What it Now Means Is that Stealth Aircraft are Simply Low Visibility Aircraft
Political Editorial Opinion
The latest research on bistatic space-based radar, as analyzed by NATO and the United States engineers, clearly suggests that the ‘cat and mouse’ relationship that exists between detection technologies and those meant to keep aircraft, ships and even submarines, from being clearly targetable, is a never-ending reality.
The latest iteration of detection technology, now being taken from research into actual usage, clearly illustrates that detection, once again, has caught up with stealth technology.
What does this essentially mean?
In relation to any future war or conflict with China, it is of high significance. However, in relation to regional conflicts between nations unable or unwilling to buy stealth aircraft or stealth detection systems, it only matters if your adversary has stealth technology and can target you at will.
For the middle-powers, integrated into a defence network and system of interoperability through detection, analysis, communication nets and weapons systems, both air to ground and air to air, the need for detection technology can be equally advantaged by not placing the necessary detection capability in the actual aircraft, but in aircraft like Saab’s GoldenEye, which can detect ‘low visibility aircraft’, essentially stealth, over a massive area of Canada’s Arctic, when combined with Canada’s new (A-OTHR) system, discussed below.
When combined with (JORN), for example, (Canada’s new Arctic Over-the-Horizon Radar (A-OTHR) system, which allows for “long-range, over-the-horizon surveillance of northern approaches, allows for detection of aircraft, ships and missiles exceeding 3,000 km.
JORN, is the most advanced current radar system known.
Therefore the Saab Gripen E/F variants can effectively target incoming stealth aircraft through a completely interconnected and integrated network of sensors, radars and communication technologies already in use in NATO with complete transfer of data to any modern 4.5, 5th or 6th generation fighter employed by NATO, currently and in the future.
Canada will also be part of Saab’s Flygsystem Next-generation fighter program, which according to the defence publication 1945, Brent Eastwood, January 31, 2025 could be;
“Expected to incorporate AI, drone integration, and advanced radar evasion, this aircraft is shaping up to be a key asset for Sweden and NATO…
Sweden, a new member of the alliance, is improving on one of Europe’s best fighters – the JAS 39 Gripen.
This future airplane (concept photo on the top of this article) is called Saab Flygsystem 2020, a stealthy platform that twill combine extreme radar evasion with the ability to integrate artificial intelligence in the cockpit and the possible functionality to fly with tethered drones collaboratively similarly to the Boeing F-47 under development in the USAF’s (NGAD) or Next Generation Air Dominance initiative.
As stated in Eastwood’s article;
“NATO’s Defense Innovation Accelerator will be a partner.
The accelerator is an interesting entity. There are 200 sites, laboratories, and research centres across NATO to blend the work of entrepreneurs and academics who toil to devise innovation for military projects.
Who knows, Europe may have its own DARPA or skunkworks someday, and that would be good for all NATO members when it comes to developing cutting-edge defense technologies.”
Which Brings Canada’s Future Fighter(s) Full-Circle
In relation to Canada’s upcoming final purchase decision, it may well make sense for the Canadian Armed Forces to integrate with NATO in Europe for a variety of very rational long-term considerations beyond the simple acquisition of 16, F-35 fighters.
Canada cannot afford to have a primary weapon system like its aircraft, particularly intercept fighters, integrated into a system whereby that foreign nation may well no longer be an ally, and one that can simply make one’s aircraft unavailable based on that foreign nation being responsible for maintenance, avionics, computer systems, radar upgrades or parts availability.
The only nation that currently is likely to pose a major risk to Canada’s sovereignty in the Arctic is Russia, and with Canada’s new commitment to spend as much as Russias entire defence budget by 2035, Canada will have the necessary equipment, aircraft, ships and submarines to control its own airspace, land masses and ocean expanses, by itself.
That focus is already in effect, as Canada has committed to all of those weapons systems and allocated the resources for them, locking in the contracts for River Class Destroyers, AOPV’s, Polar 2 icebreakers (now a fleet of 22 icebreakers) available to keep any new naval bases or a new port on Hudson’s Bay viable and operational almost year round.
Within the next two to three weeks, Canada is expected to ink contracts for the delivery of 12 AIP Submarines with either the Norwegian-German consortium TKMS ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems or Hanwha Ocean of South Korea for AIP cruise-launch and ballistic missile, launch capable submarines, specifically reengineered for Arctic under-ice operations.
The Final Word
While stealth technology has its place in relation to lowering the visibility of aircraft, ships and submarines, the reality is that new detection capabilities on the land, in the air, and below the ocean, have the capability to now detect all modes of stealth. It is one of the specific reasons why (CCA) or Collaborative Combat Aircraft drone swarms, know as loyal wingmen is under development by 6th generation aircraft manufacturers, including Boeing and Saab, as examples.
Whenever a technology like stealth advances, the correlated detection capability also advances. And the more sophisticated the technology, the more systems cost, to the point that only a few nations in the world will acquire the aircraft with the attack capability.
Meanwhile the adoption of larger collectives of middle-power nations, like the EUs defence partners, including Canada, will see aircraft designed, not for and by a single country, like the U.S., specifically because of the possibility that the enemy may well reside next door in the near future.
The old adage of “the enemy of my enemy, is my friend” is now just as applicable as it was when it was first used in modern times in Europe in 1884.
The exact meaning of the modern phrase was first expressed in Latin as “Amicus meus, inimicus inimici mei” (“my friend, the enemy of my enemy”), which had become common throughout Europe by the early 18th century, while the first recorded use of the current English version came in 1884.
In any event, alliances change, as do the actions of a former ally and trusted friend.
Canada will from now on, act in its own interest and those of long term allies who remain committed to the rule of law in international relations, rather than a transactional nation, willing to usurp other nations. Such nations are completely incapable of trust, honour or truth.
And so it is that those nations that act in such a manner will find themselves isolated, ostracized and alone, irrespective of their power or size.
Such nations have fallen historically hard, and end up cannibalizing themselves in time, to their ultimate demise.
Leave a Reply