Stealth was not made to make an aircraft invisible, but to decrease the range at which it can be detected. Then, develop stand off weapons that can launch at a ranger greater than radar detection range. Stealth is still useful, but not a checkmate.
The radar development is going really fast now. Most of today stealth fighters are developed with older radars in mind and the related frequencies used. This means the stealth fighters will be easier and easier to detect. In worst case the lifespan of a gen 5 fighter will be much shorter than for a gen 4 plane that is not depending on stealth.
it’s morons who believe it makes it invisible, then when they find out it’s not invisible they’re like “GOTCHA!” not realizing the whole point is just taking a few seconds longer to get a radar signature
right the value of stealth goes radically down when you are not fighting a low tech, full generation behind, foe, for example USA vs Iraq used as a proving ground for stealth was next to useless vs real world 1st order tech. of course the mic uses worthless examples like that, all the time, to justify it's continued spending operations.
When aerodynamic is being neglected... 🤣😂... a fundamental feature of speed and heavy lifting.. hmmmm.. yet how would I know.. I am just peace leader. Hmmmm.
The truth of the matter is: it's hard to know for sure. This area is extremely classified, so real hard information is hard to come by. Even if you are an expert who tries to answer this question for a living, and have access to all the classified information, you probably don't know for sure either. Different experts in this field could likely have different opinions. Eventually sensors will probably win the arms race with stealth. Sensors are getting better all the time and in the end there is only so much you can do to make a plane stealthy. Are we at the point where stealth is no longer relevant as Jussi suggests, or is that yet to happen? We don't know for sure.
What this guy really is saying is mother ships controlling large numbers of drones networked in 360 degree sphere with sat linked comms is the future of air dominance with boutique manned systems as needed.
and in a major conflict between advanced militaries and peer nations... satellites will be among the very first casualties. Both sides will be trying to blind their opponent and disrupt their chessboard view.
@@thurbine2411 Nothing. Effective Jamming requires so much in terms of dominance that it can be spooked by better algorithms, anti-radiation missiles, direct links, good pre-programmed practices and frequency modulations.
@@Padtedesco but satellite signals are very weak compared to a good jammed that will also be closer. Maybe watch M7s video on jamming gps or whatever the name was.
I've worked on Radar for over many years. What stealth does is reduce the radar cross section to the size of a bird or an insect. The thing about this is coupling this with some type of radar jamming, even a little can cause any radar not see the stealth aircraft. It does need to be in-band of the radar searching for it. The discriminants are what make even a stealth aircraft visible such as doppler shift due to the the high speed. Also an external source would need to emit the radar signal from an emitter aircraft or ground system.
Yah the title of this video is fucking embarrassing. This guy is so full of shit it's hilarious. It's very simple to test his conclusion. Why are China and Russia still trying to build stealth aircraft if it is no longer relevant?
@@thanhvinhnguyento7069 Ok, but you've turn down your filter so now you have a ton of noise coming in, so now you have to distinguish the unique bird sized signature from one scan to the next. There's lot's of blah blah about max detection range under perfect scenarios, but if you can't get a consistent weapons quality lock, you need more radars to defend an area. And since coverage area decreases with the square of effective targeting range, that really decreases the area that you can reliably defend.
@@Sethgolas even 100% ignoring that If stealth aircraft can be detected at 100 km then what about non stealth ones ? Non stealth aircraft would then have to deal with long range missiles well behind freindly lines If i had to choose between beeing detected at 500km or at 100 i would chose 100 every time
@@jonahhekmatyar The thing that almost no one knows about the gulf war is that the 6 months before the first day was utilized to insure that everything after the first day. Major General Henry spent the first 6 months identifying every single electronic emitter in Iraq. That meant that on the first day they all went down and things progressed from there. th-cam.com/video/7lAT39crUs8/w-d-xo.html&pp=gAQBiAQB Electronic warfare is the key.
@@ulikemyname6744 I think the F-35 as a bomber is a bit of a ruse. Stealth will be crucial, but only in combination with operation at a long range from a frontline. Mass will also be crucial. Hence, the B-21 is actually the real deal because it can deploy drone swarms or glide bombs undetected from a very long range. The F-35 alone cannot do that.
At 14:52 "Stealth is no longer fully relevant" is a long way from "Stealth is no longer relevant", but Click-bait. Probably more accurate to say "Networking is reducing the effectiveness of stealth". In any event a non-stealthy adversary would be tracked much earlier than a stealthy adversary (who might never be tracked). .
@@ulikemyname6744 Oh yeah the military do not advertise to win those 1 tri contracts at all. Now you know why the F22 is retiring and the F15 is still in production.....
TL; DW In the era of data fusion, where an array of detectors deployed in different geographic locations detect some disturbance in the airspace, real-time data exchange and analysis between these devices helps to extrapolate the approximate position of the stealth aircraft. Once you know where to look, you can focus more sensitive detectors in that area (e.g. infrared detectors), and there's no hiding from them. The other interesting thing is that in an air battle you can reveal your presence by turning on your radar, but this was previously essential to launch a missile. But today, thanks to data fusion, you don't need to turn on your radar, if another craft sees the target, you can launch a missile at it, which will be guided to the target by the other combat assets, not by your missiles or your aircraft's radar. Stealth is obviously not obsolete, but it will undoubtedly face increasing challenges.
it also becomes a lot harder to spot a stealth aircraft when you have some ridiculously massive RADAR like the one in F-15EX flooding the airspace with massive RADAR signals and jamming. It's been described as "trying to hear a pin drop in a rock concert" no matter how good your sensors are, there's just too much variance and modulation to account for to be able to filter down to an F35 sized target
@@goddepersonno3782 This might work against passive radars but active radars capable of switching frequencies millions of times per second will NOT be fooled by an F-15EX, they're designed to only pay attention to their own signal and ignore background noise... not to mention the fact that accoustic/infrared sensors can't be jammed
Thanks! data fusion is of using algorithm appropriately in order to get a coherent and relevant reality image- while the sources of ecm can be multiple and not l9cated on your fightet
Stealth is not meant to make an aircraft invisible, it is supposed to make an aircraft less detectable so a stealth platform uses stand off weapons to achieve a tactical or strategic objective.
This Channel has always pushed the same angle. It's narrative is always Beijing & Moscow aircraft are actually quite good & Western aircraft is good but not as good as everyones thinks. I unsubscribed years ago.
The question is if it's worth the design compromises this stealth requires and the high maintainance load and upkeep cost it creates. And will the stealth designs keep up with radar improvements? I'm not a F-35 hater at all, but I think it's an interesting conversation.
Guy explains MiG31 tactics. One is tracking targets over long distance and his buddy flying high with very high speed is firing devastating long range fast missiles while staying passive and so fast, that it cannot be attacked.
And that tactic was deemed outdated before Mig31 even came out due to advanced SAM's, so in today age of far more advanced systems it just doesn't make sense.
To some extent, yes. Though Sweden developed roughly the same thing at the same time(yet another case of "when the technology comes, you get parallel and converging design evolution"), which then later in the 90s were improved by looking at anything the MIG-31 did better and try to oneup it.
I like how he says the F35 would probably be used in a SEAD role, a role which is the most hostile to an intradicting aircraft, but still stealth doesn't matter? Like is that aircraft more survivable or not in that situation because of the stealth attributes?
Yes for that very special mission stealth is better than non stealth .sweden don't design aircrafts to invade other country's so it's not an priority for gripenE
I think the title was basically clickbait here..and it worked! All the engineers at Boeing and Lockheed spending enormous resources on stealth...literally hundreds of very sharp people with a collective experience of a thousand industry years are mistaken in their design priorities...?? Not that there is zero chance it's fool's gold - look at the space industry and what Elon did pivoting in a different direction (ie re-usability, stainless steel). But these engineers have the super computers to do their modeling, access the real world experience, and real world sandboxes to test their ideas and they're spending their gold on stealth.
It's an advantage for sure. The question is how much you have to pay for it and whether other ways to spend the money get you greater advantages. How to make best use of a limited resource?
Reality is, everyone from Russia to China, Turkey and so on, are designing planes with these "stealth" body shape features. But maybe the word Stealth itself doesn't describe it well anymore. Maybe need to evolve to low signature or something
@@keffinsg you don`t even have to hit any fighters, take out the tanker and you close the mission, reduce the combat radius or reduce the sortie rate significantly until another comes online.
@@keffinsg that's why US retires it's big AWACs planes in favor or decentralized network of radars and sensors on smaller aircrafts (wingman drones included)
Most stealth aircraft will be on the ground. You trained to do a 4 ship mission, now you discover the impact of 29% mission capable aircraft. You use the binomial probability calculator available for free on the internet and realize with 12 aircraft in your squadron you only have a 47% probability of mustering 4 ships for the mission. You calculate you need 18 aircraft to get an 81% chance of having at least 4 ships available. Now calculate the cost of 18 aircraft including maintenance, spares and upgrades (Billions of dollars)
The weakness of stealth however is that everything else has to be sacrificed in order for the plane to be "stealthy" . You can talk measures and countermeasures all you want but in the end of the day you are going to have to fit all of that into the internal bays of a "stealth" aircraft
At 14:52 "Stealth is no longer fully relevant" is a long way from "Stealth is no longer relevant", but Click-bait. Certainly with networking, your stealthy adversary can be made know to you long before your local sensors detect it, but even then, if the adversary was non-stealthy, they would become known even sooner. In any case, adversaries will avoid detection, and will use stealth to delay that detection as much as possible. No doubt networking with remote sensing can reduce the benefit of stealth but there is no getting away from the fact that, not having stealth, puts your adversary at a distinct disadvantage.
This guy works for SAAB, hes making a sales pitch, they're getting smashed on the arms market by the F-35, so he's trying to downplay it, because he wants more countries to buy Gripens. But just on the radar alone in the F-35 puts it far above the Gripen, and it costs just as little. The Gripen might be a decent idea for countries that have a very poor logistics supply chain because the Gripen's main pitch is it's cheap to maintain But for any NATO country, the F-35 is by far and away a better aircraft overall.
The thing is that L band radar that the best planes already have are not affected by stealth. So you gain almost nothing by the expensive and fragile radar absorptive coating or the stealth geometry which is always a trade off from other features.. What he said is very true, stealth was something against 20 year old radar technology. Today it's a trade off that is barely justified against modern adversaries. Against jihadis it still works.
@@ExarchGaming But what he is really saying is that it's the way the sensors are used. Better or not at the individual level of each sensor. Stealth aircraft are designed to be stealthy from one direction. That is usually from a front aspect. What he is saying is that networked radars and sensors will make that difficult to maintain. It's not like the old days when a emitter and receiver are placed on the same aircraft, or indeed on an aircraft. The signal doesn't need to bounce back to the same aircraft's receiver that was transmitting it. It can bounce off the stealth aircraft in a different direction (as stealth air frames are supposed to work). It can be received by any receiver in the network and be triangulated, calculated and displayed to any other that needs the information. That is how you will detect a stealth aircraft. And SAAB had a suspicion that this would be the case since they started using data links way back when. Instead of committing to a structural stealth design, that would be problematic in the field and compromise aerodynamics, they choose to go all in in making an EW suite that would give the same results. And that would be easier to upgrade when new radars or weapons were developed. Ofc the aerodynamics are very important on an aircraft that must land and takeoff from improvised runways. That also means that any small airfield or straight piece of rode will do fine.. a huge advantage.
This is why the US Air Force is buying new and improved at 15s because they realize that if stealth is no longer so relevant. Then having a powerful maneuverable fighter like the F 15 that has all the hard points to carry a variety of different weapon. Systems is better than a stealth airplane that carries everything internally.. return to square one.
Not really, since the F-15EX are intended to function as missle trucks at stand-off distance. While the more advanced 5th generation fighters function as spotters, using their low observabillity and superior sensors.
@@johndor7793 Yeah, especially when tanks turned out to be the most survivable vehicle against drone attacks and its the other vehicles that had very much harder time against them
As other people have mentioned, this is how active radar jamming works. The problem with active radar jamming is that, while it might disguise all of your allies, it makes you the biggest and most obvious target, (and the signal is most concentrated at the source, so you can't hide _yourself_ in the envelope,) which makes you that much easier to shoot down.
@@RamadaArtistI guess that’s why you have whatever is emitting as a cheap, disposable and easily replaced asset, preferably one which can have another deployed after the first is expended. Towed decoys, air-launched decoys or dedicated unmanned platforms designed to sponge up responsive fires and increase the survivability of your expensive things.
Honestly I can see a point here. The missile’s BVR engagement ranges are getting so extreme that it makes more sense to make the airframes bigger and house better radars for the weapons then trying to sneak in. But that only holds up for so long, there is an upper limit to the size of the radar unless we are going to start attaching meteors to AWACS.
Seems like that problem would be helped with datalink; AWACS can send target data to fighter aircraft, and Aim-120Ds or Meteors are built to make use of all the data. Reality is that stealth is combined with ECM and other tech tho. Stealth isnt about making planes just invisible these days.
One of the key reasons why stealth was a big deal is the radar software filtering small 'noise' objects as those could never be actual aircraft.... But if you do have noise that is moving on a rather constant course and altitude at speed - software can, and should track that noise ;)
That's if the receiver's analouge part can deal with the low return signal in relation to it's own noise floor. Otherwise the software never sees it in the first place.
@@robertmartinu8803 that is correct but as this technology is basically known since the f117 one can assume that those receivers got better and better in that regard....after all there is no thread more dangerous then the unknown one.
Are you talking about the signal:noise ratio and the software that pulls that signal out of the noise? All radar is based on solving that problem, and no matter, it's still better to be a very small object.
It is the networking that more or less defeats stealth. When your transmitter and receiver doesn't need to be in the same place and the data can be gathered, calculated and displayed to anyone that needs it in the network you can not rely on stealth. The signal will bounce off the stealth platform,m in a direction away from the transmitter, as it is designed to do, and be picked up by another sensor in the network.
That's what the 4-ship network is for. The same bit of random noise following a course seen from 4 different locations is unlikely. But if your enemy has a big ole radar that can see your 4 ship 200 miles away then it's not going to last long.
As everyone say Gripen doesn't have stealth. But reality it the radar cross section of a Gripen isn't that much bigger than a stealth aircraft. The reality is what gives a jet fighter away the most is when it's using active radar. So stealth kind of goes out the window. Radar technology today is advanced. So many sensors and ability to passively get the information and from multiple pinpointing sources, stealth goes out the window. And if Gripen has a radar cross section of a beach ball and a stealth F35 has one the size of a seagull. Sure the F35 has a smaller cross section. But how big of a difference does that make when you have 3-4 sources from all angles that can see even just a tiny part of that cross section but still create a picture and track it because multiple sources communicate. Data-link and network centric air warfare SAAB is really good at. Their sensor and data technology is equal to the F35. So all we're talking about here is the 'air frame'. It's not some kind of magic solution today because you have a 'stealthy look" to the plane. This is 80s-90s thinking. Back when jet fighters were alone and only saw what they could see when actively scanning forward basically. When stealth really was devastating think the first Gulf war with the F117 stealth bomber and B1 bomber etc. Today they are not "invisible'. So it's all about information/data.
Stealth is merely ONE tool in your tool box. These discussions, especially the ones at higher levels are exceedingly important towards envisioning and producing the next measures and countermeasures.
I think Saab could easily have made stealth if they thought it was worth it..just make a Turkish/Korean looking Grippen...so it makes sense that hes saying its more cost effective to go for electronics unless you're making a really expensive air superiority plane..
