they just need to assure they can execute their primary function to support the main scheme. But I mean asymmetric between the opponents, in that highly technical combats are not going to happen between superpowers because in their case thing will be solved in a higher level, while in the asymmetric one there will be no need to such complexity since the enemy will, for instance, not even have an air-force or something like that...
It's an interesting thing to ponder, but we build them, so yes they're good. Are they too expensive? What's a pilot's life worth? What is winning a war worth? They're expensive, but not too expensive. We need them so that we don't have to need them, but if we do need them, we have them.
It seems to me that stealth is good for radar blinding operations of knocking out radars and follow up for less stealthy types.
Exactly, I think it's a little ridiculous that the USAF want's all their planes to be stealth.
@@uncreativename9936
Considering that the F-35A cost is now comparable to Rafale M, it's not financially impractical to turn all jet fighters stealth, not to mention that the USAF's F-35 is the cheapest variant. Stealth technology is getting cheaper while performing better, so eventually, all planes will be stealth. Remember back when computers are prohibitively expensive? Now it's pretty much ubiquitous.
@@uncreativename9936 helps with support and other missions, and give them the ability to react to unknowns, the enemy will often have radars you don’t know about
Well told. I like your description: "...a next generation effort..."
Stealth is a First Strike Weapon, Well worth the Cost if it takes out enough of the Enemy Radar's, SAM Sites, Airfields and CAP's so that Conventional Planes can then operate with minimal risks
Which oil rich Middle Eastern country to invade next?
@@AudieHolland I suspect next major use of Stealth will be in Far East not Mid East
@@AudieHolland The Artic. Russia, USA, a bunch of countries and even China however laughable that may be is laying claims up north. That would be the new middle east of the late 21st century .
@@Tonius126 I can't find a pretty good reason to use stealth aircraft in the North. I mean, they can do it with 4th gene aircrafts too as there are less air-defense systems on the north side of the globe.
@@giorgosmavridis650 Not yet but also if you do some research Alaska has a pretty sizeable squadron of F-22. Military build up in the artic is slow but steady. Just look at Russia, they are slowly reviving old Soviet bases up north and NORAD has been modernized to face future conflict.
Do a video on optical radar please.
Can you make a video with more than 2 countries present? Not like nato vs Warsaw pact but more like 3rd balkan war or iran and pakistan/Afghanistan vs Saudi Arabia and Iraq for example.
Lot of people seem to think the videos in this channel are accurate and realistic.
So if this channel were to make a video on United States vs North Vietnam in 1950's video, who would they think would win?
There's your proof that TH-cam channels are useless in realistic scenarios.
Don't forget to that pretty much all modern air defense systems have Radars on the ground and a radar in the missile and they need to share a Telemetry up link for a successful engagement the ground radar may be able to see the plane but the missile radar cannot because it's slower Tech and smaller
Fun fact! 1st country to shot dwn airplane was Serbia in ww1. Also 1st country to shot down stealth airplane was Serbia.
Fun fact #2
Serbs also shot duke Franz Ferdinand kicking off WW1, the results of which directly caused WW2 with a combined death toll estimated by some at over 100 million people. Well done Serbs, nice one.
@@David-dl6zg well technically it was a bosnian
First plane shotdown in North Africa during italo-turkish war by a rifle fire years before WW1.
Well first airplane was shot down in İtalo-Turkish war in 1912.
@@erichvonmanstein1952 No guys first airplane that was shot down was in Serbia
You should do a video about a Belgian internal war where Flanders and Wallonia (roughly equal in size) fight each other over a breaking up of the country. Wallonia has more military bases and a weapons factory but Flanders has import harbours to acquire weapons on top of a larger economy and population.
How are Belgian units made up? Are they segregated by language?
Otherwise its impossible to tell
Damo2690 they are under joint command and in the same army units to bolster unity, though Dutch and french speaking units are usually stationed in respective language provinces to improve overall communication
Stealth is worth it because it is not the end all be all. The ultimate goal is complete invisibility but the technology is not there yet. But as with all technology, it takes time and baby steps to develop. Stealth is/was just one of those steps so it serves a purpose and it does work against older technologies by far such as if the U.S. and Iran went at it as an example. More modern clashes such as the U.S. vs. China, it would probably not make a significant difference since both sides have stealth tech and detection.
