Russia Declares America's Stealth Fighters and Bombers to be 'Paper
Fiction'
Why is the Kremlin investing billions of dollars
(rubles) into the Sukhoi PAK-FA fifth-generation fighter and the PAK-DA stealth
bomber if Moscow considers stealth technology to be useless?
Recently, in
response to a column I wrote, Russian media denounced stealth technology as
useless-asserting that aircraft such as the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor or F-35
Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) would easily fall prey to advanced Russian-built air
defenses. The column clearly struck a nerve with Russia's air defense experts.
Indeed, former chief of staff of Russia's air defense forces, Col. Gen. Igor
Maltsev, told Gazeta.ru that stealth technology was "paper
fiction."
Nonetheless, the Russians continue to spend billions of dollars
developing stealth technology for the PAK-FA, PAK-DA and the Kh-101 and Kh-102
cruise missiles-the later of which is crucial for securing Moscow's strategic
nuclear deterrence. But if stealth technology were 'paper fiction'-why would
Moscow pour billions down the drain for no good reason?
"Low observation
is far short of invisibility, but if this element of fifth-generation aircraft
technology is 'paper fiction,' then why is Russia building the PAK-FA, dreaming
about the PAK-DA, and the same can be said of Chinese prototypes in
development," said Michael Kofman, a research scientist at CNA Corporation
specializing in Russian military affairs-who alongside myself-was shall we say,
vigorously analyzed by Russian media. "Surely they are not simply competing with
the JSF for who can spend the most money."
The Russians suggested that
they could use alternatives to high-frequency fire control bands (C, X and Ku)
to launch a missile at an F-22 or F-35. Those alternatives include command
guidance, infrared, optical and other options. Indeed, the Russians could
attempt to do so-but while command guidance is fairly common-there are no
operational long-range area air defense systems that feature infrared or optical
guidance.
Infrared and optical guidance are only effective at relatively
short-ranges. The Russians would have to use low-frequency radar to guide a
missile equipped with an infrared or optical sensor into range if such a such a
system were to be developed. However, analysts and defense officials said that
such a system could be overcome by changing tactics.
Indeed, as I have
written here in The National Interest and at Aviation Week & Space
Technology, there are some Western experts such as Col. Michael Pietrucha who
have theorized potential ways to engage stealth aircraft using VHF and UHF-based
radars. However, as several U.S. Air Force experts on stealth technology and
tactics have told me, while Pietrucha's idea might work theoretically, it would
probably not work in practical terms.
"Although I can't argue with the
specifics-it's all basic physics-I think it is reaching to say that high-band
stealth is 'for naught.' At the end of the day, almost all of the current
shooters are targeted by our current stealth. Newer systems may be developed to
hit gaps, but we still have a head start," one highly experienced U.S. Air Force
stealth expert told me. "Plus, we never go alone. EW [electronic warfare] is
another game, and there are systems tailored there as well. As for active
missiles, good luck fitting a VHF antenna in a missile body."
Thus, even
if high-frequency stealth might not be as effective today as it was in the
immediate aftermath of the Soviet collapse, Moscow probably has not developed an
effective countermeasure to defeat the F-22 or F-35 just yet.
Even if the
Kremlin had found a way to defeat American low observable technology, it would
be imprudent for Moscow to telegraph that message to its opponents in
Washington. Moreover, it would be doubly irresponsible to squander billions of
dollars on a fool's errand to develop a technology that one believes to be
obsolete or "paper fiction" as the case may be-especially during a time of
economic hardship.
Thus, the very fact that Russia is investing in the
PAK-FA and PAK-DA is ample evidence that stealth not only works but is also here
to stay. Otherwise, why bother?
Abonner på:
Legg inn kommentarer (Atom)
Ingen kommentarer:
Legg inn en kommentar
Merk: Bare medlemmer av denne bloggen kan legge inn en kommentar.