Radioelectronic PhD working in electronic warfare here ... Steath is doing just fine. It is no longer a cheat code like in 90´s, but it will help. And a bit of help, in combination with large data merging, tactics, long range weapons and active EW will give you the critical edge. Problem is that people still believe that a magical steath plane will just fly straight over the Moscow or Beijing with noone spotting them. But if you can lock enemy jet from 60 km by missile with range of 100 km without being spotted, turn around defensive, blasting smart response jammers ... that is what you want.
Good point about ability to turn defensive while still providing a track to a missile. Do advanced fighters with AESA like the F35 or Gripen still suffer from an equivalent of the 'gimbal limit' or can they hand over the tracking job to rearward facing AESA panels or other sensors after turning away?
@@CraigTheBrute-yf7no no doesn't. B-2 has more payload than the new B-21. F-35 maintenance cost is similar to the F-15EX. production isn't difficult, hundreds have been produced. there was an huge advantage of stealth. technology evolves. radar technology evolved to detect stealth at longer ranges. B-21 will be even more stealthy than previous stealth aircraft. stealth isn't invisible. so yea it does make sense. now, every country has it's doctrine and it's own objectives.
This was truly great Gus. The effort you put into finding a real expert (no doubt of a jet you have tremendous respect for) as well as the quality of video used in editing (using high bitrate video that "Jussi" had to provide in addition to the video conference, perhaps). Definitely hope you're able to do more of these. A surprising takeaway was that it sounds like Low Probability of Intercept RADAR is unreliable. And for those shocked by stealth's (LO) dwindling utility, remember, Russia's had no problem shooting down sub 0.1 meter RCS cruise missiles.
@@FairladyS130 Standardization Agreement, they operate compatible equipment and ammunition in almost every way. They could buy more Eurofighters, they could buy more F-16s or Rafales, but they went for the F-35
The USAF General before Covid hit the US, had a presser where he said Speed was the new stealth. What he meant by speed is up for the debate but assuredly it meant two things - speed of aircraft, literal speed. And it also meant 'speed of production'. They want to make new airframes sooner and stop with long term 35+ year sustainment cycles. It's faster to just buy new designs within 10 years and then also cheaper. And speed is something we can readily improve on. We lack speed because stealth materials are not effective due to high friction blowing the RAM apart. So we sacrificed speed FOR stealth. But now with Hypersonics and weapon interceptor tests and field use for years now? We have proof that the faster you go, the harder you are to hit, even if the enemy sees you. And it still allows for what's called "First Hit Kill' as well. FHK is what stealth sacrificed speed for? By allowing us to shoot first kill first. Speed can do the same thing however, because speed translates to inertia and momentum and those transferable traits can be given to munitions. Meaning, the faster you can go while deploying a munition? Means the munition will fly even further? And even faster. Thus hitting first, killing first. FHK fullfill. Old principles are coming back. Speed is Life..
You can't deploy a munition to target something you cannot see. Hypersonic missiles do not currently exist as envisioned. Even the good American stuff still suffers from the whole you can't really make materials that can maneuver at hypersonic speeds at standard atmosphere. You can do it in thin atmosphere but once you get to the terminal approach you have to just basically go "ballistic" and be vulnerable to patriots and sm6 missile intercepts. Even if you were to overcome this materials issue with exotics your going to have two others issues still. One is that at that speed your going to run into an issue with the interference with atmosphere such that you cannot use a terminal guidance radar to guide your weapon in or communicate with a nearby platform to use theirs. Then there's the much simpler issue of such exotic stuff will be super expensive and you'll only be able to manufacture a couple a month making them too limited. And of course all the speed in the world won't help your radar see something. And you can NEVER make a manned platform that can outrun and outmaneuver a unmanned guided missile. You will wind up inside what is the inescapable window of a missile where only ECM can save you because the missile cannot physically be jinked, only confused.
@@sparkzbarca "Hypersonic missiles do not currently exist as envisioned." Russian zircon missile has even been used in Ukraine. I'm finding very little on the western side about hard data yet (though there is Ukraine claims which I doubt due to the fake Kinzhal debacle) but it is operational and without the booster requirement would be an interesting missile as an aviation weapon at about half the Kinzhal size.
@@mitchellcouchman1444 so the zircon does go Mach 9 but slows to half that in the terminal phase and it does that because it would come apart if it entered the denser air at Mach 9. If you think the zircon can penetrate patriot you have to explain why they aren't using them to target the Patriots. They did by the way try to attack the Patriots directly when they very first deployed and it failed so badly and was so embarrassing that they stopped. Putin also then went within a week and rounded up several of the scientists and people involved in the zircon and kenzal programs and charged them with espionage and treason stuff. There's a reason that Russia has lost dozens of s300/s400 and even part of s500 batteries but Ukraine has only lost a few launcher components of patriots. The Patriot is a much more capable system. The s400 is solid especially against older stuff, I'm sure the f16 will find them a real problem. But the zircon is not capable of maneuvering at Mach 9 at sea level. That's not a huge dig, pretty positive the US version can't either. But hypersonics currently just go ballistic at the terminal phase and those can already be defeated by the sm6 and Patriot missiles. That's why Russia isn't trying massively increase production of the zircon and use them to target anti air systems. They are doing so with systems that work like the EW systems which really did protect against GPS munitions for example
@@mitchellcouchman1444 so the zircon is hypersonic in the sense that it can go very fast at Mach nine and unlike the kenzal it can even maneuver and isn't just a ballistic missile. But it still can't do so at the low altitude terminal phase when it's targeted for interception and most vulnerable. Defeating the point of a hypersonic
GEN5 engagements logic lowkey looking like submarine warfare ! Stay silent, stay passive, keep SA high, but keep profile/signature low and shoot without using "active" means and run away There's some pattern and links to be made
@@Swecan76the diffrence is that in submarines to be stealthy you need to make as little noise as possible As it you need to dampen the engines these types of things For an aircraft it doesnt matter how much noise it makes Just becose a nation can make great tanks doesnt mean they can make gread planes
I asked a Tornado WSO ten years ago how much longer they are even going to keep the radars on in the future. Nice to see that I wasn't completely wrong.
I think stealth with planes is a lot like active protection on tanks, there's this constant rocking back and forth between infantry anti tank weaponry and tank protection being more developed and driving each other forward. I think we're seeing a similar dynamic with aircraft but importantly because aircraft are so much more expensive than tanks it's maybe a slower cycle or maybe you'd say it's a bit more irregular
Except the difference is that... aircraft are expensive, adding stealth to an aircraft reduces capability while adding extreme cost. Detection equipment is electronic. Electronics are always getting cheaper with a faster turn around. Stealth features are here to stay but I suspect that few aircraft that are not intended to be deep strike in highly contested environments will rely less on it.
There is a huge drawback with tank active protection though, which can kill your own infantry, friendly targets. imagine you disembark your infantry protection and some old rpg flies to your direction and now you most likely injured and killed a lot of your own infantry, or how active protection does not work in very closed environment like its seen in gaza and how they most of the time must be turned off, when there is more friendly vehicles around. And with or without active protection, lone tank will be toast, sooner than later. So still not a holy grail its very difficult to defend nowadays and easy to destroy
Not it's not. Stealth worked because it reflected the radar beams in different directions than they hit the surface. Different radar frequencies are reflected differently by the same surface. Optimizing this reflection for one range of radar frequencies does not mean that you are also invisible in all other frequency bands. That's why multi frequency radars are so effective against stealth. Apart from radar-absorbing surfaces, which only reduce visibility, there is nothing you can do about this. It is simply impossible to create a shape that is equally invisible in all frequency ranges. That's why this form of stealth is gone for good.
@@marvin902x Not only that. The networking of radars is an even worse problem. As mentioned, the radar signals are deflected away from the transmitting source. If they are picked up by other receivers in a network, calculated, triangulated and displayed to others in the network they will get a plot. They will see the aircraft and be able to engage it. The network is the single largest contributor to that. On top of that we have new radars that makes it even easier to achieve that with still smaller networks.
Then someone came up with the idea of FPV drones fitted with anti armor warheads. The steppes become graveyard for leopards Challenger Bradleys and Abrams.
For sniping missions,special operations where you sneak in hit a target and get out when no one is expecting an attack,all out war maybe not an advantage but still a flying platform capable of launching missiles and bombs.
Silly question actually! Does finding 10 or more different cures for a particular illness stop research into other cures? Research into every domain is an ongoing precess. That's how new things are discovered and others are improved on! You sleep, you are left behind!
I've been wondering for years if they use buddy locking where the leader uses active radar, hangs back and his wing man closes with passive radar to get close and fire a missile. He basically confirmed it.
If you read RAF interviews over Libya, RAF Tornado were using Typhoon data to avoid SAM sites. Nothing new going on here, just using the current capabilities to their maximum.
Over Libya, one Rafale was trying to dodge an old MiG on it's tail. The pilot fired his missile, which looped around and killed the MiG behind him. The missile was guided by the radar from a second Rafale, too far away to hit the MiG in time. Dogfighting is still relevant, and networking really is a powerful tool.
Yea he pretty much confirmed it but we dont know what platform he confirmed it for. For sure any new platform can do this. I read his talk like this was what you did before but dont have to do amy more. I mean as far As I have understood Viggen had this capability or atleast the capability to share target data and to receive data from The command center.
Wow! Amazing interview, I agree that it was a privilege to be here hearing his thougths, knowledge and opinions. Maaan, Americans are going to get salty with some declarations.😂
@@XimCines "Maaan, Americans are going to get salty with some declarations." Americans are? Is that why everyone is buying the stealthy F-35 instead of the non-stealthy Gripen? Is that why both Russia and China are also investing and developing stealthy planes? There is nothing to be salty about, all this guy just admitted is they can't make the Gripen stealthy and are trying to make it sound like stealth isn't important, however as noted everyone else seems to acknowledge stealth is important.
Fantastically enlightening vlog. Congratulation to attract such brilliant persons to interview. That says something about you. You are the best aviation channel 👍❤️
5 หลายเดือนก่อน +6
Sum it up - stealth is made less relevant by L,VHF band and other EM (~datalink) 360 radar coverage, IRST, networking and acoustic sensors.
Absolutely the right questions asked and leeway given for the pilot to expand upon the general and the near-secret particulars as supporting evidence. The pilot made short work of 'generation' classifications as being marketing hype and, as a Swede, he had the right to do so. What has been notable about Swedish aviation designs going way back to the 1920s has been fitness for complex purposes and not aimed at too much mass production. Sweden itself is in the position of having to be extra careful about allowed air and sea space, which seems at variance with the quite low populations of Nordic countries. The fact is that the Baltic Sea and airspace above it is incredibly busy and history shows us that there were often more people traveling at sea than lived in some of the smaller states -- no matter which 'power' controlled them. I refer to the Hanseatic seaways and 'league' and what goods were moved from where to where and why. From mediaeval times goods were traded to and fro from the Neva river in the east as far west as King's Lynn, England, calling at the then more populated Baltic states, German, Danish, what are now Benelux countries and even a river link to mid-northern France into the North Sea. This was no exotic spices and silk route but was a time of ship building and that needed wood. The people of the eastern end took back wool from Lynn port and from parts of Denmark and a slew of other practical goods were used on this route until around 1700. At one stage the city of Norwich, Norfolk had a bigger population than London's. Riga and Tallin's trade was bigger than that of Hamburg. With aviation, especially in the context of big changes in Russia and Nordic states, let alone the Dutch and Belgian importance in WW2, who owned what at sea and in the air was confused. Sweden was nominally neutral and not all that popular with neighbors for several reasons but its possession of wood and metals made it a natural plane maker. Although at various times exporting aircraft locally Sweden needed to have advanced aircraft and not huge numbers of them for its own and local defense and also astonishing utility, such as landing on highways and having crew groups able to operate from under trees in all conditions. The more recent association with BAE has allowed for near perfecting the art of standing guard and relaying data, as the pilot said. Being more aware than most countries of Soviet then RF developments in EW from quite early on after WW2, the model described by the pilot had been predicted and damned near met by the time of the Gripen and it was interesting that the pilot seemed unimpressed by the F-35. From what he said, future use of aircraft will be more like Project Tempest than otherwise where there is always the matter of sheer numbers of flying things. Pilots in planes will be far less common than now as assets are controlled from the ground, under it and even under water. That said, some operations will need crew in aircraft able to organize swarms if centralized operation elements are 'down' for even a minute. As the pilot said more than once in context, things are scary.
The F-14D Super Tomcat's Hughes APG-71 radar had a Link 16 datalink capability, so that each pilot in a two ship or four ship had better situational awareness. However, the AIM-54C missile, while much improved over the original, still depended on its respective mother ship for command guidance until it reached terminal homing range.
Interesting interview. There's another aspect of the quality vs quantity issue, and that's persistence in the AO. You might have tech superiority and dominate the AO, but if you're operating a long way from home at the end of long logistical lines, and the operation is not short & sharp, your rate of readiness will likely decline as operations continue. If your enemy has 1,000s of platforms, your technologically dominant but shrinking force might be overwhelmed. For an historical parallel, think of the German air force in the Ukraine in July 1943. They dominated the fight for the first few days, but by the end of the first week of operations their sortie rate had so declined they could only support part of the front. The VVS just kept coming and by the end of the second week the German air force - regardless of tactical success - was irrelevant to the outcome.
ehhh, modern fighter radars can see you coming in from 200 miles out. And now they can shoot you down before you can even see them from that distance. It's not the same. It's also a reason that Stealth is still relevant. The author of this video seems to have no idea about what he's talking about. Maybe in 20 years he may have a point, but otherwise you're going to need a huge ground based radar with L Band that cannot be confused by a jammer in the slightest. And even then, you're going to need a missile that cannot be evaded or confused with chaff or flare or simple maneuverability. The cost of these systems as well as the capability to build these systems do not exist in modern China or Russia. It's like when Alexander the Great threatened to attack Sparta. The Spartans responded with the word "If". If somehow China or Russia can come up with these capabilities or buy the electronics necessary and the costs associated they might make it a tough fight. But reality is the costs alone rule it out. The abilities are beyond their capabilities. It's a weird argument, and weird cope logic by the guy.
·Thanks! it demands secure reliable datalinks which might have an added benefit of potentialy mitigating jamming-/+ spoofing of satelite -dependant geolocation and synchronization if you are operating in an area that is compromized by the opposition. Even "passive" sensor is "actively" sensing , and there might be scenarios when (especially if its location can be estimated albeit with limited accuracy) a deceiving data is "fed" to the algorithm without the ai being "aware" of it? In addition (and I am not a professional in this area and maybe its a misconception..): can a sensors array , that for itself is(lets assume) at a known position ,be used (with a safe and fast datalink) serve as a "triangulated" gps receiver/transmitter for an area where gps is unreliable?
This is how to do a "webcam" interview. I am very appreciative that you took original video and audio from the interviewee, and used that instead of showing us the tinny and crushed live webcam footage. Good production.
Being seen isn't the problem, being locked is. The point of modern stealth isn't too hide from being seen by any and all radar, it's to degrade the ability of smaller radar in missiles to get a positive lock.