BREAKING NEWS. QUANTUM RADAR DISCOVERED IN CANADA MAKES ANY STEALTH PLANE DETECTABLE.... GOOGLE IT. READ AND WEEP. ALL THOSE TRILLIONS WASTED.
This'll probably take a long time... but can you do eastern hemisphere vs western hemisphere?
That all is good, but what about T3 Omnidirectional radar systems that spot any stealth?
What radars are those?
Great video.
Anything can be beaten given enough time.
So many likes and so few dislikes give me the feeling the video makes sense.
You gotta make a Video about Pak and India Nuclear-War as well...
That will make the last day of islam
Why ?
Nobody would survive that scenario. It would be like 1914 but with nukes.
Islam will be the last standing Religion on this Planet, If You cant say something nice, You better keep Your Mouth Shut...
Watching this makes me realize I should read a book
Me too. One on sculpture and on performance
They also discount the Human Eyeball V1.0 and the Human Ear V1.0. The best stealth on the planet is still very visible to a dedicated group of humans who are specifically placed to visually spot or hear an aircraft passing overhead. Much like during WW2, in the pre-radar era, which you could say is similar to the current stealth era ie you didnt know when or where the enemy was. But a bunch of old men, women and kids with notebooks and telephones were an extremely effective early warning system.
But can you see a jet at like maximum altitude?
@Mae ! Perhaps, but knowing that they are there is a massive part of defending against them in the first place. If you dont know they are there, how do you shoot them down?
@@Deccra With a decent set of binoculars, its quite easy.
You know every war the US has fought for decades has been fought almost exclusively at night, right?
@@VincentNajger1
Not with a decent set of clouds .
I hope this video has brought up fake targets we include in our ICBMs alongside proper warheads and how the whole point of stealth irl is to make planes indistinguishable from chaff and flares in presence of active electronic countermeasures.
Stealth planes dont' win wars, they are astronomical cost first strike weapons (take out enemy radar, planes, and ground defenses), clearing the way for conventional non-stealth planes, drones, and ground troops to take control of the battle/war.
War is attrition in any form, be it people, resources, will, time, etc it is always attrition based. I agree with you tho, they are not intended for large scale war but used as a (hopefully) tipping point on the start of war to take out assets of their rivals. Stealth as a technology fits very well into the idea of attrition, if you make a $100 million dollar plane you do not want it to be shot down by a $1 million missile, stealth in this sense gives the owner an advantage to eliminate resources at a much cheaper price tag. Even if you have to fire 100 missiles and you only manage to shot down 10 planes you still come out costing your rival 10 times as much so the goal is to avoid missile tracking which is primarily done by radar and to a minor degree inferred.
The goal of war is to cost your enemy the most while costing you significantly less be it a land invasion or a bombing campaign stealth gives you benefits one of which is normally being the first to react. Stealth planes are expensive they really are but in the long run if it gives you time to target your enemy and deal them more damage (and expense) than it is worth it. Stealth isn't intended to rule the skies being invisible to all it most likely will never progress that far but if it gives you the opportunity to destroy aircraft or other targets with your significantly cheaper missiles (while reducing your risk of coming to the same demise) than it's worth it.
Frankly the era of WW2 dog fights is long gone, most missiles can track a target from 100+ miles with ease. It is now the preferred way to fight if they ever get close enough to dog fight than something has gone horribly wrong.
I agree. But air dominance is necessary for tanks and ground troops to operate the way they need to.
@@GainingDespair don't know about the era of WW2 dogfights being over ... They did install a gun on the F-22 based on the lessons learned in Nam
@@macculu501 Vietnam started in 1955 and aircraft where mostly limited to bombing runs with ww2 era bombs, folks where not firing missiles from hundreds of miles away they there over the fields. Situation like that called for it as interceptions where always possibly. A main gun on an aircraft is never a bad idea that doesn't mean it's nearly as effective today.
