What Exactly Does A Stealth Fighter Mean?

[legoboy]

As in, does it mean a F-22 can literally fly right into the middle of Russia or China, drop a bomb, and fly back home?

Or does it mean these aircraft become difficult to track, but still possible, like having a manhunt after an experienced hunter.

Also, can other fighters lock onto stealth fighters?

[Rish]

Originally Posted by legoboy

As in, does it mean a F-22 can literally fly right into the middle of Russia or China, drop a bomb, and fly back home?

Or does it mean these aircraft become difficult to track, but still possible, like having a manhunt after an experienced hunter.

Also, can other fighters lock onto stealth fighters?

Read the sticky 'A Brief History of LO' and you'll get a better understanding. Goodluck

[Comrade69]

Like someone said read sticky...


But my understanding is no, there is no plane today not even the B-2 that can fly into the middle of a country and fly back.

All planes give off some kind of RCS even if its the size of a golf ball like the F-22A.

And as in other planes, yes they can lock on to a stealth fighter because besides the RCS, they also give off stuff like heat. The thing is, most of the time the stealth fighter will lock on to the fighter before it itself gets locked on.

[ADMk2]

Originally Posted by legoboy

As in, does it mean a F-22 can literally fly right into the middle of Russia or China, drop a bomb, and fly back home?

Or does it mean these aircraft become difficult to track, but still possible, like having a manhunt after an experienced hunter.

Also, can other fighters lock onto stealth fighters?

A brief history of LO

That is what they were referring to.

Stealth is a mass media term. The correct term in relation to aircraft is low observable.

It means exactly that. Certain measures, (materials, shapes, electronic and infra-red emissions and so on) are designed in such a way and applied to a particular platform so as to reduce the opportunity for an opposing party to "observe" the platform that has been designed this way or has these features.

Most commonly it refers to reducing the signature of radar returns from a particular object, but it refers to the entire spectrum through which it is possible for one object to observe another object.

A radar fundamentally is a device capable of transmitting and receiving a radar signal that has a capacity to count how long that signal took to travel from the device, be reflected off an object and then return to the radar device to be counted.

The device transmits more than one signal and because it knows it's own position on the earth, can work out altitude, speed, direction and so on of the object from the waves being transmitted, received and counted. A simplistic diagram of how a radar works is attached.

Now because a radio signal has a theoretically unlimited range, the signal travels at the speed of light and mechanical devices can rapidly point the transmitter/receiver to scan across the entire sky cheaply and with great persistence, radar systems are the favoured sensor system for detecting aircraft in modern military forces.

Military aircraft however sometimes don't wish to be detected by radar systems or any other means. Sometimes they don't mind being detected but take measures to ensure that the people who have detected them can't do anything to them.

So they employ measures, tactics and varying methods of a bewildering variety to ensure they aren't detected or if they aren't, they aren't tracked. Or if they are tracked that perhaps they can't be engaged (with a weapon).

These measures can be as simple as a submarine travelling underwater, or an aircraft flying behind a Mountain range, meaning neither can't be seen. Those are examples of tactics to ensure that your platform is not observable.

Aircraft fly low sometimes which means they can fly underneath the search patterns of general air search radar systems. With no radar beams hitting the airframes, the radar systems aren't getting any reflected radar energy.

Modern aircraft also use certain shapes, structures and materials to deny a radar system a meaningful amount of reflected energy. As I'm sure you can imagine a flat metal plate makes a pretty good reflector. A curved metal plate makes a pretty good one too.

A plate made of composite materials however makes a less good reflector. One that isn't flat but is shaped in certain ways makes an even less good reflector. The purpose of shaping when talking about a low observable aircraft is to direct energy along a certain path away from the path that will see the energy return strongly to the transmitter/receiving device.

A plate therefore shaped in the right way and made of the right material (usually known as radar absorbent material - RAM) is therefore going to reflect energy extremely poorly.

This is what "stealth" aircraft do. They dissipate, re-direct and absorb the energy that a radar system directs at them in an attempt to reduce the return signal the radar system sees.

If it can do so, the radar system will then find it more difficult to get accurate readings on the low observable platform in terms of height, speed, direction and so on.