And that is why he was talking about how multiple aircraft and radar stations can all help track and lock the target and guide the missile. The Gripen can literally fire the missile and then the AWAC or ground radar or 2 other Gripen fighters ALL see the same thing and all track from different angles and all compensate where the others 'fail'. So if one loses tracking the others still have it. This is all passive btw. If going active it's an even stronger "guidance'. Out in the ocean with 1 v 1 the stealth fighter would win because only one fighter to try and see it and source. But try flying an F35 into Swedish airspace with tons of sources tracking from sea, air, land. The gripen could be so far away it's beyond the missile range but already have the information because of all other sources tracking the target. I see it more as a defensive vs offensive thing. USA needs to force project and be able to try and penetrate defences. A Gripen is designed to work in defensive situation backed by tons of other sources of information. The whole F117 stealth bombers flying into Iraq 1990 air space with old ass radars. was magic back then. This doesn't hold up the same to an advanced nation with EW, ECM and all the radar capabilities and network centric real time sharing of data.
@@Swecan76 I feel like everyone here is kind of assuming a stealth aircraft is only using stealth. You all understand a stealth fighter after you step away the stealth element, is still a fighter equally or almost equally capable as ask other fighter aircraft right? What I mean is an F35 can also network track targets, it can and will also be operating with a whole fleet of other support aircraft. In that environment the stealth fighter is going to come out on top. The stealth capable nations are the same ones operating the newest highest end radars. Let's say you can all shoot eachother at 100km. You all have lock on eachother. But the squadron of F35s are going to have a cleaner lock on the squadron of Gripens, than the Gripens have on them at the same distance. Just pulling numbers out of my ass here, let's say it's a 10 v 10 and you all fire at the same time. You're likely going to lose more Gripens in that one Salvo than they are going to lose F35s due to missiles having a higher probability of losing lock on the stealth fighters. Let's say 5 down vs 7. Next Salvo is a 5 on 3 fight. The math just gets worse for the Gripen as the fight goes on.
@@Swecan76 now on with the rest of the math The only country sporting real stealth aircraft in meaningful numbers, is the same one that can field almost as many airborne radar systems as you can field ground based systems. They are the same one now building drone swarms that are also networked. They're fielding more aircraft on one or two carriers than you have in most other Airforces. And they are one of few countries with pilots who have actual combat experience. I know the Gripen is a great aircraft. But the math just isn't working in its favour. The only factor where it has a clear advantage is maybe carry capacity.
@@BringerOfD All this said, there would never be a war with USA and Sweden lol. But as for equipment, technology etc. USA is mighty. But Sweden is right there. Tons of it comes from Sweden and Swedish engineers. You'd be surprised how much collaboration in the military industry there is. The Gripen is not stealth as an air frame. But it has all the advanced ECM/EW and Data links as any modern fighter. I'd say F35 and Gripen is equal in that regard. Yes that is so. What I don't know is if F35 can be fully upgraded with all of it's components and radars etc. I'd imagine so. The Gripen can. The Gripen does have more carry capacity and better agility. Fairly small radar cross section. The F35 wins in radar cross section, but it's not as important today as the actual information and weapons systems are. This is a fact. Stealth is just something that is a part of most new fighters, like seatbelts on a car, lol. It works to an extent so you would still use it.
Dassault are developing a European 6 gen system in partnership with Airbus and Spain. That design is Stealthy. No doubt, like the F-35 also have excellent EW/ECM systems.
@@nickbrough8335 the cost of stealth forms has decreased due to better computer simulation systems. "stealth" will become the norm in many ways but some parts of stealth will be removed or compromised due to cost benefit analysis (compare f-117 vs F-22 stripped stealth features). Stealth is beneficial but due to the polynomial nature of radars and detection ranges, increasing complicated stealth nets less actual effect combined with early warning systems picking up stealth planes earlier via methods current stealth is ineffective against. TL:DR stealth is beneficial but is heavily over rated and is only now being developed as the cost of doing so is plummeting + buzzwords sell
I think that depending on state of play, and situation -- People have bound themselves to perception over reality. The west minus the US in terms of numbers have increasingly sunk high cost, shrinking fleets and capability - which pandering to an ethos of super weapons that by magic alone will provide winning state in conflict. Which engaging in warfare ops where nominally the opponents have very limited means to degrade that small force. (Syria, Afganistan, similar). This perception remains in place during extended peacetime, and with nominally only wear and tear losses, and where you can have utterly appalling avail rates, and failure to be operational across your tiny fleets. I will in this space give some elbow room to your learned Pilot Jussi and SAAB who in their platform, while making it highly technical, have managed to maintain viable availrates and flying hours on that platform. The same cannot be said for others. This perception won't survive a real war. Nor will these small fleets. To compound the failure in falling for the uber-weapon ideas, the small advancements are high technology, high cost, limited production. In every case, you now have 30 year old designs and productions made in handful of production batches and no fundamental mass production or industrial base to fill a rapid production rate crisis. I don't mean that 'some' exists. I mean its one and done, and the production lines close, or are tiny low rate with challenging supply chain problems that echo the same. Aside from the US (And this applies there too, but their size and production rates remain larger) - nominally any western airforce today that engaged in peer combat - with anything outside of minor skirmish losses - would cease to be an operative airforce in days. And would be years from getting back to operative working state. This has come about in a 2% era of spend in a world where economic debt is exploding. It has much to share with the 1920s rather than the 2020s. These small fleets of very high tech planes need to win on day 1,2,3,4,5 of any enlarged contest. They better be damn good, available, ready, with all the logistics to match, including fuel and ordanance and support. And they arn't. In too many cases they are baubles and ornaments. Now, if peacetime is maintained. I will be wrong. If its not, all bets are off.
@@burgundypoint yeah, the US was exposed in Syria a few years ago when Wagner used modern Russian equipment against a small SF FOB. Totally wiped the floor with the Americans didn't they?
Agree: low observability is an advantage. BUT... 1, It comes with a higher maintenance need, thus higher costs 2, It thus limits your fleet's size, especially if you want your pilots to have 200+ hours flight time per year 3, That said, the Gripen DOES have a lower signature compared to like the F-16. To cut a long story short: DIMINISHING RETURNS.
I mean that is just how everything works in life the closer you are to max efficiency the les you get incrementally, the same logic could also be applied to literally anything in the tech industry including radar such a thing is most obvious in video game speed running.
@@ASpyNamedJames yea that is also because the stealth can defeat the trackers on the missiles. It’s what I assume to be one of the reasons they us decided on the f22 because it had a better capacity to dogfight when it runs out.
Excellent interview, thanks for sharing! I really appreciate how transparent he was in answering your questions. Obviously some things he can’t say, but he did a superb job of saying what he could.
Just some additional information. Russia is claiming that the Irbis can track F22s at~100 miles over Syria, and we see a doctrinal change where Israel now only use standoff munitions against Syria with generally low altitude approaches in the Bekaa valley in Lebanon (ie no different from how they would use 4th gen fighters). The Chinese have demonstrated ground based multistatic radars that pretty much nullify the advantages of stealth completely (this is a known weakness in the stealth concept btw, but the Chinese have now implemented it.). F22s in Syria have also almost exclusively transitioned to using JASSMs or standoff munitions. What Jussi is saying is confirmed by changes in how the US and Israel use stealth fighters, as well as performance numbers provided by China and Russia.
@@niweshlekhak9646 Seems TH-cam is deleting answers that provide sources with links. See Air & Space forces magazine April 19th 2018 "AFCENT Says F-22s Flew Strike Cap, Basic JASSMs Used". That's where I got JASSM from. And the core argument remains, both operators of stealth fighters have changed how they use stealth fighters against enemies with air defences to only using standoff munitions. That doesn't mean stealth is irrelevant, in the case of jamming for instance a smaller target is easier to hide than a larger. But if components of networked based anti air structures can track stealth aircraft at longer ranges than the max range of the weapons onboard the target (as Russia and China have claimed to do already), then radar signature is not the deciding factor in crowning a survivor. And as mentioned above, the other side has already started to implement multistatic systems while stealth primarily is designed to defeat monostatic systems (it's simple geometry, it deflects the energy away from the direction it fame from in most angles).
@@niweshlekhak9646 So in the statements I have made I take it your only point of disagreement is the use of JASSM mentioned in the comment "using JASSMs or standoff munitions"?
We have innovations for novel ultra-efficient, high specific thrust turbo engines and are developing a small prototype. ...Satellites or pseudo-satellites will track the activity and relay it to the network so the active elements don't need to use own active sensors.
I can. SAAB has no dog in the fight. It's not selling anything at this point because it has nothing to sell. It's come to the point that stealth isn't economically justiable. As a taxpayer, I very much respect this. as a citizen of a country, maybe we should be picking our fights more wisely. Both are win-win scenarios. And in war, nobody wins.
@@hschan5976 F16 costs about 63 million, the Gripen costs 85. Nations who are looking for a non stealth fighter are not buying the gripen. Sort of how federal government has contracts with domestic car companies. France has the same thing with Saab. And this is why they truly have no dog in the fight. They have no stealth counterpart, and they don't profit from their honesty.
@@JohnSmith-bh8um that is not the world works, second of all SAAB is trying to sell its old fighter dressed up as modern fighter jet. With a copy cat of modern systems, while having basic understanding of the terms.
@@JohnSmith-bh8um if it were about the money, they would properly buy it from the Russians Seeing SU35 is properly alot better and cheaper. Trashing stealth to try to sell there own fighter jet and marketing is 5th gen capable except steal is pretty much having a dog In the race and dressing it up.
I am thinking teaming a not too stealthy aircraft like SU57 and very stealthy drone like S-70 seems a pretty great solution for the future (esp as drone platforms can be improved extremely fast)
I mean i get why people dont take su57 very seriously but cmon guys, usaf had stealth polygon planes made with ancient software in the 90s. F22 is also old as fck.
Stealth is not just radar reflection. There is optical (visible, IRR, and etc). There is also platform detection from AWACS with multi frequency detection, Satellites, fix system and high flying drones. I saw a paper where satellites can capture air current...couple that with AI for fix geographical area.
People talk about drone swarms but neglect to consider the cost to get them near their targets. The longer their range the larger they are the more expensive they are the easier the are to detect the more costly to transport them. It isn't simple to bring a drone swarm into the middle of the pacific ocean to sink a ship.
The US has been developing a system that releases a boatload of glide bombs or cruise missiles from a cargo plane. Of course, the cargo plane is a siting duck in itself. It cannot get too close to well defended targets, so it's not intended to drop little drones.
Maybe, but we saw just the other day what 300 drones and missiles did just the other day travelling over 1700 km. China could do this on scale many times over, no systems exist to stop it.
@@clusterofselves little drones have even less of a range. I agree with you there. Rapid Dragon can drop JASSM ER about 600miles, XR about 1000 miles. Boeing Revolver can launch hypersonic cruise missiles. I would assume those would have range well in excess of 1000 miles. None of these are cheap drone like weapon systems.
@@FairladyS130 "small ships" would need to have sufficient range, reliability, and communication to send and receive data. When you start building them, you will find that they become rather large and expensive and they will need a crew to maintain them. The US Nany is working on tech to have a drone ship that is reliable enough to operate for say one month with needing a crew to maintain the machinery. Not something that is easy. This would require redundancies and this mean, it will cost more, will be larger, and again the calculation becomes a drone that is larger and expensive. If it was trivial, every country would have them but it isn't. Also, if a large drone is sitting out there unprotected, it would be sunk easily. So, again, how would these drones be protected? You would need more defensive systems either placed on these drones or you would need another ship to defend the other drones.
What is often forgotten is that an airforce is not alone in a real war. if your enemy destroys your bases or radars with ballistic missiles, the you are back to dogfights.
However stealth an aircraft can be, it will always remain visible on the infrared spectrum because of the huge amount of heat that a jet engine produces.
I suspect that the NGAD has been delayed until the vulnerability to IRST can be significantly reduced. It will be too expensive to lose to simple IRST and a heat seeker missile, with software to distinguish between flares and engine heat.
For a 5th gen stealth fighter that is. It's why F-35 only having a single engine is stealthier in the IR spectrum compared to dual engine stealth fighter like J-20, Su-57, and even F-22. On the other hand big stealth bombers like B-2 can accommodate large high-bypass turbofan engines that produce less infrared signature compared to low-bypass engines found on fighter aircraft including 5th gen stealth like the F135 engine on F-35. Not to mention the engines are also deeply buried within the fuselage which helps minimize IR signatures both on the front and on the back.
Not so. Maybe true for Russian and Chinese aircraft but not American 5th generation aircraft. American stealth aircraft don't emphasize high speeds except in close combat and have special coatings to decrease atmospheric friction Engine intakes are serpentine to avoid radar reflections. Engine exhausts are cooled and partially shielded from detection at lower altitudes.
@@johnsilver9338 - Even a high-bypass turbofan has a turbojet at its core. A HBTF can dilute the turbojet hot exhaust flow to some extent but the turbojet produces hot gases at an amazing rate. Piston engines would produce much less heat than turbine engines but they could still be tracked with IR devices.
I have personally heard similar arguments from a couple of engineers of the Eurofighter program, some ten years ago. For them stealth was largely overrated and the reason of the insistence on it was marketing: politicians and other decision makers are so much sold to the supposed superiority of stealth that every program would have to include it - or pretend to - in order to sell aircraft.
@@kpsig The Eurofighter is a much older design, heavily influenced by Cold War mentality, with its own problems. That does not invalidate the arguments against stealth. I personally find the Rafale far superior, but I have serious doubts about the F35, which I consider over hyped.
@@m.a3914if using the radar in the first place makes you target from longer range than the radar can detect a nonstealthy fighter it is a bad idea to turn on the radar. So the stealth is protecting you from a radar that can not be turned on.
stealth: the ability makes it difficult to detect and lock on a fighter from long distances, hanging across the target's radar from clipping. strength: developed material that nullifies 90-100% the radar's energy the closer to 100% its invisible target radar, provided the target is not too close to the target. weakness: the opponent (too close) to the target feature does not prevent locking on the target with the radar. weakness: difficult to make it work at all Hz, almost impossible to cancel 100% Hz frequencies. weakness: radar development reduces Stealth power but never nullifies it. stealth: radar cross-section maximum critical distance to target be locked. Stealth benefit: always limits the distance from which the target be locked. bottom line: North Atlantic Treaty Organization this is not a problem everything is allies.
The power Stealth material depends on the frequency and distance + radat across cektions = distance Stealth material is completely invisible to the radar. distance too little Stealth material power is not invisible. Stealth material does not protect against all frequencies.
You forget the two most critical weakness of the current NATO F35 platform. Cost thus limiting the number of airframes and more importantly mission readyness/capability - due to complexity and high maintenance requirement, F35A about 50% to F35C 20%. This is fatal in high intensity war against peer competitor who does not have similar weakness.
@@GenghisX999Except all peer competitors have the same weaknesses or worse. Cost doesn't matter when you can outproduce and out-economy an opponent, and the f-35 costs less than an f-4 phantom did ages ago, when adjusted for inflation. The f-22 was produced up to 195 planes, and we moved on. Peer nations have struggled to get entire squadrons of competitive aircraft built to this day, with VERY few being made, and said aircraft having worse stealth properties. They also don't seem to have supreme readiness or use for Russia based on Ukraine so far, much less any sort of numbers advantage, cost advantage, or production advantage. Cost only comes into play if both sides are pumping out peer aircraft at equal speeds, which isn't happening.
