Stealth and anti-stealth technology arms race

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by Same Issues, Aug 8, 2015.

  1. Same Issues

    Same Issues Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2014
    Messages:
    788
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    43
    http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/08/stealth-and-anti-stealth-technology.html

    I found this article points out one of the possible downsides of using the current stealth technology that effects the shape and performance of the plane, usually in a negative way. The problem with stealth is we are depending on a technology to overcome the deficiencies that occur when you modify a system to use a stealth airframe, which is a problem if that technology can be defeated. If you can defeat the stealth technology and basically just see the plane it is a major game changer, and its never even been a matter of seeing the plane, just advancing the technology to do it better. I am not 100% against stealth tech, I just dont think we should put all our eggs in that basket if one minor tech change can make a fleet of planes obsolete to some degree.
     
    waltky and (deleted member) like this.
  2. waltky

    waltky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    29,461
    Likes Received:
    901
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Looks like a bat plane for Batman...
    :wink:
    Northrop Wins Contract to Build US Military's Future Stealth Bomber
    Oct 27, 2015 | Northrop Grumman Corp. won a major contract to build the U.S. military’s future fleet of stealth bombers, the Pentagon announced.
     
  3. AlpinLuke

    AlpinLuke Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2014
    Messages:
    5,684
    Likes Received:
    199
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I see now this thread and I share the point of view of who underlines that stealth techs are not exactly "functional" if they downgrade the performances of the planes.

    Anyway, I would reason in the other way: to be stealth for a plane is an advantage today, a need tomorrow morning, with all the hypersonic missiles in production now.

    A hypersonic missiles flying at 6,000km/h would take 2 minutes to reach and destroy a plane at a distance of 200km. 1 minute at a distance of 100km. 30sec at a distance of 50km.

    Even if the attacking planes approach the missile batteries, launching their air-to-surface missiles, at a distance of 22km [to use a quite obsolete Maverick, for example, which has got such an operative range], the batteries will have time to react before than the launched missile hits the target and at such a distance the hypersonic anti air missiles need 15sec to destroy the plane.

    So, first of all, technicians are developing air-to-surface missiles able to reach hypersonic speeds, but to be stealth is anyway important [overall for ground attack missions]. And the point is not being invisible, but being difficult to be acquire as a target and locked ...
     
  4. Rerem

    Rerem New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2015
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    :blahblah:
    What a wonderfully simplistic and snarky response. Totally fails to even bring up the obvious points.:roll:

    The photo... shows something obviously similar to the B-2. The story... suggests some extra add ons but does not say much about how it differs from a B 2. Needless to say...it won't come cheap.
     
  5. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    8,762
    Likes Received:
    331
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I am going to try and address both of these, because you both bring up some important points.

    First off, remember that the idea of stealth is not to make a plane "invisible", that is impossible. It is simply to reduce it's radar signature, to make it harder to detect, track, or lock-on with weapons.

    To begin with, you have to look at what the Stealth is designed to do. In previous uses (F-117, B-2) we are talking about aircraft designed to strike ground targets. And even though the F-117 is called a "Stealth Fighter", it was more accurately a "Stealth Light Bomber". Absolutely nothing in the F-117 was done to make it a "fighter".

    So what we had here was 2 different aircraft, designed to penetrate enemy airspace and attack ground targets. This is where the use of stealth is most important, since the aircraft has no defenses against other aircraft. Stealth is it's only real defense, so it is maximized. It is still not "invisible", but it's RADAR return is so small, that it might as well be to the weapons the RADAR guides to hit it. Because without a firm RADAR lock, the missiles will not fire.

    When it comes to fighters, stealth is not so important. There the goal is not to make the aircraft invisible, but to make it harder to detect. This means that instead of showing up on RADAR at 200 miles, it first shows up at 75 miles. And instead of getting a hard RADAR lock for missile engagement at 100 miles, you now have to wait until it is 50 miles away to get such a lock.

    And at 50 miles, the aircraft can already fire it's own weapons at the air defense site or what it is defending.

    And remember, the RADAR on ground and ship based systems is much more powerful then those inside of other aircraft. Something like the AN-SPY AEGIS system might see it at 200 miles, the much lower powered system in a MiG-29 will probably not get a good lock until it is 40 miles away.

    So the stealth capabilities are not made to keep it safe from ground based systems, as much as it is to keep it safe from other fighters. And this can be seen even more clearly in our tactics, which almost always employs the use of AWAC style aircraft. The use of the E-2 and E-3 series aircraft gives the US the unique ability of having a ground based class of RADAR airborne over a conflict region. This is something no other nation has embraced anywhere near as much as the US has.

    Playing games with stealth is much like playing a game of Stratego (tm).

    [​IMG]

    You see pieces moving all around the board, but you are never quite sure what they are, or if you are seeing them all. And thanks to stealth, it makes it even harder to determine exactly what that aircraft on the other side is.