Missiles are far more deadly and take out significantly more planes than main guns, even than it's not bad to have them but the F22 can travel in excess of 1500mph (which really isn't that fast compared to many older super sonic aircraft. The average person can see about 20 miles in clear skies if two jets are coming at each other (completely out of missiles) they will have a line of sight (with each other) for less than 40 seconds at best case. Realistically they would need to be within two miles of each other (at the same attitude) giving each slightly under 3 seconds to see and engage the other.
Once they pass that is basically it, the other will take several mins to catch up if lucky traveling faster than 1500 mph. If one turns slightly their aim is off, if one rises slightly their aim is off at those speeds the margin of error is simply to great for a person to engage with a main gun.
They simply travel too fast to dog fight for that 3 seconds to be viable while missiles can be locked on and fired several mins in advance with far better accuracy than a main gun.
If one jet has missiles and the other does not than it's simply over before it even started. Main guns are not bad weapons (I absolutely love the A10) but technology has progressed far enough to the point where dog fighting is unrealistic when they have so many other tools at their disposal.
@@macculu501 The actual lesson learned from Vietnam was that good training is worth a lot more than a gun.
The US Air Force got guns for their Phantoms. Kill ratio - 2:1. In the same timeframe, the US Navy kill ratio was 6:1. They formed the USN Fighter Weapons School ("TOPGUN") and improved their missile tactics and maintenance instead of blaming the lack of gun or doing shit like hastily putting bomber pilots into fighters.
Great video man
Egypt vs turkey
What are the pros of longer radar waves? range?
Identiying larger objects that are further away.
No real resolution since long waves dont reflect very well .
Longer radar waves are less affected by weather.
The FCAS main focus is rather on speed than stealth. Btw, the german company Hensoldt has developed a new type of passive radar to counter stealth more effectivly than before.
This might be a stupid question, but could a modernized form of flak work against stealth planes? Like could unguided small missiles be filled with metal bits and be fired in mass where a stealth plane is heading, thus when the aircraft flys through it it’s armor is riddled with a whole bunch of small metal bits that can be targeted? The point of it wouldn’t be to destroy the aircraft but to make it targetable. However I don’t know anything on if that would actually work just do to speed. And it is also dependent on if the aircraft could be detected and the system fired in time. And also the fast then sound the aircraft flys at. Maybe it’s just a novel idea.
It would be a good idea, but if you don't know where the plane is you don't know where to hit their skin. Only a sandstorm or blizzard could help you with that huge volume to cover
You're describing a SAM system with the metal pieces hitting aircraft
No it's a bad idea. That's what Saddam did over Baghdad, the planes just stayed above it and laser bombed them to hell and back.
Modern guided missiles already function a bit like this. Missiles are not designed to hit the target, as that would be incredibly hard. Instead, they are designed to explode in the general vecinity of an aircraft and aim to kill it with the massed flak from the explosion.
Missiles already do that for decades, it's called blast fragmentation, but it's short-ranged. You still need to be able to see something before you lob missiles at, and seeing is not enough, you need to get a lock too. For your idea, it's not workable since metals would also create a disturbance on your radar. The most effective way to counter stealth is to just deploy as many radars as you can, and invest in a lot of interceptors. Fighting stealth aircraft, contrary to popular belief, isn't cheap. What stealth planes do is reduce the detection range, so you need to buy more radars to cover the gap. Targeting radar, which use X and C-bands suffer the worst.
Canada has invested $2.7m (£1.93m) into developing quantum radar - a new technology that would greatly improve the detection of stealth aircraft.
The technology is being developed by the University of Waterloo to replace existing Arctic radar stations.
Quantum radar can detect objects with a greater level of accuracy than conventional radar including stealth planes
as it is impossible to hide from it.
This mean the vast sums spent on stealth were for nothing.
It makes use of quantum illumination - the process of isolating pairs of entangled photons.
Canada and the US jointly maintain 54 North Warning System (NWS) radar stations in the Arctic, which act as the first line of early warning atmospheric air defence for North America.
These radar stations are approaching the end of their life spans, and could need to be replaced as early as 2025.
Several other countries are also interested in developing quantum radar, including China and Russia.
In November, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, in Shanghai, announced that its scientists were developing a new type of spy satellite that would be able to "uncover" stealth aircraft.
Accountancy will be the death of war.
Thanks!
Do America vs Iran
Do one for modern tanks!