I think it's worth pointing out a couple important things. One is that the Grippen has less than 1m^2 frontal RCS in air-to-air configuration (I think it's actually around 0.1m^2), and probably not much higher in air-to-ground configuration with stealthy standoff missiles. it also has a lot of passive sensors and highly directional LPI datalinks. SAAB does actually take reduced signature very seriously, they just decided not to go all in on radar stealth for sub 0.1m^2 RCS. The French Rafale was designed with a very similar philosophy on a larger platform. A state-of-the-art IRST system has a similar or better frontal aspect detection range against a Grippen compared to most fighter radars. I think it's also important to note that the US Navy has done public tests using an E-2D Hawkeye, which has a 7m UHF band antenna, to guide SM-6 missiles at extremely long range against air targets. Modern computational power allows for pulse compression and target localization algorithms that can generate a targeting quality track from a relatively small UHF band radar. That has a long enough wavelength that even something the size of the B-2 starts to lose some of its stealth. There is some real merit to the idea that radar signature reduction has diminishing returns and it's better to spend the money on sensors, electronic warfare, and more planes. On the other hand, the only Western air forces that have espoused that philosophy are also the only Western air forces that were designed to fly without USAF support. If you have US SEAD/DEAD to knock out difficult-to-move low-frequency radars and are fighting a country better known for SAMs than fighters, stealth still looks pretty good.
Great discussion and very informative. At least for those that took the time to listen carefully before writing rubbish in the comment section. 🙂 Thoughtful, mature and knowledgeable, your guest was excellent. Many thanks.
Amazing episode so much knowledge to gain from this interview, thanks so much Jussi. Russia and China have been saying for years about multiple tracks creating a picture.. It is one of the reason for L-band on SU-35 and SU-57. Lockheed Martin is going to be very upset with SAAB. The Russians always said it would be a mistake to sacrifice performance for stealth and from what Jussi said it would seem logic has been proven correct. It is all about algorithms now. The fact that Russia and China are ranked as the best 2 coding nations with Russian as number 1 at algorithms is a scary situation for the west. "Russia is the number one country for Algorithms, while when it comes to the top 5 in Ruby, it doesn’t even make it to the list. Poland ranked number one in Java, but in SQL, it’s not even in the top 5. On the overall score, China and Russia rank in the top position with the most talented programmers. Chinese programmers recorded the best performance in: Mathematics Functional programming Data structure Russian developers outperform other countries when it comes to algorithms. Shockingly, the US and India, which are usually the two locations debated among entrepreneurs to hire tech talent from, ranked below the #20 positions in all domains."
Well... we're all well aware that low frequency radars are capablee of detecting VLO aircraft. They dont howeever have precision to guide weapons, we all also know that. BUT, an strategy I've thought about, thus specialists have certainly thought about it way before is.. the fact that you can use an L or VHF band AWACS through datalink, suggests that you can know the general position of stealth aircraft. Those are difficult to detect because they absorb or deflect away, most of the radar volume (The volume of radiation), and while passive scanning, your radar is emitting radar wavas in a very wide angle, thus dispersing that volume in a huge area, and thats why radar has range, because the light, the radar waves will travel a lot further, but as the radar volume gets dispersed, you loosetracking capability. So, if you can know theres a VLO presence in a certain point in the sky, you can foccus your IRST and your main X band array, into that very small spot. all the radar volume is being foccused on a very narrow angle, thus increasing the radar volume into that spot, thus increasing the chances that, even though the VLO will deflect most of the incomming waves, enough radar waves will be reflected back for a track... Thats physically possible, and if I thought about it, a lot of you guys might have thought about it, and they definitely thought about it already.
Stealth feature in aircraft was 80's tech breakthrough.. Modern radars with powerful software partnered with long range IRST have made it simply ineffective at certain range.
So, software fuses the detection coming from separate sensors, then software classifies what's been detected and software recognition identifies target. Then, software interconnects with other sources of information and software prioritizes targets and creates superior awareness of the battlespace. Seems a good environment for AI learning.
If you're on the front line fighting in the woods.Would you choose to have a camouflage uniform or not? Stealth has less of an advantage as it once did, but it still has a slight advantage In a few engagement and a huge advantage in some.
it's one thing knowing a stealth aircraft is out there somewhere... it's quite another tracking it and sending a missile up its tailpipe. I may know Mike Tyson is upset with me, but knowing when it's coming and just how to dodge that left hook, is another thing entirely xD
Stealth doesnt mean invisible, more like less visible and harder to lock by standard radars. But new radars with modulated frequencies and networking make stealth less relevant. Still useful it can still save you and help you, but against modern air forces, it's far less relevant.
@@karakiri283 that's baseless conjecture; there has never been a situation where Russia or China have engaged and downed a modern stealth aircraft. They managed to take one down from the very first generation....when they knew it's route, when it was taking off, and managed to get a lock when it opened it's bomb bay. Remember, a lot of the media out there is ran by bots that take certain aspects out of context like the rafale or the eurofighter beating an F-22. They jump up and down and forget to tell you that the F-22 was handicapped in order to teach pilots how to engage and fight a modern stealth air superiority fighter. you see articles saying "The F-35 was reportedly targetted on radar" and they don't mention the reflectors that the jet has equipped (so that it is visible on radar, because they're not in combat conditions and you don't want them running in to civilian air traffic) Saab is making a sales pitch here, they're getting HAMMERED by the F-35 on the open market for fighter jets. So they're trying to downplay stealth in order to convince people to buy the Gripen. But the electronic weapons suite on the F-35 is a lot more powerful than the one on the gripen, due to the radar being something like 65 percent larger.
"Sending a missile up it's tailpipe..." Y'know some SAMs and anti air missile fall into the 'horseshoes and hand grenades' category, you get them up there in roughly the right direction, and a IR seeker will do the rest Perhaps multi-burn seekers that can revector and boost speed up again would be a upgrade to help deal with them that would still fit in current equipment and launchers
@@andrewpienaar4522 Stealth only works against guys that is not expecting for you? ps. One would track one stealth plane the moment they start taxi on the airfield.
Bottom line … F35 is an attack aircraft as primary role and marginal as a fighter … and with modern sensor types networked, stealth is much less reliable. What’s worse, once detected, an F35 is too slow to escape
Technological advances and lessons derived from the Ukranian War have led to the cancellation of the current US 6th gen as well ad the new copters. In the interim current platforms like F-22 will be upgraded. And one of the main factors in the discussion is the human-factor role and survivability ... they see changes are taking place faster than initially expected in those programs, thus to commit resources to short-lived developments
..maybe..except, you cant really jam and disable/take away enemy aircraft flown by pilot...drone thingy, sure, it can take more G's and all that stuff...until gets spoofed by gang of jammers and what not..
@eccosabanovic1589 for sure, and I am not a tech over humans in all areas person. I think there will be a need for people in the process. It's just getting to the point of multiple areas where human limits are impacting potential performance. So I could see AI assisted data processing, drone wingmen, remote operated elements. The near future is going to look very very different in armed conflict in general but in the air, I think things will change the fastest and most dramatically.
Here is one thing that is never mentioned in these Gripen clips; if FMV ordered a "stealth" fighter, SAAB could have built it. They didn't. They ordered the Gripen E.
@@jfiery I feel like if it was trivial we'd see a lot more F-117 clones, something that can sneak in to snipe SAM sites is a lot safer than going in with a flashing radar mirror.
@@Appletank8Because the alternative is to just have long range standoff weapons instead of something like the F117. Sure in the 80's the F117 could fly over enemy sam sites and drop JDAMs, but standoff air to ground muntions already existed, which significantly limits the value of a dedicated stealth strike aircraft. Why build a new plane, when you can just make new weapons and integrate them into your existing aircraft?
If that aircraft would be superior to an F-35 somebody would order that shit. Weirdly people are stumbling over each other to get their hands on a F-35. Meanwhile nobody orders Grippen. There is your answer.
...Im just going to say... interesting video. I respect your channel immensely. I have truly enjoyed your research and detail. This is a strange topic to present. For anyone truly in the know, countering anything presented... simply is not possible... for... reasons. All the best. Watching this is like watching a Hollywood movie where I want to complain at the movie screen, and my lady tells me to just enjoy the show. 😂 I understand your guest's pitch, but I may tease my friends at SAAB about this one. ❤
I mean look at variable geometry aircraft. It's pretty hard because they're almost all gone, replaced by digital flight control systems on fixed wing aircraft. Technology antiquates design philosophies all the time. Geometric stealth will be no different.
@@92HazelMocha The variable sweep wing was about efficiency not maneuverability. The B-1B was known for it's ability to fly for hours on standby efficiently & still have reserve fuel to dash supersonic across counties to deliver support. Both the B1 & Tornado are fly by wire highly agile platforms. Reducing radar cross section was the major driver behind replacing variable geometry wings. EU chose delta wings with canards. USA went with diamond wings all use a less efficient sweep angle that functions across a wide speed range. High aspect wings & winglets are not used on combat aircraft for the same reason. Even vertical tail surfaces are unlikely in the future.
We know for a fact modern gallium radars are improving faster than stealth. Your "RCS" of a bird gimmick can now be blown up and virtually locked by high amplitude super linear radars
Back in 2005, I applied to several major universities to be a PhD candidate in machine learning and data sciences. For a major UK university, I was offered the chance to work on sensor data fusion and remote command and control of a drone helicopter platform for the british armed forces. For a Singapore university, I was offered a project to fuse video, radar, gps and other sensory data in order to accurately track an air or ground target. That's what they believed was achievable 20 years ago. Imagine what can be accomplished these days. Addendum: I did not take up any such projects as I had zero interest in creating military technology.
Well, you enjoy a life provided to you by economic and military strength. Too bad that using your talents to maintain and improve those strengths is so distasteful for you.
They developed a fighter bomber with a radar return the size of a duck. Their opponent programmed their radar discrimator to highlight any duck exceeding 100kts.
Martyanov is a clown. Anyone that's heard him talk for longer than 10 minutes knows his flawed argumentation is based on half-truths, supposed insider information and logical shortcuts that no rational human being would ever make and present with any degree of confidence.
Stealth was not made to make an aircraft invisible, but to decrease the range at which it can be detected. Then, develop stand off weapons that can launch at a ranger greater than radar detection range. Stealth is still useful, but not a checkmate.
Very true
Yes but radars are getting better faster than stealth aircraft are getting better
The radar development is going really fast now. Most of today stealth fighters are developed with older radars in mind and the related frequencies used. This means the stealth fighters will be easier and easier to detect. In worst case the lifespan of a gen 5 fighter will be much shorter than for a gen 4 plane that is not depending on stealth.
it’s morons who believe it makes it invisible, then when they find out it’s not invisible they’re like “GOTCHA!” not realizing the whole point is just taking a few seconds longer to get a radar signature
right the value of stealth goes radically down when you are not fighting a low tech, full generation behind, foe, for example USA vs Iraq used as a proving ground for stealth was next to useless vs real world 1st order tech. of course the mic uses worthless examples like that, all the time, to justify it's continued spending operations.
Now let’s see what the marketing manager of Lockheed has to say about the importance of stealth.
If you've got a hook-up, I'm sure M7 would make a good interview with it.
When aerodynamic is being neglected... 🤣😂... a fundamental feature of speed and heavy lifting.. hmmmm.. yet how would I know.. I am just peace leader. Hmmmm.
total game changing 7th generation technology
The truth of the matter is: it's hard to know for sure. This area is extremely classified, so real hard information is hard to come by. Even if you are an expert who tries to answer this question for a living, and have access to all the classified information, you probably don't know for sure either. Different experts in this field could likely have different opinions. Eventually sensors will probably win the arms race with stealth. Sensors are getting better all the time and in the end there is only so much you can do to make a plane stealthy. Are we at the point where stealth is no longer relevant as Jussi suggests, or is that yet to happen? We don't know for sure.
On their track record, if Lockheed told me water was wet, I'd check.
What this guy really is saying is mother ships controlling large numbers of drones networked in 360 degree sphere with sat linked comms is the future of air dominance with boutique manned systems as needed.
and in a major conflict between advanced militaries and peer nations... satellites will be among the very first casualties. Both sides will be trying to blind their opponent and disrupt their chessboard view.
But what happens when the comms are jammed?
@@thurbine2411 Nothing. Effective Jamming requires so much in terms of dominance that it can be spooked by better algorithms, anti-radiation missiles, direct links, good pre-programmed practices and frequency modulations.
There will be no sats in the next world war.
@@Padtedesco but satellite signals are very weak compared to a good jammed that will also be closer. Maybe watch M7s video on jamming gps or whatever the name was.
I've worked on Radar for over many years. What stealth does is reduce the radar cross section to the size of a bird or an insect. The thing about this is coupling this with some type of radar jamming, even a little can cause any radar not see the stealth aircraft. It does need to be in-band of the radar searching for it. The discriminants are what make even a stealth aircraft visible such as doppler shift due to the the high speed. Also an external source would need to emit the radar signal from an emitter aircraft or ground system.
Yah the title of this video is fucking embarrassing. This guy is so full of shit it's hilarious.
It's very simple to test his conclusion. Why are China and Russia still trying to build stealth aircraft if it is no longer relevant?
Interesting. Presumably sensor fusion in the future across electromagnetic spectrum will render stealth less stealthy?
Oh yes. A bird that's travelling at mach 2 is no bird at all
@@thanhvinhnguyento7069 Ok, but you've turn down your filter so now you have a ton of noise coming in, so now you have to distinguish the unique bird sized signature from one scan to the next.
There's lot's of blah blah about max detection range under perfect scenarios, but if you can't get a consistent weapons quality lock, you need more radars to defend an area. And since coverage area decreases with the square of effective targeting range, that really decreases the area that you can reliably defend.
@@Sethgolas even 100% ignoring that
If stealth aircraft can be detected at 100 km then what about non stealth ones ?
Non stealth aircraft would then have to deal with long range missiles well behind freindly lines
If i had to choose between beeing detected at 500km or at 100 i would chose 100 every time
SAAB: Doesn't make stealth aircraft.
SAAB Representative: Stealth is not as important, as you think it is.
To be devil's advocate though, we really haven't seen stealth be the critical in combat for aircraft since the 1st gulf war.
@@jonahhekmatyar The thing that almost no one knows about the gulf war is that the 6 months before the first day was utilized to insure that everything after the first day. Major General Henry spent the first 6 months identifying every single electronic emitter in Iraq. That meant that on the first day they all went down and things progressed from there. th-cam.com/video/7lAT39crUs8/w-d-xo.html&pp=gAQBiAQB Electronic warfare is the key.
@@ulikemyname6744 I think the F-35 as a bomber is a bit of a ruse. Stealth will be crucial, but only in combination with operation at a long range from a frontline. Mass will also be crucial. Hence, the B-21 is actually the real deal because it can deploy drone swarms or glide bombs undetected from a very long range. The F-35 alone cannot do that.
At 14:52 "Stealth is no longer fully relevant" is a long way from "Stealth is no longer relevant", but Click-bait.
Probably more accurate to say "Networking is reducing the effectiveness of stealth".
In any event a non-stealthy adversary would be tracked much earlier than a stealthy adversary (who might never be tracked). .
@@ulikemyname6744 Oh yeah the military do not advertise to win those 1 tri contracts at all.
Now you know why the F22 is retiring and the F15 is still in production.....
TL; DW
In the era of data fusion, where an array of detectors deployed in different geographic locations detect some disturbance in the airspace, real-time data exchange and analysis between these devices helps to extrapolate the approximate position of the stealth aircraft. Once you know where to look, you can focus more sensitive detectors in that area (e.g. infrared detectors), and there's no hiding from them.
The other interesting thing is that in an air battle you can reveal your presence by turning on your radar, but this was previously essential to launch a missile. But today, thanks to data fusion, you don't need to turn on your radar, if another craft sees the target, you can launch a missile at it, which will be guided to the target by the other combat assets, not by your missiles or your aircraft's radar.
Stealth is obviously not obsolete, but it will undoubtedly face increasing challenges.