    RADAR operators use many things to determine what an aircraft coming at them is. Location, altitude, speed, speed it rises or lowers in altitude, how fast it turns, and the actual RADAR return for the distance are all used to try and determine exactly what it is. You have a large slow moving object coming towards you. It is a Boeing or Airbus commercial liner, a cargo aircraft full of paratroopers, or a Bear bomber with cruise missiles? Damned hard to say until it gets closer, you have intelligence from other sources, or it gets really damned close.

    MiG-29, or F-16? On RADAR they are almost exactly the same aircraft. There is no magical ability in a RADAR system to say "That is yours and that is an enemy", that is what other technologies like IFF are used for.

    But if you can defeat the system just enough to get in close and launch your weapons before they can launch yours, you win.
     
    JakeJ likes this.
  6. waltky

    waltky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    29,461
    Likes Received:
    901
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    New radar to hunt Chinese stealth jets...
    [​IMG]
    New radar to hunt Chinese stealth jets
    Mon, May 14, 2018 - YEARS IN THE MAKING: The military envisions a defense system comprised of active means made up of F-16 jets and passive means involving an advanced radar system
     
  7. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    24,034
    Likes Received:
    5,743
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Like all military technology, "stealth" aircraft are not going to remain viable for long, just as invisible submarines are becoming non-existent. In addition to no engine that generates no heat has yet to be developed subject to thermal imaging and looking for air disturbance such as a shift in moisture movement, as with submarines the search can shift from trying to "see" aircraft, to looking for holes in the sky. For example, if radar was shot down from above towards earth, there should be universal reception at the ground. If some doesn't make it, something is there. This also could be down with side to side radar. As such, you are not looking for something being there by "seeing" it in a reflection. Rather, you are trying to detect signal blockage.

    A seriously growing budget factor is each new generation costs more per unit - even factoring in inflation - that the previous generation. Advanced military systems are becoming exorbitantly expensive, requiring more and more picking and choosing what to develop and built - knowing it might be the wrong decision or even obsolete before it is completed.

    To divert a bit, this is why the AF wants to ditch the A-10. Their view is they have to figure how to detect and stop missiles and other methods of attack within seconds - with stealth and hyper speed missiles coming into play - and this cost massive sums of money. They just don't have the funds to keep servicing, having all ground support and all the rest for half a century old designs.
     
  8. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    24,034
    Likes Received:
    5,743
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good examples you gave of the challenges as it is more than just seeing an aircraft on radar.

    I have a very large old Cigarette twin turbo diesel boat, custom built by Cigarette in the 80s. One of a kind and unlike other Cigarettes that had multiple supercharged gasoline motors burning 3 to 5 gallons pre-mile, low, sleek and fast.

    While most Cigarettes were 90 mph boats and low so low radar profile that would make a dash from the Bahamas or Cuba to the USA - the idea being making it before could be intercepted, mine was a drug running boat of a very different concept and tactic.

    Its top speed is a mere 50 mph, but the diesels gave it enormous range. It has surface drives, so could travel in as little as 1 foot of water if up on plane despite its notably bigger size.The old navigation chips showed it traveled to the North Mexican coast, Cuba and Columbia. Its destination was the sleepy, shallow water and filled with shell islands and estuaries mid Gulf Coast side of Florida - not the Atlantic hot spot of Miami (Miami is the city "built on cocaine").

    Its tactic? It would just come in at a lazy 20 to 30 mph along with all the big private fishing boats in the evening on weekends - on radar looking no different. Nothing suspicious on radar at all. Then when it hit the shallow waters near shor would charge in at 50 mph in water so shallow no DEA boat - though faster - could follow and then lost up one of the estuaries. They got away with it for many years. Finally, an informant turned the operation in. Even then, because of the surface drives they didn't catch them in the act, but it was the end of the business and the boat abandoned back in the woodland swamp that was it's home base - until I found and bought it 2 decades later for next to nothing.

    As you note, incoming aircraft are not signalling "this is an attack" over the radio. There's a lot of aircraft up there moving all different speeds and all different altitudes. Not all remain precisely on a flight plan, even if that is readily available. Anyone can buy a used commercial jet liner. When suicide attacks are factored in, spotting the aircraft that by all appearances is just another aircraft coming in - but not on any flight plan - would be extremely difficult to detect and then intercept for a look-see before it could cause damage considering it is still coming in at 500 mph. Its not like we can launch missiles at any aircraft we can't identify the intentions of.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2018
  9. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    12,350
    Likes Received:
    6,812
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I figured out how to defeat stealth technology 15 years ago.

    There are at least a couple of ways and from what I can tell, at least one of them is already in the arsenal.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2018 at 11:49 AM
  10. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    12,350
    Likes Received:
    6,812
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have also figured out counter measures to anti-stealth technology, as well as counter measures to those counter measures. As much as I would love to explain it all, obviously I can't just in case I'm right, which I am. :D

    I will say that I'm pretty sure we saw a field test of some of this early technology in Belgium, possibly from Nov of 1989, to April of 1990.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2018 at 2:41 PM
  11. Mrbsct

    Mrbsct Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2013
    Messages:
    581
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Stealth will always be better than no stealth. If a radar can spot a F-22 at 30 km, it will spot a F-16 from hundreds of km away.
     

Share This Page