You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Science & Technology
Did China Just Render America's $1 Trillion Stealth Fighter Program Obsolete?
2014-10-20
Over-budget, behind schedule, and -- reportedly -- not a particularly good fighter jet, Lockheed Martin's ultramodern Joint Strike Fighter may be destined for the scrap heap.
It's a good thing they just announced that have just made a huge advance in fusion technology, isn't it?
In a 2013 RAND Corporation report, one of the nation's foremost military analysts, blasted the F-35 for being a fighter that "can't turn, can't climb, can't run." Proponents of the F-35 reply that because it's stealthy, it shouldn't have to do any of those things -- lobbing missiles at its foes from over the horizon, and long before they can even see it.

Unfortunately, it turns out that the F-35 may not do the "invisibility" thing very well, either.

As DefenseNews.com recently revealed, China has a new device that may be able to track Lockheed's F-35 fighter with "passive" radar detection technology. Dubbed the DWL002, China's equipment can apparently detect stealth aircraft at distances of up to 400 kilometers -- and 600 kilometers for larger "stealth" targets -- processing "pulse, frequency agility, pulse duration, tactical air navigation system, distance measuring equipment, jitter/stagger radar, and identification friend or foe" signals emitted by the otherwise stealthy aircraft to determine its location.

To be clear, DWL002 is not an active radar system itself. As International Assessment and Strategy Center senior fellow Richard Fisher explains "Passive systems like these simply listen for any electronic emission," identifying an aircraft without having to ping it with an active radar transmitter. As such, whether or not the F-35 is itself invisible to "radar" may be a moot point.

China can "see" it anyway.
Knowing that a stealth fighter is somewhere in the general area, and knowing where it is precisely enough to turn the location over to a fire-control radar, which then has to see the aircraft well enough to kill it, are two different things. The F35 (which I'd get rid of simply because it's too bloody expensive for what it does) doesn't need perfect stealth. It needs to be stealthy enough that on a real-time basis it can't be targeted successfully.
This problem with the F-35's lack of invisibility, it turns out, is not limited to China. According to DN, both the Czechs and the Ukrainians have similar systems for passive intercept of electronic signals, capable of detecting stealth aircraft.

Similarly, Aviation Week reported earlier this year that certain very high frequency (VHF) radar systems, such as Russia's P-14 Oborona VHF early warning system, and its 3D Nebo SVU active electronically scanned array (AESA), may also be capable of detecting the F-35. (A new Chinese naval radar system, Type 517M VHF, may be similarly effective against the F-35.)

And of course, there is the Balkan War incident to keep in mind. On March 27, 1999, Serbian anti-aircraft forces used a 1960s vintage P-18 VHF acquisition radar system (working in conjunction with an SA-3 SAM system for proximity targeting) to detect and down a F-117 stealth fighter jet.

Now, experts differ on how effective these various aircraft detection systems will be against the F-35. For one thing, while passive detection systems can tell an opponent that there's an F-35 "out there," it still takes an active detection system to guide a missile to shoot it down. But if the critics are right, it could still undermine the aircraft's reputation for invisibility, and pose a significant threat to Lockheed Martin's business.

It's been 13 years now since Lockheed Martin won the contract to build what was then known as the "joint strike fighter," beating out Boeing for that honor. Since then, Lockheed stock has risen an astonishing five times in value, from $35.29 (adjusted for dividends and stock splits) on Oct. 29, 2001, to more than $176 per share today. While many factors contributed to this outperformance, Lockheed's winning the F-35 franchise has certainly contributed mightily to the stock's success.

After all, analysts estimate that over the program's estimate 60-year lifespan, the F-35 will bring Lockheed Martin as much as $1.1 trillion worth of high-margin revenues -- or more. At the 11.2% profit margin that Lockheed Martin earns at its Aeronautics division (thanks to S&P Capital IQ for the data), that works out to about $112 billion in profits the company could earn from this single product -- twice the market capitalization of the whole company.

But if the F-35 comes up short in the "invisibility" department, that franchise could be in jeopardy.

The thing about technology is that it's always changing. What was cutting edge tech in 2001 could be obsolete by 2021. If that happens, and if the F-35 is ultimately not built in the quantities originally anticipated (as was the case with Lockheed Martin's similarly high-tech F-22 Raptor fighter jet, you'll recall), then Lockheed Martin stock could be worth less than investors are counting on.
Posted by:gorb

#11  Can someone explain the red camouflage? Wouldn't that be easily seen?
In WWII (pictures exist of a pink P-38 and Pink P-51)and even as late as Tacit Blue (the F117 prototype) the experimenting with colors included a lot of pastels and even pinks. But since no macho-Ascot wearing Air Forcian would be seen wearing a pink scarf, it was also decided to look for colors that would break up visual recognition in the non-girly spectrum; thus we now see blues, and grays, and various tans for desert. I suspect at altitude the reddish hues would be hard to spot. Notice they are flat and not glossy; so there is less visual glint/reflection to catch your eye.
Posted by: USN, Ret.   2014-10-20 22:25  

#10  Is that a paintball fighter?
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2014-10-20 21:26  

#9  Can someone explain the red camouflage? Wouldn't that be easily seen?
Posted by: Flaviter Munster2082   2014-10-20 18:57  

#8  Re: ed in Texas: The Dorito ( aka A12) as cancelled by then SecDef Cheney because he didn't want me to have a post-navy cushy retirement job. Seriously, there were huge weight overages as well as cost overruns. There is a fine book out : "The $5 Billion Misunderstanding" that goes into really good detail why the bird was cancelled. having lived through the last 2 years of its life ( not counting the litigation) I can say that it would have ben a really good aircraft except for all the gold plating the Navy put on it to please the Air Force. (It even had a bomb bay mounted tanker package for Lawn Dart support......)
So after that bird got the ax, the Navy decided to can the Intruder and Tomcat (Cheney was an A-6 BN) in favor of the F-18.(Cheney payback? or Light Attack Mafia at work?)
Posted by: USN, Ret.   2014-10-20 14:55  

#7  If they were smart, they'd hook up an air turbulence detector to their blimps and "see" them that way. Now, was that hard!?!
Posted by: AlmostAnonuymous5839   2014-10-20 11:37  

#6  Someone here say Aardvark?
Posted by: Shipman   2014-10-20 10:18  

#5  Man this article is full of crap....

All the "noisy" systems are turned off before entering a war zone. That means no IFF, no radar, no running lights... nothing. The only things active are the radar detection system (passive), the GPS system (passive only receives signals) and the radio which they don't use over the combat zone.

Posted by: DarthVader   2014-10-20 10:16  

#4  I seem to recall the Navy cancelling the A12 Avenger program over basically the same concerns.
What we have here is another F111 coming to ripeness.
Posted by: ed in texas   2014-10-20 07:56  

#3  So it is a variation on the HARM missile. Flying a missile up the radar beam of a targeting radar?

Interesting.
Posted by: Call Me Mystic   2014-10-20 01:39  

#2  Going back to the 117 shoot down; what isn't widely known is that the USAF flew the same routes at the same time, speed and altitude. Made the targeting solution much easier to figure out and put a couple of ground based observers in the upstream portion of the flight path, they knew exactly when the Nighthawk was going over....
Posted by: USN, Ret.   2014-10-20 00:48  

#1  Big nothing in this article. No one can put a long wave radar on a fighter and they aren't really that good anyway. The radars in the planes in the air are what matter, and in this regime the F-35 will be competitive for a long time.
Posted by: rammer   2014-10-20 00:33  

00:00