That might give you the answer why SU57's have sensor fusion in form of long wavelength radars, short wavelength radars, IRST, and even UV sensors
it also becomes a lot harder to spot a stealth aircraft when you have some ridiculously massive RADAR like the one in F-15EX flooding the airspace with massive RADAR signals and jamming. It's been described as "trying to hear a pin drop in a rock concert"
no matter how good your sensors are, there's just too much variance and modulation to account for to be able to filter down to an F35 sized target
Real expert
@@goddepersonno3782 This might work against passive radars but active radars capable of switching frequencies millions of times per second will NOT be fooled by an F-15EX, they're designed to only pay attention to their own signal and ignore background noise... not to mention the fact that accoustic/infrared sensors can't be jammed
This has to be the most comprehensive description in the entire comment section🎉 lol makes sense
Thanks!
data fusion is of using algorithm appropriately in order to get a coherent and relevant reality image- while the sources of ecm can be multiple and not l9cated on your fightet
Stealth is not meant to make an aircraft invisible, it is supposed to make an aircraft less detectable so a stealth platform uses stand off weapons to achieve a tactical or strategic objective.
This Channel has always pushed the same angle. It's narrative is always Beijing & Moscow aircraft are actually quite good & Western aircraft is good but not as good as everyones thinks. I unsubscribed years ago.
Gen 5 stealth main feature is you can't see any plane you can't afford to keep operational.
@@richardwilliams1986
Yet all of the West has stealth fighters
And China & Russia don't
The question is if it's worth the design compromises this stealth requires and the high maintainance load and upkeep cost it creates. And will the stealth designs keep up with radar improvements? I'm not a F-35 hater at all, but I think it's an interesting conversation.
Guy explains MiG31 tactics. One is tracking targets over long distance and his buddy flying high with very high speed is firing devastating long range fast missiles while staying passive and so fast, that it cannot be attacked.
Mig-31 today seens to be using its on radar in Ukraine
And that tactic was deemed outdated before Mig31 even came out due to advanced SAM's, so in today age of far more advanced systems it just doesn't make sense.
Yes, because Mig31 has had the hyped features that he referring to here for 40 years. The west is actually playing catch up in this sense.
Totally agree, looking at Soviet tactics with MiG-31 and friends 1983! ... battle network is not new!
To some extent, yes. Though Sweden developed roughly the same thing at the same time(yet another case of "when the technology comes, you get parallel and converging design evolution"), which then later in the 90s were improved by looking at anything the MIG-31 did better and try to oneup it.
I like how he says the F35 would probably be used in a SEAD role, a role which is the most hostile to an intradicting aircraft, but still stealth doesn't matter? Like is that aircraft more survivable or not in that situation because of the stealth attributes?
Yes for that very special mission stealth is better than non stealth .sweden don't design aircrafts to invade other country's so it's not an priority for gripenE
missile have longer range than the operational range of radar now. you can literally shoot before you enter the radar range.
@@cowe-ox2et Western aircraft are designed to stop Beijing & Moscow's Military from inflicting harm on every country that borders Beijing & Moscow
@@lagrangeweiAnd how exactly will you lock on to a target?
Being less visible and less easy to target.
Is always going to be an advantage
I think the title was basically clickbait here..and it worked! All the engineers at Boeing and Lockheed spending enormous resources on stealth...literally hundreds of very sharp people with a collective experience of a thousand industry years are mistaken in their design priorities...?? Not that there is zero chance it's fool's gold - look at the space industry and what Elon did pivoting in a different direction (ie re-usability, stainless steel). But these engineers have the super computers to do their modeling, access the real world experience, and real world sandboxes to test their ideas and they're spending their gold on stealth.
Yes, and being slow and less maneuverable add what?
It's an advantage for sure. The question is how much you have to pay for it and whether other ways to spend the money get you greater advantages. How to make best use of a limited resource?
What if there are too many eyes?
Reality is, everyone from Russia to China, Turkey and so on, are designing planes with these "stealth" body shape features. But maybe the word Stealth itself doesn't describe it well anymore. Maybe need to evolve to low signature or something
You Fight a Stealth Aircraft while it still on the ground.... That is the cheapest way
The most vulnerable part of a stealth aircraft is the tanker that refuels it, or the AWACs that guides it.
@@keffinsg
you don`t even have to hit any fighters, take out the tanker and you close the mission, reduce the combat radius or reduce the sortie rate significantly until another comes online.
@@keffinsg that's why US retires it's big AWACs planes in favor or decentralized network of radars and sensors on smaller aircrafts (wingman drones included)
BINGO !
Most stealth aircraft will be on the ground. You trained to do a 4 ship mission, now you discover the impact of 29% mission capable aircraft. You use the binomial probability calculator available for free on the internet and realize with 12 aircraft in your squadron you only have a 47% probability of mustering 4 ships for the mission. You calculate you need 18 aircraft to get an 81% chance of having at least 4 ships available. Now calculate the cost of 18 aircraft including maintenance, spares and upgrades (Billions of dollars)
stealth is still gonna reduce the signal to noise ratio. One with stealth is still gonna have an advantage.
The weakness of stealth however is that everything else has to be sacrificed in order for the plane to be "stealthy" . You can talk measures and countermeasures all you want but in the end of the day you are going to have to fit all of that into the internal bays of a "stealth" aircraft
B@@lolwutyoumadWhat ? US planes are on a whole level
@@AzAz-oz4ey why? Because west is inherently better and Asians are incompetent robots that can’t innovate anything on their own?
@@lolwutyoumad trading payload capacity and range for lethality and survivability sounds like a good trade
@@lolwutyoumadAn F-35 going "Beast" mode would still have a lower RCS than a non-stealth aircraft.
At 14:52 "Stealth is no longer fully relevant" is a long way from "Stealth is no longer relevant", but Click-bait.
Certainly with networking, your stealthy adversary can be made know to you long before your local sensors detect it, but even then, if the adversary was non-stealthy, they would become known even sooner. In any case, adversaries will avoid detection, and will use stealth to delay that detection as much as possible.
No doubt networking with remote sensing can reduce the benefit of stealth but there is no getting away from the fact that, not having stealth, puts your adversary at a distinct disadvantage.
This guy works for SAAB, hes making a sales pitch, they're getting smashed on the arms market by the F-35, so he's trying to downplay it, because he wants more countries to buy Gripens.
But just on the radar alone in the F-35 puts it far above the Gripen, and it costs just as little.
The Gripen might be a decent idea for countries that have a very poor logistics supply chain because the Gripen's main pitch is it's cheap to maintain But for any NATO country, the F-35 is by far and away a better aircraft overall.
The thing is that L band radar that the best planes already have are not affected by stealth. So you gain almost nothing by the expensive and fragile radar absorptive coating or the stealth geometry which is always a trade off from other features..
What he said is very true, stealth was something against 20 year old radar technology. Today it's a trade off that is barely justified against modern adversaries. Against jihadis it still works.
@@ExarchGaming But what he is really saying is that it's the way the sensors are used. Better or not at the individual level of each sensor. Stealth aircraft are designed to be stealthy from one direction. That is usually from a front aspect. What he is saying is that networked radars and sensors will make that difficult to maintain.
It's not like the old days when a emitter and receiver are placed on the same aircraft, or indeed on an aircraft. The signal doesn't need to bounce back to the same aircraft's receiver that was transmitting it. It can bounce off the stealth aircraft in a different direction (as stealth air frames are supposed to work). It can be received by any receiver in the network and be triangulated, calculated and displayed to any other that needs the information. That is how you will detect a stealth aircraft.
And SAAB had a suspicion that this would be the case since they started using data links way back when. Instead of committing to a structural stealth design, that would be problematic in the field and compromise aerodynamics, they choose to go all in in making an EW suite that would give the same results. And that would be easier to upgrade when new radars or weapons were developed. Ofc the aerodynamics are very important on an aircraft that must land and takeoff from improvised runways. That also means that any small airfield or straight piece of rode will do fine.. a huge advantage.
@@ExarchGaming F35 has only about 30 percent availability. Think about that.
You could always see stealth but you could not always get a launch quality lock
This is why the US Air Force is buying new and improved at 15s because they realize that if stealth is no longer so relevant. Then having a powerful maneuverable fighter like the F 15 that has all the hard points to carry a variety of different weapon. Systems is better than a stealth airplane that carries everything internally.. return to square one.
Not really, since the F-15EX are intended to function as missle trucks at stand-off distance. While the more advanced 5th generation fighters function as spotters, using their low observabillity and superior sensors.
It is like saying camouflage doesnt matter because you are not fully invisible. So everybody should wear neon orange uniforms!!
And the other stupid thing people say that drones make tanks useless. Its like saying bullets make soldiers useless. Dumb comments all around.
@@johndor7793 Yeah, especially when tanks turned out to be the most survivable vehicle against drone attacks and its the other vehicles that had very much harder time against them
Anyway, the trend nwo is to uparmor everythinmg lol
No, it's more like saying you nearly perfectly camouflaged a dozen fat chicks each carrying Barrett-fifty but with 4 shots each.
@@johndor7793 probably meant 'destroy' or 'kill' not unnecessary.
I see what you mean. That stealth black shirt can't hide that orange tie and pocket square combination.
how about.... make the aircraft RCS as big as a new york city and let the detection confuses :D
I believe they call that ECM. 😊
I guess what happens when you electronic jamming. You know they are there, but basically it just covers your whole data screen.
That is an actual strategy of radar spoofing pretty sure there are missiles that do just that (show up as AWACs or something large to distract fire)
As other people have mentioned, this is how active radar jamming works. The problem with active radar jamming is that, while it might disguise all of your allies, it makes you the biggest and most obvious target, (and the signal is most concentrated at the source, so you can't hide _yourself_ in the envelope,) which makes you that much easier to shoot down.
@@RamadaArtistI guess that’s why you have whatever is emitting as a cheap, disposable and easily replaced asset, preferably one which can have another deployed after the first is expended. Towed decoys, air-launched decoys or dedicated unmanned platforms designed to sponge up responsive fires and increase the survivability of your expensive things.
Thanks! I’ve wanted to buy you a coffee for awhile now. Find your in depth analysis to be fascinating.
Honestly I can see a point here. The missile’s BVR engagement ranges are getting so extreme that it makes more sense to make the airframes bigger and house better radars for the weapons then trying to sneak in. But that only holds up for so long, there is an upper limit to the size of the radar unless we are going to start attaching meteors to AWACS.
Why not?
Seems like that problem would be helped with datalink; AWACS can send target data to fighter aircraft, and Aim-120Ds or Meteors are built to make use of all the data.
Reality is that stealth is combined with ECM and other tech tho. Stealth isnt about making planes just invisible these days.
@@termitreter6545 AWACS survuvability in major conflicts is very low. You can't depend on them for targeting.
@@johnzach2057 not to mention their insane cost and and the fact they carry a whole crew
One of the key reasons why stealth was a big deal is the radar software filtering small 'noise' objects as those could never be actual aircraft.... But if you do have noise that is moving on a rather constant course and altitude at speed - software can, and should track that noise ;)
That's if the receiver's analouge part can deal with the low return signal in relation to it's own noise floor. Otherwise the software never sees it in the first place.
@@robertmartinu8803 that is correct but as this technology is basically known since the f117 one can assume that those receivers got better and better in that regard....after all there is no thread more dangerous then the unknown one.
Are you talking about the signal:noise ratio and the software that pulls that signal out of the noise? All radar is based on solving that problem, and no matter, it's still better to be a very small object.
It is the networking that more or less defeats stealth. When your transmitter and receiver doesn't need to be in the same place and the data can be gathered, calculated and displayed to anyone that needs it in the network you can not rely on stealth. The signal will bounce off the stealth platform,m in a direction away from the transmitter, as it is designed to do, and be picked up by another sensor in the network.
That's what the 4-ship network is for. The same bit of random noise following a course seen from 4 different locations is unlikely.
But if your enemy has a big ole radar that can see your 4 ship 200 miles away then it's not going to last long.
As everyone say Gripen doesn't have stealth. But reality it the radar cross section of a Gripen isn't that much bigger than a stealth aircraft. The reality is what gives a jet fighter away the most is when it's using active radar. So stealth kind of goes out the window. Radar technology today is advanced.
So many sensors and ability to passively get the information and from multiple pinpointing sources, stealth goes out the window.
And if Gripen has a radar cross section of a beach ball and a stealth F35 has one the size of a seagull. Sure the F35 has a smaller cross section. But how big of a difference does that make when you have 3-4 sources from all angles that can see even just a tiny part of that cross section but still create a picture and track it because multiple sources communicate.
Data-link and network centric air warfare SAAB is really good at. Their sensor and data technology is equal to the F35.
So all we're talking about here is the 'air frame'. It's not some kind of magic solution today because you have a 'stealthy look" to the plane. This is 80s-90s thinking. Back when jet fighters were alone and only saw what they could see when actively scanning forward basically. When stealth really was devastating think the first Gulf war with the F117 stealth bomber and B1 bomber etc.
Today they are not "invisible'.
So it's all about information/data.
stealthy look 😂👍
Stealth is merely ONE tool in your tool box. These discussions, especially the ones at higher levels are exceedingly important towards envisioning and producing the next measures and countermeasures.
The channel is great. The quality of the videos is super. Keep up the good work
I think Saab could easily have made stealth if they thought it was worth it..just make a Turkish/Korean looking Grippen...so it makes sense that hes saying its more cost effective to go for electronics unless you're making a really expensive air superiority plane..
Radioelectronic PhD working in electronic warfare here ... Steath is doing just fine. It is no longer a cheat code like in 90´s, but it will help. And a bit of help, in combination with large data merging, tactics, long range weapons and active EW will give you the critical edge. Problem is that people still believe that a magical steath plane will just fly straight over the Moscow or Beijing with noone spotting them. But if you can lock enemy jet from 60 km by missile with range of 100 km without being spotted, turn around defensive, blasting smart response jammers ... that is what you want.
Good point about ability to turn defensive while still providing a track to a missile. Do advanced fighters with AESA like the F35 or Gripen still suffer from an equivalent of the 'gimbal limit' or can they hand over the tracking job to rearward facing AESA panels or other sensors after turning away?
Or UAV spotting with non stealth aircraft launching stand-off weapon from miles away like what Russian did with glide bomb in Ukraine
like the one in belgrade aviation museum?
Stealth has downsides- small payload, high maintenance cost, difficult production. If the advantages are not enormous , then does it still make sense?
@@CraigTheBrute-yf7no no doesn't. B-2 has more payload than the new B-21. F-35 maintenance cost is similar to the F-15EX. production isn't difficult, hundreds have been produced. there was an huge advantage of stealth. technology evolves. radar technology evolved to detect stealth at longer ranges. B-21 will be even more stealthy than previous stealth aircraft. stealth isn't invisible. so yea it does make sense. now, every country has it's doctrine and it's own objectives.
This was truly great Gus. The effort you put into finding a real expert (no doubt of a jet you have tremendous respect for) as well as the quality of video used in editing (using high bitrate video that "Jussi" had to provide in addition to the video conference, perhaps).
Definitely hope you're able to do more of these.
A surprising takeaway was that it sounds like Low Probability of Intercept RADAR is unreliable. And for those shocked by stealth's (LO) dwindling utility, remember, Russia's had no problem shooting down sub 0.1 meter RCS cruise missiles.
on may 19 1999 in serbia, a b-2 spirit stealth bomber and an f-117 nighthawk stealth fighter were shot down
Stealth is most important in stealthily draining money from every customer when they try to maintain the aircraft airworthy.
that there is a very real issue
@@Sir_Godz And it's one that the US neglects because more money for them.