Obviously this has great tactical benefit to the user because they can use their platform to approach the radar or some other target and engage it, before (hopefully) the radar user is even aware the platform is coming for them.

That is the effect that low observability has. It does not provide any sort of "silver bullet" solution and requires careful planning, tactical nous and critical thinking to employ properly, but as seen, can provide astonishingly capable results when properly employed.

Any aircraft can and will be tracked if enough radar energy can be directed onto it or if it is within visual range (by visual I include electrical/optical devices intended to improve visual range) and it's position known, or if it communicates using equipment that can be intercepted, geo-located (it's geographical position) etc.

The reason that modern low observable aircraft are being built is that it is difficult to build a radar or system of radars with sufficient coverage and power so as to be able to overcome the measures inherent in these low observable aircraft, but if such an aircraft, say an F-22A for argument's sake got close enough to a powerful modern air search radar, even it's extremely capable low observability measures would be insufficient to prevent the radar energy returning to the radar system from the platform and could then be tracked. The good thing for low observable aircraft is that they have weapons that mean they don't have to get that close before they can use them.

So much so, that there is no major military platform being built that doesn't have thought put into how the platform's own signature (the type of radar reflection it makes, what it looks like etc) is managed in some respect.

Hope this helps.

[milsurplus]

Originally Posted by ADMk2

Stealth is a mass media term. The correct term in relation to aircraft is low observable.

Then technically, almost any aircraft that could potentially fly into enemy territory built today would be "stealth," right? Wouldn't it be pointless to build one without such capabilities? Or am I just blowing smoke?

[Feanor]

Originally Posted by milsurplus

Then technically, almost any aircraft that could potentially fly into enemy territory built today would be "stealth," right? Wouldn't it be pointless to build one without such capabilities? Or am I just blowing smoke?

Stealth is a situation as well as a capability. Any aircraft can be "stealth" depending on the weakness (or strength) of the hostile sensor grid, and the support assets in play. For example if a computer virus is used to disable hostile radar systems, and some F-16s or F-15s the fly in completely undetected, drop ordnance, and return, then we can talk about the country in question having LO capability against that concrete opponent, despite not having a specialized LO platform.

When you say any aircraft would be stealth, what you should say is any aircraft could be stealth. Some are just more geared towards it.

[Todjaeger]

Originally Posted by milsurplus

Then technically, almost any aircraft that could potentially fly into enemy territory built today would be "stealth," right? Wouldn't it be pointless to build one without such capabilities? Or am I just blowing smoke?

Not, it is not 'pointless' to design a modern combat aircraft without LO features, yet...

As the sticky mentions, signal management is a movable feast. What works against the current generation for sensors and comms/controls systems will not necessarily work against the next generation, and continually developing a better 'mouse trap' is expensive. For some mission profiles, all the developmental work required to include LO features are not needed or counter to role requirements.

This is why many of the support aircraft (airlift, MPA, AEW, etc.) lack LO features, because they would not be operated in a contested air environment.

Now if ones adversary lacks a comprehensive IADS, then a LO fighter could very well be overkill, as the opponent would likely be lacking sensors to detect a conventional fighter, GBAD and/or interceptors, or the communications and control systems to relay the target contacts detected by the former to the later. Or more likely, the opponent would be lacking several components required for an IADS.

-Cheers

[StingrayOZ]

Many aircraft won't need to be low observable or stealth. For example the B-52. Has a radar signature as a big as, err, probably a large building.

However this aircraft would be used when you have complete air superiority over your opponent so could be used with impunity flying high above the trash fire. Its easy to see how such a large platform would be functionally very useful for many years to come. But would be dependant (as it has always been) on other aircraft to clear the sky of threats.

However a fighter would be much more advantageous to be low observable. But many modern fighters aren't low observable, and low observable is a completely relative thing.

A F-117 may be low observable against its contemporary. However it is only low observable against certain frequencies and directions. For example over the horizon radar could defeat a relatively steathly plane with the waves coming from a unusual direction (from above bouncing off the atmosphere) at unusual wavelengths (much greater than aircraft based radar) would give a large and clear return. While relatively low observable against certain radar, thermally it can still be detected, optically it can be detected. Researching the combat loss of the F-117 highlights that low observable is really a relative term and is not an invisibility cloak that makes you invincible.