Su57 is not stealthy, thus the Russian Air Force wants just 76 of them.
Thanks for the video, I enjoyed the explanation
Can you make a video on how incomprehensible expensive war is getting?
A total war like in ww2 would completely bleed even the strongest economy dry in a matter of months
The amout of money tanks aircraft and ships cost is all nice inpeace times however in a total war replacing losses will be very expensive
That's an economic discussion to be had and economics is complicated (understatement of the year). It requires dedicated experts to really piece the parts together. While modern equipment is expensive, it's important to remember that (using your example) WWII was also extremely expensive, and when it became too much, varying nations used a variety of methods to come up with the cash.
But you're right that a prolonged modern conflict would probably result in many bankrupted nations if it didn't result in annihilation.
the more expensive the wars are the less probable they are
olodemolo MCAroon the more likely they are to destroy everybodys way of living if a conflict happens
Binkov can you make a video about how anti ship missile strikes with aircraft are conducted?
Do with S400 as you did to Aegis or Arleigh Burke. "Attack on S400".
their s400 can not shoot down a sh*t because of Earth curvature
@@freedomvanguard8185 and others can?
@@RR-us2kp of course!
@@freedomvanguard8185 how? What's the difference?
@@RR-us2kp RW Alright mate, I will tell ya. It's a joke about crappy quality of russkie-build s300/s400 SAMs. It originated back then in 2018 when some Israeli jet fighters entered a syrian gov terrorist base, guarded by russkie s400s. Israelis done their job and run away intact. When audience asked about why no israeli jets were shot down, one of a russkie officials said that Earth curvature impeded s400 to perform a successful shot.
3:52
"..of course they may end of dying before they get there."
Binkov 2020
On Benefits of Military Stealth Plane
Hahaha
Up, not of
you need to do a Su-50 vs J-20. maybe the scenario is Indian Su-50s vs Chinese J-20s, or some break down in Russian-Chinese relations again.
Indian su 50???
@@lenthokchom they're supposed to be the main partner but calling it the FGFA or something like that. Since India and China has issues with each other, its the most likely place where we might see an Su-50 derivative vs the J-20
@@nimaiiikun india is actually out of this competition. India is also no longer in the project of stealth fighter with russia. China compete with the UnitedStates not with india. So bringing in india on this field is a little awkward.
india pulled out of the SU-57 project years ago. and even if they stayed and bought the Su-57, it's still no match for the J-20.
sure the Su-57 is more maneuverable, but it has some very poor designs features making it not a fully stealth plane on the level of J-20 or F-35.
one look at the exposed engines of the Su-57 would tell you that.
Also I have yet to see any videos of the Su-57 where it had their internal weapons bay opened, I even doubt the existence of internal weapons bay, if that's the case then Su-57 would be somewhat stealther than the F-18 or Rafale, but nowhere near J-20 and F-35
@@obsidianstatue Su57 has two centerd weapon bays between two engines. They are placed in a line. Unlike F22 and J20, it does not have side weapon bay for short range air to air missiles.
Binkov love your work!!! Have said that I believe the F35 is a failed jet fighter. My opinion is all.
@@zeffez8161 no argument there. So much more could be accomplished with all that money wasted on fighting one another when we are all apart of the human race and we all should treat each other as brother and sisters
"F-35 is a failed jet fighter" look at 79M$ per plane with 455+ plane and combat in Syria by Israel.
"OK BOOMER" your opinion then
@@hatosan5565 lmfao ok first I have to find boomer offensive for it to count as insult which I don't. Second really that's the best you got? Sad
Binkov make a usa vs Iran video plz
did 7 months ago
vgpredator3 🤥
i feel like the info from these videos would make a great strategy game
Why? To answer the question without seeing the video, they see first, they shoot first. Learn a lesson from Bug Wars. The bug that strikes first usually wins.
Bug Wars is the future of boot camps and military training courses around the world.
Please make a video about "active STEALTH! EW suite...like Gripen E's AREXIS EW suite.
Was gonna say this myself - not including active stealth leaves out the last 20 years or so of deployed technology. Of course, this may have been an intentional omission from an otherwise informative and comprehensive video. TY!