Why are countries like China developing their own, and why do many NATO countries ditched other alternatives and instead opted to buy F-35s?
@@terminatoratrimoden1319 NATO countries have to have systems compatible with the F-35. They have no real choice.
@@FairladyS130 Standardization Agreement, they operate compatible equipment and ammunition in almost every way.
They could buy more Eurofighters, they could buy more F-16s or Rafales, but they went for the F-35
The USAF General before Covid hit the US, had a presser where he said Speed was the new stealth.
What he meant by speed is up for the debate but assuredly it meant two things - speed of aircraft, literal speed. And it also meant 'speed of production'.
They want to make new airframes sooner and stop with long term 35+ year sustainment cycles. It's faster to just buy new designs within 10 years and then also cheaper.
And speed is something we can readily improve on. We lack speed because stealth materials are not effective due to high friction blowing the RAM apart.
So we sacrificed speed FOR stealth. But now with Hypersonics and weapon interceptor tests and field use for years now? We have proof that the faster you go, the harder you are to hit, even if the enemy sees you.
And it still allows for what's called "First Hit Kill' as well.
FHK is what stealth sacrificed speed for? By allowing us to shoot first kill first.
Speed can do the same thing however, because speed translates to inertia and momentum and those transferable traits can be given to munitions. Meaning, the faster you can go while deploying a munition? Means the munition will fly even further? And even faster. Thus hitting first, killing first.
FHK fullfill.
Old principles are coming back.
Speed is Life..
But speed costs less and is less glamours than stealth
You can't deploy a munition to target something you cannot see.
Hypersonic missiles do not currently exist as envisioned.
Even the good American stuff still suffers from the whole you can't really make materials that can maneuver at hypersonic speeds at standard atmosphere. You can do it in thin atmosphere but once you get to the terminal approach you have to just basically go "ballistic" and be vulnerable to patriots and sm6 missile intercepts.
Even if you were to overcome this materials issue with exotics your going to have two others issues still. One is that at that speed your going to run into an issue with the interference with atmosphere such that you cannot use a terminal guidance radar to guide your weapon in or communicate with a nearby platform to use theirs.
Then there's the much simpler issue of such exotic stuff will be super expensive and you'll only be able to manufacture a couple a month making them too limited.
And of course all the speed in the world won't help your radar see something.
And you can NEVER make a manned platform that can outrun and outmaneuver a unmanned guided missile.
You will wind up inside what is the inescapable window of a missile where only ECM can save you because the missile cannot physically be jinked, only confused.
@@sparkzbarca "Hypersonic missiles do not currently exist as envisioned."
Russian zircon missile has even been used in Ukraine. I'm finding very little on the western side about hard data yet (though there is Ukraine claims which I doubt due to the fake Kinzhal debacle) but it is operational and without the booster requirement would be an interesting missile as an aviation weapon at about half the Kinzhal size.
@@mitchellcouchman1444 so the zircon does go Mach 9 but slows to half that in the terminal phase and it does that because it would come apart if it entered the denser air at Mach 9.
If you think the zircon can penetrate patriot you have to explain why they aren't using them to target the Patriots.
They did by the way try to attack the Patriots directly when they very first deployed and it failed so badly and was so embarrassing that they stopped. Putin also then went within a week and rounded up several of the scientists and people involved in the zircon and kenzal programs and charged them with espionage and treason stuff.
There's a reason that Russia has lost dozens of s300/s400 and even part of s500 batteries but Ukraine has only lost a few launcher components of patriots.
The Patriot is a much more capable system.
The s400 is solid especially against older stuff, I'm sure the f16 will find them a real problem.
But the zircon is not capable of maneuvering at Mach 9 at sea level.
That's not a huge dig, pretty positive the US version can't either. But hypersonics currently just go ballistic at the terminal phase and those can already be defeated by the sm6 and Patriot missiles.
That's why Russia isn't trying massively increase production of the zircon and use them to target anti air systems.
They are doing so with systems that work like the EW systems which really did protect against GPS munitions for example
@@mitchellcouchman1444 so the zircon is hypersonic in the sense that it can go very fast at Mach nine and unlike the kenzal it can even maneuver and isn't just a ballistic missile. But it still can't do so at the low altitude terminal phase when it's targeted for interception and most vulnerable. Defeating the point of a hypersonic
Magnificent interview with great questions and answers! Been taking notes like an apt pupil! Thank you both very much.
GEN5 engagements logic lowkey looking like submarine warfare !
Stay silent, stay passive, keep SA high, but keep profile/signature low and shoot without using "active" means and run away
There's some pattern and links to be made
And Sweden is king in submarine warfare staying passive and undetected.
@@Swecan76the diffrence is that in submarines to be stealthy you need to make as little noise as possible
As it you need to dampen the engines these types of things
For an aircraft it doesnt matter how much noise it makes
Just becose a nation can make great tanks doesnt mean they can make gread planes
I asked a Tornado WSO ten years ago how much longer they are even going to keep the radars on in the future. Nice to see that I wasn't completely wrong.
Highly interesting interview, thank you.
Wow this really brought out all the keyboard experts😂
What would you like to know?
Heh heh heh...
Not to say the "keyboard *warriors*"! 😉
@@glennllewellyn7369 😂😂
And the vain
This was great. Thank you both, coming from a DCS armchair pilot 🤣
The Swedish man is incredibly intelligent and always values the input of his advisers never say yeah we're better than east etc.
Glad to hear from the DCS experts. I'm sure actual fighter pilots are learning a lot from them.
I am not sure all are DCS EXPERTS, just patriotic fanboys. Like playstation vs xbox.
I think stealth with planes is a lot like active protection on tanks, there's this constant rocking back and forth between infantry anti tank weaponry and tank protection being more developed and driving each other forward. I think we're seeing a similar dynamic with aircraft but importantly because aircraft are so much more expensive than tanks it's maybe a slower cycle or maybe you'd say it's a bit more irregular
Except the difference is that... aircraft are expensive, adding stealth to an aircraft reduces capability while adding extreme cost.
Detection equipment is electronic. Electronics are always getting cheaper with a faster turn around.
Stealth features are here to stay but I suspect that few aircraft that are not intended to be deep strike in highly contested environments will rely less on it.
There is a huge drawback with tank active protection though, which can kill your own infantry, friendly targets. imagine you disembark your infantry protection and some old rpg flies to your direction and now you most likely injured and killed a lot of your own infantry, or how active protection does not work in very closed environment like its seen in gaza and how they most of the time must be turned off, when there is more friendly vehicles around. And with or without active protection, lone tank will be toast, sooner than later. So still not a holy grail its very difficult to defend nowadays and easy to destroy
Not it's not. Stealth worked because it reflected the radar beams in different directions than they hit the surface. Different radar frequencies are reflected differently by the same surface. Optimizing this reflection for one range of radar frequencies does not mean that you are also invisible in all other frequency bands. That's why multi frequency radars are so effective against stealth. Apart from radar-absorbing surfaces, which only reduce visibility, there is nothing you can do about this. It is simply impossible to create a shape that is equally invisible in all frequency ranges. That's why this form of stealth is gone for good.
@@marvin902x Not only that. The networking of radars is an even worse problem. As mentioned, the radar signals are deflected away from the transmitting source. If they are picked up by other receivers in a network, calculated, triangulated and displayed to others in the network they will get a plot. They will see the aircraft and be able to engage it. The network is the single largest contributor to that. On top of that we have new radars that makes it even easier to achieve that with still smaller networks.
Then someone came up with the idea of FPV drones fitted with anti armor warheads. The steppes become graveyard for leopards Challenger Bradleys and Abrams.
If stealth aircraft are irrelevant, why does every world power continue to manufacture and develop them?
For sniping missions,special operations where you sneak in hit a target and get out when no one is expecting an attack,all out war maybe not an advantage but still a flying platform capable of launching missiles and bombs.
Not every aircraft maker strives to make stealth plane, the Russians opted for agility instead of stealthiness
Why does Nike sell t-shirt for $100? Because people buy brand, not quality…
Silly question actually! Does finding 10 or more different cures for a particular illness stop research into other cures? Research into every domain is an ongoing precess. That's how new things are discovered and others are improved on! You sleep, you are left behind!
Because they have fallen for the marketing scam
He has valid points. Stealth is expensive and must be considered against lower cost drone technology, vision and fused systems.
I've been wondering for years if they use buddy locking where the leader uses active radar, hangs back and his wing man closes with passive radar to get close and fire a missile. He basically confirmed it.
If you read RAF interviews over Libya, RAF Tornado were using Typhoon data to avoid SAM sites. Nothing new going on here, just using the current capabilities to their maximum.
The buddy wingman will be AI stealth drone swarms.
Over Libya, one Rafale was trying to dodge an old MiG on it's tail. The pilot fired his missile, which looped around and killed the MiG behind him. The missile was guided by the radar from a second Rafale, too far away to hit the MiG in time. Dogfighting is still relevant, and networking really is a powerful tool.
Yea he pretty much confirmed it but we dont know what platform he confirmed it for. For sure any new platform can do this. I read his talk like this was what you did before but dont have to do amy more.
I mean as far As I have understood Viggen had this capability or atleast the capability to share target data and to receive data from The command center.
It may provide location, not lock.
Wow! Amazing interview, I agree that it was a privilege to be here hearing his thougths, knowledge and opinions.
Maaan, Americans are going to get salty with some declarations.😂
I feel humiliated a Finnish person is doing Swedish propaganda, needs to be sent to prison for treason.
@@skankhunt38 What? Please explain your thoughts.
@@XimCines Its local thing you would not understand or have a clue.
@@XimCines "Maaan, Americans are going to get salty with some declarations."
Americans are? Is that why everyone is buying the stealthy F-35 instead of the non-stealthy Gripen? Is that why both Russia and China are also investing and developing stealthy planes?
There is nothing to be salty about, all this guy just admitted is they can't make the Gripen stealthy and are trying to make it sound like stealth isn't important, however as noted everyone else seems to acknowledge stealth is important.
No one wants the Gripen bro.
Always bringing excellent content! BtW, the editing with the subtle use of floating keywords and terms gave the video a very professional touch.
Fantastically enlightening vlog. Congratulation to attract such brilliant persons to interview. That says something about you. You are the best aviation channel 👍❤️
Sum it up - stealth is made less relevant by L,VHF band and other EM (~datalink) 360 radar coverage, IRST, networking and acoustic sensors.
Absolutely the right questions asked and leeway given for the pilot to expand upon the general and the near-secret particulars as supporting evidence.
The pilot made short work of 'generation' classifications as being marketing hype and, as a Swede, he had the right to do so.
What has been notable about Swedish aviation designs going way back to the 1920s has been fitness for complex purposes and not aimed at too much mass production. Sweden itself is in the position of having to be extra careful about allowed air and sea space, which seems at variance with the quite low populations of Nordic countries. The fact is that the Baltic Sea and airspace above it is incredibly busy and history shows us that there were often more people traveling at sea than lived in some of the smaller states -- no matter which 'power' controlled them. I refer to the Hanseatic seaways and 'league' and what goods were moved from where to where and why. From mediaeval times goods were traded to and fro from the Neva river in the east as far west as King's Lynn, England, calling at the then more populated Baltic states, German, Danish, what are now Benelux countries and even a river link to mid-northern France into the North Sea. This was no exotic spices and silk route but was a time of ship building and that needed wood. The people of the eastern end took back wool from Lynn port and from parts of Denmark and a slew of other practical goods were used on this route until around 1700. At one stage the city of Norwich, Norfolk had a bigger population than London's. Riga and Tallin's trade was bigger than that of Hamburg.
With aviation, especially in the context of big changes in Russia and Nordic states, let alone the Dutch and Belgian importance in WW2, who owned what at sea and in the air was confused. Sweden was nominally neutral and not all that popular with neighbors for several reasons but its possession of wood and metals made it a natural plane maker.
Although at various times exporting aircraft locally Sweden needed to have advanced aircraft and not huge numbers of them for its own and local defense and also astonishing utility, such as landing on highways and having crew groups able to operate from under trees in all conditions.
The more recent association with BAE has allowed for near perfecting the art of standing guard and relaying data, as the pilot said. Being more aware than most countries of Soviet then RF developments in EW from quite early on after WW2, the model described by the pilot had been predicted and damned near met by the time of the Gripen and it was interesting that the pilot seemed unimpressed by the F-35.
From what he said, future use of aircraft will be more like Project Tempest than otherwise where there is always the matter of sheer numbers of flying things. Pilots in planes will be far less common than now as assets are controlled from the ground, under it and even under water.
That said, some operations will need crew in aircraft able to organize swarms if centralized operation elements are 'down' for even a minute.
As the pilot said more than once in context, things are scary.
Stealth is one aspect. The smaller the stealthier naturally. Ergo: Build stealthy drones (unmanned) or small aircraft (manned)....like the Gripen. 😁
This channel is ... GOLD ! Keep up the excellent and relevant work ! 🫡
The F-14D Super Tomcat's Hughes APG-71 radar had a Link 16 datalink capability, so that each pilot in a two ship or four ship had better situational awareness. However, the AIM-54C missile, while much improved over the original, still depended on its respective mother ship for command guidance until it reached terminal homing range.
Thanks!
Interesting interview. There's another aspect of the quality vs quantity issue, and that's persistence in the AO. You might have tech superiority and dominate the AO, but if you're operating a long way from home at the end of long logistical lines, and the operation is not short & sharp, your rate of readiness will likely decline as operations continue. If your enemy has 1,000s of platforms, your technologically dominant but shrinking force might be overwhelmed. For an historical parallel, think of the German air force in the Ukraine in July 1943. They dominated the fight for the first few days, but by the end of the first week of operations their sortie rate had so declined they could only support part of the front. The VVS just kept coming and by the end of the second week the German air force - regardless of tactical success - was irrelevant to the outcome.
ehhh, modern fighter radars can see you coming in from 200 miles out. And now they can shoot you down before you can even see them from that distance. It's not the same.
It's also a reason that Stealth is still relevant. The author of this video seems to have no idea about what he's talking about.
Maybe in 20 years he may have a point, but otherwise you're going to need a huge ground based radar with L Band that cannot be confused by a jammer in the slightest. And even then, you're going to need a missile that cannot be evaded or confused with chaff or flare or simple maneuverability.
The cost of these systems as well as the capability to build these systems do not exist in modern China or Russia.
It's like when Alexander the Great threatened to attack Sparta. The Spartans responded with the word "If".
If somehow China or Russia can come up with these capabilities or buy the electronics necessary and the costs associated they might make it a tough fight. But reality is the costs alone rule it out. The abilities are beyond their capabilities.
It's a weird argument, and weird cope logic by the guy.
·Thanks!
it demands secure reliable datalinks which might have an added benefit of potentialy mitigating jamming-/+ spoofing of satelite -dependant geolocation and synchronization if you are operating in an area that is compromized by the opposition.
Even "passive" sensor is "actively"
sensing , and there might be scenarios when (especially if its location can be estimated albeit with limited accuracy) a deceiving data is "fed" to the algorithm without the ai being "aware" of it?
In addition (and I am not a professional in this area and maybe its a misconception..):
can a sensors array , that for itself is(lets assume) at a known position ,be used (with a safe and fast datalink) serve as a "triangulated" gps receiver/transmitter for an area where gps is unreliable?
Way too much! Thanks! Yes triangulation happens but it is more complicated than this.