[ADMk2]

Originally Posted by milsurplus

Then technically, almost any aircraft that could potentially fly into enemy territory built today would be "stealth," right? Wouldn't it be pointless to build one without such capabilities? Or am I just blowing smoke?

No necessarily. An aircraft might be detected but not necessarily engaged in that enemy territory. Just because they are not engaged, should not lead one to automatically assume they are a "stealthy" aircraft, as the mass media refers to "stealth" and as it's commonly understood.

Country A for instance might be able to fly it's tactical fighters into Country B and attack it's targets with relative impugnity (as we've seen in Libya in the last 12 months) but mainly this has been because Country B was not sufficiently well-armed so as to prevent this.

However there Is what is known by some as a kill chain and that mantra is, "detect, track, engage."

If an attacker can breach any of those then their attack will likely succeed. "Stealth" technology aims to defeat all three of these, but defeating any one of them will likely mean that an attack is successful.

[Smokin' Joe]

Originally Posted by milsurplus

Then technically, almost any aircraft that could potentially fly into enemy territory built today would be "stealth," right? Wouldn't it be pointless to build one without such capabilities? Or am I just blowing smoke?

Initial identification is just the beginning of the reasons for stealth. There is a lot to say about the quality of sensors that are being used against a stealth aircraft. Once the aircraft is located, interceptors would be deployed or SAMs would be activated. Their sensors would then have to locate the aircraft, maintain a track, and then the guidance sensor of the weapon deployed would also have to locate and maintain a positive track (depending of the weapoon) on the aircraft. A LO or Stealth aircraft makes this incredibly difficult to be done for each system so while it might not be invisible to sensors, it definitely provides more time for the aircraft and company to neutralize the threat.

I am sure the sticky is a good post (haven't read it) but Federation of American Scientists has a great read as well. Hope this helps.

[Beatmaster]

Just a side question:

Can stealth be achieved by shielding only? Or can speed and atmospheric aspects (And possible forms of manipulation of it) alter the effects of (materials, shapes, electronic and infra-red emissions and so on) and thus its detectability towards sensors and radar systems?

As to my knowledge each item or living being (practically everything we see hear and know in this world) has its own unique emission or footprint either by radiation, shape form, density and so on so this applies to a aircraft as well because of all its electronics and systems that radiate some sort of detectable energy right?
Now how far can speed and natural / atmospheric side effects contribute or deny the "stealth" effect?

Because a B2 stealth bomber for example is pretty much one of the best examples of "stealth" however how would the same aircraft perform in terms of "stealth" during a thunderstorm or some other atmospheric event and how far are we able to counter this and possible harvest/use atmospheric side effects? From a radar/ sensor or any detection method point of view.

[gf0012-aust]

Originally Posted by Beatmaster

Just a side question:

Can stealth be achieved by shielding only? Or can speed and atmospheric aspects (And possible forms of manipulation of it) alter the effects of (materials, shapes, electronic and infra-red emissions and so on) and thus its detectability towards sensors and radar systems?

As to my knowledge each item or living being (practically everything we see hear and know in this world) has its own unique emission or footprint either by radiation, shape form, density and so on so this applies to a aircraft as well because of all its electronics and systems that radiate some sort of detectable energy right?
Now how far can speed and natural / atmospheric side effects contribute or deny the "stealth" effect?

Because a B2 stealth bomber for example is pretty much one of the best examples of "stealth" however how would the same aircraft perform in terms of "stealth" during a thunderstorm or some other atmospheric event and how far are we able to counter this and possible harvest/use atmospheric side effects? From a radar/ sensor or any detection method point of view.

at the risk of hedging, it boils down to the mission and attendant systems

platform engineering provides benefit in its own right, but its also about the added benefit and assistance that companion assets and ewarfare systems provide on that mission set.

solo or assisted, its the rest of the planning set that influence how that asset can enter red space and complete its mission effectively