"Active stealth" is just a buzz word to make ECM systems look more significant.
They are useful, yes, but they can't replace low radar cross section.
1) The plane will be perfectly visible. ECM makes it harder to lock on weapons from long range but it doesn't give "silent strike" capability.
2) Modern AA missiles have "home on jam" capabilities.
@@vantuz8264 No it´s NOT a buzz world. You actually makes the radar not seeing you.
The missiles can´t "home in to the jamming". Radar guided missiles home into radar not ECM. The AREXIS EW suite can also use spoofing, make the radar see targets where there are none....etc...
Look at 1.50 in this video...
saab.com/gripen/our-fighters/gripen-fighter-system/gripen-e-series/gripen-e/infact Gripen E has more capabilities then F18 growler..the AREXIS EW suite is the only EW suite far that uses the latest GaN technology.
@@JorgenPersson-jo4sc
>>You actually makes the radar not seeing you.
For a plane without stealth capabilities there are only 2 options:
1) Somehow "intercept" the incoming radar wave and redirect it. I'm not sure if it's even physically possible. But if it's possible, ECM station must know in advance about incoming waves: their direction, frequency, power. Modern radars automatically change their frequency, making such knowledge impossible.
2) "Blind" the radar by transmitting a very strong continuous signal on the same frequency. However it requires capabilities to transmit on the same frequency (small antenna can't transmit long waves) and a lot of power. More power than the radar itself needs. Needless to say that this mode makes the plane vulnerable to homing on jam.
All other modes don't make the plane invisible at ranges where stealth planes are invisible. Just more difficult to lock. But "difficult" doesn't mean "impossible".
>>The missiles can´t "home in to the jamming".
What is your proof?
Home-on-jam capabilities are declared for many modern AA missiles such as R-77 or AIM-120.
>>Look at 1.50 in this video...
Page not found. Check the link.
Good networked SAMs are the best counter to stealth.
The very reason many new SAM Missiles don't have to be guided exactly to the target and use fragmentation warheads. Even there own Radars don't have to hit to kill.
I don't know what you saying?? to hit fragmentation of warheads it must be guided very close with in and SAM Missiles Seeker don't see them
@@user-ym8ic8r Once close a normal SBand Radar seeker can see Stealth Aircraft. Same with IR. They all emit heat.
The ground radars will pick up Stealth Aircraft hundreds of km away. Not hard if they are all networked to work out where they are heading and the speed they are travelling etc. They call it Triangulation. Network Computers will work all that out. They will even have a good idea of its elevation. The Radars on say a S400 are multi Band. As they get closer there VHF Radars can be queued onto the incoming and track the Stealth Aircraft even more accurately. Russia claims they can guide there Missiles using VHF very close to a stealth target. Once close the S Band Radar or IR seeker on the Missile will pick up the target. Stealth Aircraft are not invisible.
@@skippy5712 We all know about that. and i'm saying is what you said "fragmentation"
@@skippy5712 they have heat signatures but they are reduced just like their radar cross section
Ok Id say Skippy you havent been reading the news from 2019 - 2018.
[New release on the history of the F117 came out about its Iraq sortie's and Serbian misadventure.]
1. Against IRAQ "desert Storm" the F117 was expected to lose over 5% of its planes in each sortie and lost none in over 1350 sorties. They had no idea how good they were against the S300 and S400 /Russian made radars in IRAQ but they kicked ass.
2. The UK proved that 4th Gen planes can effectively Kick ass against the Modern Russian S300 and S400 radar passive systems in Syria when they took out the Weapons munitions factories in Syria (job done).. (who knows how good the UK F-35 are)
3. Early 2019 IRAN were boasting about how they were going to build Nukes and had nuclear grade uranium. Israel were saying we have to invade before they do this.. Israel were being reported as having been flying over IRAN for 2 weeks. The local IMAM for IRAN only found this out after reading a Kuwaiti newspaper.... IRAN promptly sacked its Air force General and restarted denuclearisation talks with France.
The French plane Desault is over US$300 million each. At $110million is so cheap and has better upgrades than the Desault. I like the Desault, but the Allied buck goes a lot further and has far more capability...
hey Binkov. SONA system and Naval mines Review Please