This is how to do a "webcam" interview. I am very appreciative that you took original video and audio from the interviewee, and used that instead of showing us the tinny and crushed live webcam footage. Good production.
Being seen isn't the problem, being locked is. The point of modern stealth isn't too hide from being seen by any and all radar, it's to degrade the ability of smaller radar in missiles to get a positive lock.
Not long and rockets will guided by off-radars, near enough to lock on heat-signature.
And that is why he was talking about how multiple aircraft and radar stations can all help track and lock the target and guide the missile. The Gripen can literally fire the missile and then the AWAC or ground radar or 2 other Gripen fighters ALL see the same thing and all track from different angles and all compensate where the others 'fail'. So if one loses tracking the others still have it. This is all passive btw. If going active it's an even stronger "guidance'.
Out in the ocean with 1 v 1 the stealth fighter would win because only one fighter to try and see it and source. But try flying an F35 into Swedish airspace with tons of sources tracking from sea, air, land. The gripen could be so far away it's beyond the missile range but already have the information because of all other sources tracking the target.
I see it more as a defensive vs offensive thing. USA needs to force project and be able to try and penetrate defences. A Gripen is designed to work in defensive situation backed by tons of other sources of information. The whole F117 stealth bombers flying into Iraq 1990 air space with old ass radars. was magic back then. This doesn't hold up the same to an advanced nation with EW, ECM and all the radar capabilities and network centric real time sharing of data.
@@Swecan76 I feel like everyone here is kind of assuming a stealth aircraft is only using stealth. You all understand a stealth fighter after you step away the stealth element, is still a fighter equally or almost equally capable as ask other fighter aircraft right?
What I mean is an F35 can also network track targets, it can and will also be operating with a whole fleet of other support aircraft. In that environment the stealth fighter is going to come out on top. The stealth capable nations are the same ones operating the newest highest end radars.
Let's say you can all shoot eachother at 100km. You all have lock on eachother. But the squadron of F35s are going to have a cleaner lock on the squadron of Gripens, than the Gripens have on them at the same distance. Just pulling numbers out of my ass here, let's say it's a 10 v 10 and you all fire at the same time. You're likely going to lose more Gripens in that one Salvo than they are going to lose F35s due to missiles having a higher probability of losing lock on the stealth fighters. Let's say 5 down vs 7. Next Salvo is a 5 on 3 fight. The math just gets worse for the Gripen as the fight goes on.
@@Swecan76 now on with the rest of the math The only country sporting real stealth aircraft in meaningful numbers, is the same one that can field almost as many airborne radar systems as you can field ground based systems. They are the same one now building drone swarms that are also networked. They're fielding more aircraft on one or two carriers than you have in most other Airforces. And they are one of few countries with pilots who have actual combat experience.
I know the Gripen is a great aircraft. But the math just isn't working in its favour. The only factor where it has a clear advantage is maybe carry capacity.
@@BringerOfD All this said, there would never be a war with USA and Sweden lol.
But as for equipment, technology etc. USA is mighty. But Sweden is right there. Tons of it comes from Sweden and Swedish engineers. You'd be surprised how much collaboration in the military industry there is.
The Gripen is not stealth as an air frame. But it has all the advanced ECM/EW and Data links as any modern fighter. I'd say F35 and Gripen is equal in that regard. Yes that is so. What I don't know is if F35 can be fully upgraded with all of it's components and radars etc. I'd imagine so. The Gripen can. The Gripen does have more carry capacity and better agility. Fairly small radar cross section. The F35 wins in radar cross section, but it's not as important today as the actual information and weapons systems are. This is a fact.
Stealth is just something that is a part of most new fighters, like seatbelts on a car, lol. It works to an extent so you would still use it.
Saab approach seems to align well with what Dassault is doing, as well as Sukhoi. Likely, there is a good bit of common sense behind their approach.
Dassault are developing a European 6 gen system in partnership with Airbus and Spain. That design is Stealthy. No doubt, like the F-35 also have excellent EW/ECM systems.
@@nickbrough8335 well let us hope they have the finances to sustain that sort of a project.
@@nickbrough8335 the cost of stealth forms has decreased due to better computer simulation systems. "stealth" will become the norm in many ways but some parts of stealth will be removed or compromised due to cost benefit analysis (compare f-117 vs F-22 stripped stealth features). Stealth is beneficial but due to the polynomial nature of radars and detection ranges, increasing complicated stealth nets less actual effect combined with early warning systems picking up stealth planes earlier via methods current stealth is ineffective against.
TL:DR stealth is beneficial but is heavily over rated and is only now being developed as the cost of doing so is plummeting + buzzwords sell
@@nickbrough8335 emphasis on "developing", i.e. not mass-producing.
@@alexpyattaev hard to know how many be built at this stage.
Thanks Jussi! Much appreciated. 👍
I think that depending on state of play, and situation --
People have bound themselves to perception over reality. The west minus the US in terms of numbers have increasingly sunk high cost, shrinking fleets and capability - which pandering to an ethos of super weapons that by magic alone will provide winning state in conflict. Which engaging in warfare ops where nominally the opponents have very limited means to degrade that small force. (Syria, Afganistan, similar).
This perception remains in place during extended peacetime, and with nominally only wear and tear losses, and where you can have utterly appalling avail rates, and failure to be operational across your tiny fleets. I will in this space give some elbow room to your learned Pilot Jussi and SAAB who in their platform, while making it highly technical, have managed to maintain viable availrates and flying hours on that platform.
The same cannot be said for others.
This perception won't survive a real war. Nor will these small fleets. To compound the failure in falling for the uber-weapon ideas, the small advancements are high technology, high cost, limited production. In every case, you now have 30 year old designs and productions made in handful of production batches and no fundamental mass production or industrial base to fill a rapid production rate crisis. I don't mean that 'some' exists. I mean its one and done, and the production lines close, or are tiny low rate with challenging supply chain problems that echo the same.
Aside from the US (And this applies there too, but their size and production rates remain larger) - nominally any western airforce today that engaged in peer combat - with anything outside of minor skirmish losses - would cease to be an operative airforce in days. And would be years from getting back to operative working state.
This has come about in a 2% era of spend in a world where economic debt is exploding. It has much to share with the 1920s rather than the 2020s. These small fleets of very high tech planes need to win on day 1,2,3,4,5 of any enlarged contest. They better be damn good, available, ready, with all the logistics to match, including fuel and ordanance and support.
And they arn't. In too many cases they are baubles and ornaments.
Now, if peacetime is maintained. I will be wrong. If its not, all bets are off.
Relevant against farmers with AKs.. the type of enemy the US military is used to
@@burgundypoint yeah, the US was exposed in Syria a few years ago when Wagner used modern Russian equipment against a small SF FOB. Totally wiped the floor with the Americans didn't they?
@@jfiery i heard the few wagners that survived received awards...for surviving LOL - FAFO.
Great interview! Many thanks for both of you. I loved it!
Agree: low observability is an advantage. BUT...
1, It comes with a higher maintenance need, thus higher costs
2, It thus limits your fleet's size, especially if you want your pilots to have 200+ hours flight time per year
3, That said, the Gripen DOES have a lower signature compared to like the F-16.
To cut a long story short: DIMINISHING RETURNS.
I mean that is just how everything works in life the closer you are to max efficiency the les you get incrementally, the same logic could also be applied to literally anything in the tech industry including radar such a thing is most obvious in video game speed running.
A big tradeoff especially when a single hypersonic missile can compromise half dozens of stealth planes on the airfield.
Another trade off I've noticed is that stealth = less payload. Having fewer missiles is becoming more and more of a liability in air combat.
@@ASpyNamedJames yea that is also because the stealth can defeat the trackers on the missiles. It’s what I assume to be one of the reasons they us decided on the f22 because it had a better capacity to dogfight when it runs out.
Great Video! As an old (55 years ago) US Army attack helicopter pilot, the only sensors we had were the eyeball. Need more from this man!
Excellent interview, thanks for sharing!
I really appreciate how transparent he was in answering your questions. Obviously some things he can’t say, but he did a superb job of saying what he could.
Thank you Gus, Jussi and Saab for an excellent video. Cheers from NZ🇳🇿.
We didn't know it was invisible ! Since 1999 Serbian Air Defense 🇷🇸
Maybe should have added some stealth to RTS headquarters.
Amazing guest, thanks!
Very interesting. Much appreciated
Just some additional information. Russia is claiming that the Irbis can track F22s at~100 miles over Syria, and we see a doctrinal change where Israel now only use standoff munitions against Syria with generally low altitude approaches in the Bekaa valley in Lebanon (ie no different from how they would use 4th gen fighters). The Chinese have demonstrated ground based multistatic radars that pretty much nullify the advantages of stealth completely (this is a known weakness in the stealth concept btw, but the Chinese have now implemented it.). F22s in Syria have also almost exclusively transitioned to using JASSMs or standoff munitions.
What Jussi is saying is confirmed by changes in how the US and Israel use stealth fighters, as well as performance numbers provided by China and Russia.
F-22 has only been used once, I don't know what you are talking about. JASSMs don't fit inside F-22 either.
@@niweshlekhak9646 Seems TH-cam is deleting answers that provide sources with links. See Air & Space forces magazine April 19th 2018 "AFCENT Says F-22s Flew Strike Cap, Basic JASSMs Used". That's where I got JASSM from. And the core argument remains, both operators of stealth fighters have changed how they use stealth fighters against enemies with air defences to only using standoff munitions.
That doesn't mean stealth is irrelevant, in the case of jamming for instance a smaller target is easier to hide than a larger. But if components of networked based anti air structures can track stealth aircraft at longer ranges than the max range of the weapons onboard the target (as Russia and China have claimed to do already), then radar signature is not the deciding factor in crowning a survivor. And as mentioned above, the other side has already started to implement multistatic systems while stealth primarily is designed to defeat monostatic systems (it's simple geometry, it deflects the energy away from the direction it fame from in most angles).
@@namedperson1436 That was not in combat, but in training.
@@niweshlekhak9646 So in the statements I have made I take it your only point of disagreement is the use of JASSM mentioned in the comment "using JASSMs or standoff munitions"?
@@namedperson1436 Main disagreement is F-22 has only been in combat once it was used once in Syria in 2016 to drop 6 JDAMS.
We have innovations for novel ultra-efficient, high specific thrust turbo engines and are developing a small prototype.
...Satellites or pseudo-satellites will track the activity and relay it to the network so the active elements don't need to use own active sensors.
I can't help believing this is a SAAB commercial and not necessarily non-biased.
I can. SAAB has no dog in the fight. It's not selling anything at this point because it has nothing to sell. It's come to the point that stealth isn't economically justiable. As a taxpayer, I very much respect this. as a citizen of a country, maybe we should be picking our fights more wisely. Both are win-win scenarios. And in war, nobody wins.
@@JohnSmith-bh8um Are they not selling the Gripen any more?
@@hschan5976 F16 costs about 63 million, the Gripen costs 85. Nations who are looking for a non stealth fighter are not buying the gripen.
Sort of how federal government has contracts with domestic car companies. France has the same thing with Saab. And this is why they truly have no dog in the fight. They have no stealth counterpart, and they don't profit from their honesty.
@@JohnSmith-bh8um that is not the world works, second of all SAAB is trying to sell its old fighter dressed up as modern fighter jet. With a copy cat of modern systems, while having basic understanding of the terms.
@@JohnSmith-bh8um if it were about the money, they would properly buy it from the Russians Seeing SU35 is properly alot better and cheaper. Trashing stealth to try to sell there own fighter jet and marketing is 5th gen capable except steal is pretty much having a dog In the race and dressing it up.
I am thinking teaming a not too stealthy aircraft like SU57 and very stealthy drone like S-70 seems a pretty great solution for the future (esp as drone platforms can be improved extremely fast)
The Su-57 is not stealthy... Of course... Did your US TV told you that?
Like Russia has no ammunition, tanks and soldiers left for 3 years? 😂😂😂😂😂
@@foshizzlfizzlthe SU57 is so stealthy nobody saw one in the war russia is fighting since 2 1/2 year
@@CaptainDangeax you wanna talk about the use of the F-22 in combat?😂😂😂😂😂
I mean i get why people dont take su57 very seriously but cmon guys, usaf had stealth polygon planes made with ancient software in the 90s. F22 is also old as fck.
@@robertkalinic335F-19 is the stealthiest of all of them ❤
Stealth is not just radar reflection. There is optical (visible, IRR, and etc). There is also platform detection from AWACS with multi frequency detection, Satellites, fix system and high flying drones. I saw a paper where satellites can capture air current...couple that with AI for fix geographical area.
People talk about drone swarms but neglect to consider the cost to get them near their targets. The longer their range the larger they are the more expensive they are the easier the are to detect the more costly to transport them. It isn't simple to bring a drone swarm into the middle of the pacific ocean to sink a ship.
The US has been developing a system that releases a boatload of glide bombs or cruise missiles from a cargo plane. Of course, the cargo plane is a siting duck in itself. It cannot get too close to well defended targets, so it's not intended to drop little drones.
Why not bring them to distant targets on a small ship?
Maybe, but we saw just the other day what 300 drones and missiles did just the other day travelling over 1700 km. China could do this on scale many times over, no systems exist to stop it.
@@clusterofselves little drones have even less of a range. I agree with you there. Rapid Dragon can drop JASSM ER about 600miles, XR about 1000 miles. Boeing Revolver can launch hypersonic cruise missiles. I would assume those would have range well in excess of 1000 miles. None of these are cheap drone like weapon systems.
@@FairladyS130 "small ships" would need to have sufficient range, reliability, and communication to send and receive data. When you start building them, you will find that they become rather large and expensive and they will need a crew to maintain them. The US Nany is working on tech to have a drone ship that is reliable enough to operate for say one month with needing a crew to maintain the machinery. Not something that is easy. This would require redundancies and this mean, it will cost more, will be larger, and again the calculation becomes a drone that is larger and expensive. If it was trivial, every country would have them but it isn't. Also, if a large drone is sitting out there unprotected, it would be sunk easily. So, again, how would these drones be protected? You would need more defensive systems either placed on these drones or you would need another ship to defend the other drones.
Tack so myket! Second great explanation delivered to me in an hour. Where have you been hiding this series?
What is often forgotten is that an airforce is not alone in a real war. if your enemy destroys your bases or radars with ballistic missiles, the you are back to dogfights.
the time from a "BVR" engagement to visual range is counted in very few short seconds, so you have a dogfight anyway.
ever heard of AWACS?
However stealth an aircraft can be, it will always remain visible on the infrared spectrum because of the huge amount of heat that a jet engine produces.
I suspect that the NGAD has been delayed until the vulnerability to IRST can be significantly reduced. It will be too expensive to lose to simple IRST and a heat seeker missile, with software to distinguish between flares and engine heat.
For a 5th gen stealth fighter that is. It's why F-35 only having a single engine is stealthier in the IR spectrum compared to dual engine stealth fighter like J-20, Su-57, and even F-22.
On the other hand big stealth bombers like B-2 can accommodate large high-bypass turbofan engines that produce less infrared signature compared to low-bypass engines found on fighter aircraft including 5th gen stealth like the F135 engine on F-35. Not to mention the engines are also deeply buried within the fuselage which helps minimize IR signatures both on the front and on the back.
Not so.
Maybe true for Russian and Chinese aircraft but not American 5th generation aircraft.
American stealth aircraft don't emphasize high speeds except in close combat and have special coatings to decrease atmospheric friction Engine intakes are serpentine to avoid radar reflections. Engine exhausts are cooled and partially shielded from detection at lower altitudes.
also everyone seems to forget that air friction against the skin of the aircraft also creates thermal energy that can be detected
@@johnsilver9338 - Even a high-bypass turbofan has a turbojet at its core. A HBTF can dilute the turbojet hot exhaust flow to some extent but the turbojet produces hot gases at an amazing rate. Piston engines would produce much less heat than turbine engines but they could still be tracked with IR devices.
Great episode as it offers different thinking about air warfare techniques and future platforms ...
I have personally heard similar arguments from a couple of engineers of the Eurofighter program, some ten years ago. For them stealth was largely overrated and the reason of the insistence on it was marketing: politicians and other decision makers are so much sold to the supposed superiority of stealth that every program would have to include it - or pretend to - in order to sell aircraft.
@@defendliberty1289 Then they managed to build an aircraft that is beaten both by stealth (F-35) and non stealth aircraft (Rafale).
@@kpsig The Eurofighter is a much older design, heavily influenced by Cold War mentality, with its own problems. That does not invalidate the arguments against stealth. I personally find the Rafale far superior, but I have serious doubts about the F35, which I consider over hyped.
That's what I've been thinking for quite a while. Developing stealth tech must be lot harder than improving radars.
No matter what improvements you made to radars, if the radio wave is not reflected back, it is not gonna see it.
@@m.a3914 as reality shows, the problem is it's very hard to make it not reflect
@@m.a3914if using the radar in the first place makes you target from longer range than the radar can detect a nonstealthy fighter it is a bad idea to turn on the radar. So the stealth is protecting you from a radar that can not be turned on.
@@m.a3914 rather naive to think that stealth is perfect.
There will always be a reflection.
@@jensolsson9666neither will use radar, what use stealth?
I really like your channel, this is one of your best and most informative presentations!!! Jussi was a great contributor!
stealth: the ability makes it difficult to detect and lock on a fighter from long distances, hanging across the target's radar from clipping.
strength: developed material that nullifies 90-100% the radar's energy the closer to 100% its invisible target radar, provided the target is not too close to the target.
weakness: the opponent (too close) to the target feature does not prevent locking on the target with the radar.
weakness: difficult to make it work at all Hz, almost impossible to cancel 100% Hz frequencies.
weakness: radar development reduces Stealth power but never nullifies it.
stealth: radar cross-section maximum critical distance to target be locked.
Stealth benefit: always limits the distance from which the target be locked.
bottom line: North Atlantic Treaty Organization this is not a problem everything is allies.
The power Stealth material depends on the frequency and distance + radat across cektions = distance Stealth material is completely invisible to the radar. distance too little Stealth material power is not invisible. Stealth material does not protect against all frequencies.
You forget the two most critical weakness of the current NATO F35 platform. Cost thus limiting the number of airframes and more importantly mission readyness/capability - due to complexity and high maintenance requirement, F35A about 50% to F35C 20%. This is fatal in high intensity war against peer competitor who does not have similar weakness.
@@GenghisX999Except all peer competitors have the same weaknesses or worse.
Cost doesn't matter when you can outproduce and out-economy an opponent, and the f-35 costs less than an f-4 phantom did ages ago, when adjusted for inflation.
The f-22 was produced up to 195 planes, and we moved on.
Peer nations have struggled to get entire squadrons of competitive aircraft built to this day, with VERY few being made, and said aircraft having worse stealth properties.
They also don't seem to have supreme readiness or use for Russia based on Ukraine so far, much less any sort of numbers advantage, cost advantage, or production advantage.
Cost only comes into play if both sides are pumping out peer aircraft at equal speeds, which isn't happening.
I think it's worth pointing out a couple important things. One is that the Grippen has less than 1m^2 frontal RCS in air-to-air configuration (I think it's actually around 0.1m^2), and probably not much higher in air-to-ground configuration with stealthy standoff missiles. it also has a lot of passive sensors and highly directional LPI datalinks. SAAB does actually take reduced signature very seriously, they just decided not to go all in on radar stealth for sub 0.1m^2 RCS. The French Rafale was designed with a very similar philosophy on a larger platform.
A state-of-the-art IRST system has a similar or better frontal aspect detection range against a Grippen compared to most fighter radars.
I think it's also important to note that the US Navy has done public tests using an E-2D Hawkeye, which has a 7m UHF band antenna, to guide SM-6 missiles at extremely long range against air targets. Modern computational power allows for pulse compression and target localization algorithms that can generate a targeting quality track from a relatively small UHF band radar. That has a long enough wavelength that even something the size of the B-2 starts to lose some of its stealth.
There is some real merit to the idea that radar signature reduction has diminishing returns and it's better to spend the money on sensors, electronic warfare, and more planes. On the other hand, the only Western air forces that have espoused that philosophy are also the only Western air forces that were designed to fly without USAF support. If you have US SEAD/DEAD to knock out difficult-to-move low-frequency radars and are fighting a country better known for SAMs than fighters, stealth still looks pretty good.
Great discussion and very informative. At least for those that took the time to listen carefully before writing rubbish in the comment section. 🙂
Thoughtful, mature and knowledgeable, your guest was excellent. Many thanks.
Amazing episode so much knowledge to gain from this interview, thanks so much Jussi. Russia and China have been saying for years about multiple tracks creating a picture.. It is one of the reason for L-band on SU-35 and SU-57. Lockheed Martin is going to be very upset with SAAB. The Russians always said it would be a mistake to sacrifice performance for stealth and from what Jussi said it would seem logic has been proven correct. It is all about algorithms now. The fact that Russia and China are ranked as the best 2 coding nations with Russian as number 1 at algorithms is a scary situation for the west.
"Russia is the number one country for Algorithms, while when it comes to the top 5 in Ruby, it doesn’t even make it to the list. Poland ranked number one in Java, but in SQL, it’s not even in the top 5.
On the overall score, China and Russia rank in the top position with the most talented programmers. Chinese programmers recorded the best performance in:
Mathematics
Functional programming
Data structure
Russian developers outperform other countries when it comes to algorithms. Shockingly, the US and India, which are usually the two locations debated among entrepreneurs to hire tech talent from, ranked below the #20 positions in all domains."
The difference is F-22 still outperforms Su-35 and Su-57 as seen over black sea.
What are you talking about.
@@niweshlekhak9646
Are they shooting at each other now?
@@nooonanoonung6237 no intercepting each other, US escorted recon planes with F-22.
Non-stealth planes are invisible, but give a big advantage against non-stealth fighters.
Well... we're all well aware that low frequency radars are capablee of detecting VLO aircraft. They dont howeever have precision to guide weapons, we all also know that.
BUT, an strategy I've thought about, thus specialists have certainly thought about it way before is.. the fact that you can use an L or VHF band AWACS through datalink, suggests that you can know the general position of stealth aircraft. Those are difficult to detect because they absorb or deflect away, most of the radar volume (The volume of radiation), and while passive scanning, your radar is emitting radar wavas in a very wide angle, thus dispersing that volume in a huge area, and thats why radar has range, because the light, the radar waves will travel a lot further, but as the radar volume gets dispersed, you loosetracking capability.
So, if you can know theres a VLO presence in a certain point in the sky, you can foccus your IRST and your main X band array, into that very small spot. all the radar volume is being foccused on a very narrow angle, thus increasing the radar volume into that spot, thus increasing the chances that, even though the VLO will deflect most of the incomming waves, enough radar waves will be reflected back for a track...
Thats physically possible, and if I thought about it, a lot of you guys might have thought about it, and they definitely thought about it already.
First round is on me. Unless it's in Sweden, then put this towards one for Jussi.
Stealth feature in aircraft was 80's tech breakthrough.. Modern radars with powerful software partnered with long range IRST have made it simply ineffective at certain range.
less effective I suggest
So, software fuses the detection coming from separate sensors, then software classifies what's been detected and software recognition identifies target.
Then, software interconnects with other sources of information and software prioritizes targets and creates superior awareness of the battlespace.
Seems a good environment for AI learning.
education in brazil is so shitty that you don't even realise that AI has been used since decades in the military
Sounds logical, a bird with 1000km/h should be suspicious.😂
If you're on the front line fighting in the woods.Would you choose to have a camouflage uniform or not? Stealth has less of an advantage as it once did, but it still has a slight advantage In a few engagement and a huge advantage in some.
it's one thing knowing a stealth aircraft is out there somewhere... it's quite another tracking it and sending a missile up its tailpipe.
I may know Mike Tyson is upset with me, but knowing when it's coming and just how to dodge that left hook, is another thing entirely xD
Stealth doesnt mean invisible, more like less visible and harder to lock by standard radars. But new radars with modulated frequencies and networking make stealth less relevant. Still useful it can still save you and help you, but against modern air forces, it's far less relevant.
@@karakiri283 that's baseless conjecture; there has never been a situation where Russia or China have engaged and downed a modern stealth aircraft. They managed to take one down from the very first generation....when they knew it's route, when it was taking off, and managed to get a lock when it opened it's bomb bay.
Remember, a lot of the media out there is ran by bots that take certain aspects out of context like the rafale or the eurofighter beating an F-22. They jump up and down and forget to tell you that the F-22 was handicapped in order to teach pilots how to engage and fight a modern stealth air superiority fighter.
you see articles saying "The F-35 was reportedly targetted on radar" and they don't mention the reflectors that the jet has equipped (so that it is visible on radar, because they're not in combat conditions and you don't want them running in to civilian air traffic)
Saab is making a sales pitch here, they're getting HAMMERED by the F-35 on the open market for fighter jets. So they're trying to downplay stealth in order to convince people to buy the Gripen.
But the electronic weapons suite on the F-35 is a lot more powerful than the one on the gripen, due to the radar being something like 65 percent larger.
That is not what he said.
Stealth only works against guys in sandals.
"Sending a missile up it's tailpipe..."
Y'know some SAMs and anti air missile fall into the 'horseshoes and hand grenades' category, you get them up there in roughly the right direction, and a IR seeker will do the rest
Perhaps multi-burn seekers that can revector and boost speed up again would be a upgrade to help deal with them that would still fit in current equipment and launchers
@@andrewpienaar4522 Stealth only works against guys that is not expecting for you?
ps. One would track one stealth plane the moment they start taxi on the airfield.
TLDR: Saab keeps losing sales on Gripen to F-35.
Thanks for the interview I just sent it off to a retired 06 F35 pilot for his comments.
Bottom line … F35 is an attack aircraft as primary role and marginal as a fighter … and with modern sensor types networked, stealth is much less reliable. What’s worse, once detected, an F35 is too slow to escape
The more I listened the more I started thinking about how a human pilot is starting to become a limiting factor.
Technological advances and lessons derived from the Ukranian War have led to the cancellation of the current US 6th gen as well ad the new copters. In the interim current platforms like F-22 will be upgraded. And one of the main factors in the discussion is the human-factor role and survivability ... they see changes are taking place faster than initially expected in those programs, thus to commit resources to short-lived developments
Yeah, the human factor has been the limit for a while in terms of the pilot being able to survive maneuvers and such.
@@Ryzard yeah but now it seems like the plane has to manage the flow of information to keep it manageable for the human
..maybe..except, you cant really jam and disable/take away enemy aircraft flown by pilot...drone thingy, sure, it can take more G's and all that stuff...until gets spoofed by gang of jammers and what not..
@eccosabanovic1589 for sure, and I am not a tech over humans in all areas person. I think there will be a need for people in the process. It's just getting to the point of multiple areas where human limits are impacting potential performance.
So I could see AI assisted data processing, drone wingmen, remote operated elements. The near future is going to look very very different in armed conflict in general but in the air, I think things will change the fastest and most dramatically.
Here is one thing that is never mentioned in these Gripen clips; if FMV ordered a "stealth" fighter, SAAB could have built it. They didn't. They ordered the Gripen E.
@@erikgranered753 of course. Its trivial to build a LO aircraft.
@@jfiery I feel like if it was trivial we'd see a lot more F-117 clones, something that can sneak in to snipe SAM sites is a lot safer than going in with a flashing radar mirror.
@@Appletank8Because the alternative is to just have long range standoff weapons instead of something like the F117. Sure in the 80's the F117 could fly over enemy sam sites and drop JDAMs, but standoff air to ground muntions already existed, which significantly limits the value of a dedicated stealth strike aircraft. Why build a new plane, when you can just make new weapons and integrate them into your existing aircraft?
If that aircraft would be superior to an F-35 somebody would order that shit. Weirdly people are stumbling over each other to get their hands on a F-35. Meanwhile nobody orders Grippen. There is your answer.
@@Appletank8 my point exwctly.
It doesn't work since Serbs took them down in 99'
...Im just going to say... interesting video.
I respect your channel immensely. I have truly enjoyed your research and detail. This is a strange topic to present. For anyone truly in the know, countering anything presented... simply is not possible... for... reasons.
All the best. Watching this is like watching a Hollywood movie where I want to complain at the movie screen, and my lady tells me to just enjoy the show. 😂
I understand your guest's pitch, but I may tease my friends at SAAB about this one. ❤
Assuming one technology will constantly outpace it's counter technology is classic hubris. That historically has rarely aged well.
I mean look at variable geometry aircraft. It's pretty hard because they're almost all gone, replaced by digital flight control systems on fixed wing aircraft. Technology antiquates design philosophies all the time. Geometric stealth will be no different.
@@92HazelMocha The variable sweep wing was about efficiency not maneuverability. The B-1B was known for it's ability to fly for hours on standby efficiently & still have reserve fuel to dash supersonic across counties to deliver support. Both the B1 & Tornado are fly by wire highly agile platforms. Reducing radar cross section was the major driver behind replacing variable geometry wings. EU chose delta wings with canards. USA went with diamond wings all use a less efficient sweep angle that functions across a wide speed range. High aspect wings & winglets are not used on combat aircraft for the same reason. Even vertical tail surfaces are unlikely in the future.
We know for a fact modern gallium radars are improving faster than stealth. Your "RCS" of a bird gimmick can now be blown up and virtually locked by high amplitude super linear radars
@@off6848in the 1800s armor was advanceing faster then guns
Untill it wasnt
@@off6848 And yet everyone is still developing stealth aircraft, even China and Russia. What gives?
Back in 2005, I applied to several major universities to be a PhD candidate in machine learning and data sciences. For a major UK university, I was offered the chance to work on sensor data fusion and remote command and control of a drone helicopter platform for the british armed forces. For a Singapore university, I was offered a project to fuse video, radar, gps and other sensory data in order to accurately track an air or ground target. That's what they believed was achievable 20 years ago. Imagine what can be accomplished these days. Addendum: I did not take up any such projects as I had zero interest in creating military technology.
Wink, wink;-)
Well, you enjoy a life provided to you by economic and military strength. Too bad that using your talents to maintain and improve those strengths is so distasteful for you.
They developed a fighter bomber with a radar return the size of a duck.
Their opponent programmed their radar discrimator to highlight any duck exceeding 100kts.
Andrei Martyanov has spoken about the stealth being outdated way before these guys, so took you a while to catch up.
Martyanov? LOLOLOLOL.
Yes, an expert on Russian military and naval issues. 🤓
@@fredmdbudYeh LOL the guy who predicted the outcomes of NATO weapon systems as we see in Ukraine back 5 or 7 years ago.
Martyanov is a clown. Anyone that's heard him talk for longer than 10 minutes knows his flawed argumentation is based on half-truths, supposed insider information and logical shortcuts that no rational human being would ever make and present with any degree of confidence.
@@GenghisX999I was sceptical at first, but almost all of his predictions were correct. It was a bit scary