Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

LMV-6.jpg

LMV-4.jpg

LMV-3.jpg

LMV-2.jpg
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





Stealth warships capabilities

This is a discussion on Stealth warships capabilities within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; As recent era most of the destroyer were built with stealth capabilities. I was wondering at what distance a stealth ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old October 22nd, 2012   #1
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4
Threads:
Stealth warships capabilities

As recent era most of the destroyer were built with stealth capabilities. I was wondering at what distance a stealth destroyer is undetectable under enemies radar especially AEW&C.

Thanks
Poh
pcchoo1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
China Naval Modernization (Implications for US Naval Capabilities) SABRE Navy & Maritime 66 February 1st, 2006 03:37 AM
India deploys warships in Persian Gulf santpaul Navy & Maritime 0 September 12th, 2004 07:20 PM
Stealth ships steam ahead mysterious Navy & Maritime 23 June 22nd, 2004 05:09 AM
Stealth detection system adil Space & Defense Technology 4 March 15th, 2004 02:09 AM
Should PN aquire stealth ships ? Oqaab Navy & Maritime 49 December 25th, 2003 09:34 AM

Old October 22nd, 2012   #2
Defense Professional / Analyst
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 107
Threads:
Well, that would depend on about a hundred different factors, to include what kind of detecting radar it is, what frequency it operates at, the skill level of the operators, the power output, what kind of stealth ship you're talking about, sea state, and a bunch more.

Would you like to narrow your question down for us?
Blackshoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2012   #3
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4
Threads:
Assume it is AESA radar with 10GHZ with most optimum power. I'm not too sure what would be the radar power of AEW&C plane has. And the Stealth ships is Zumwalt DDG-1000.

Thanks
Poh
pcchoo1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 23rd, 2012   #4
Defense Professional / Analyst
Captain
Systems Adict's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 750
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcchoo1 View Post
Assume it is AESA radar with 10GHZ with most optimum power. I'm not too sure what would be the radar power of AEW&C plane has. And the Stealth ships is Zumwalt DDG-1000.

Poh,

I mean no disrespect, but why are you asking questions about a ship that hasn't been built yet ?

(yes, I know that parts of it have been fabricated, but it's not a ship till it's complete & in the water)

Secondly, such data would still be the domain of the US govt, the manufacturer's & possibly a 3rd party, who may be asked to test it's abilities. Again, to clarify, it's not exactly data that you're gonna get by asking people who maybe working on the project, or find via google, or Wikipedia !

Thirdly, WHY do you need this data ?

Is it part of a project or college / university thesis ?

If so, you SHOULD know only too well that shortcuts to obtaining such information will only lead to more questions & possible flaws.

As stated previously, stealth isn't that difficult to explain, but the variations & multiple factors that can affect stealth capabilities are endless.

For instance, distance to target, weather, cloud cover, brightness of sunshine, output power of radar detecting the target, angle to target, beam width, materials used, thickness, angle of reflecting surface, was said surface coated in RAM, made of exotic materials, etc, etc.

The question sounds easy, but try getting all the data for one instance, at one second of time, then change just one or two of the variables & your answer will be different !

I can only suggest that you start with something simple, research it to death, back to front, understand it, then ask yourself the initial question again. You'll soon realise that there's not much point.

Sorry if this is confusing, but you're initial question is too.

SA
Systems Adict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2012   #5
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Abraham Gubler's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,190
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcchoo1 View Post
Assume it is AESA radar with 10GHZ with most optimum power. I'm not too sure what would be the radar power of AEW&C plane has. And the Stealth ships is Zumwalt DDG-1000.
46,203m in standard atmosphere.


Quote:
Originally Posted by pcchoo1 View Post
Thanks
Poh
No problems.
Abraham Gubler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2012   #6
Defense Professional / Analyst
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The land of Oz
Posts: 822
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham Gubler View Post
46,203m in standard atmosphere.




No problems.
Arrgh, no doubt about it you are well on top of your game - I got 46,200m give or take 10m - yours is far more accurate. How did you do Assail?
Marc 1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2012   #7
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
ASSAIL's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 1,012
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc 1 View Post
Arrgh, no doubt about it you are well on top of your game - I got 46,200m give or take 10m - yours is far more accurate. How did you do Assail?
Way too complex for this brown duck!
I trained on S band radar Type 293 developed in WW II and the only concept of stealth was to find an island to hide behind (S band) or a rain squall to hide under (X band)
Alternatively you could issue the enemy with Kelvin Hughes or Decca radars which meant that neither ever worked properly for any length of time so, problem solved.
ASSAIL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24th, 2012   #8
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 14,713
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASSAIL View Post
Way too complex for this brown duck!
ditto

Quote:
Originally Posted by ASSAIL View Post
I trained on S band radar Type 293 developed in WW II and the only concept of stealth was to find an island to hide behind (S band) or a rain squall to hide under (X band)
Lose that opportunity with MIMO, OTHR or anything with decent lookdown companions wandering around upstairs.
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 25th, 2012   #9
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
ASSAIL's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 1,012
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
ditto



Lose that opportunity with MIMO, OTHR or anything with decent lookdown companions wandering around upstairs.
I sometimes feel somewhat bemused by surface ship LO as most escorts gadabout with fat ships.

Have the various stealth designs been quantitatively assessed? and what advantage does a say FREMM have over an ANZAC. Imagine an aircraft search radar at 15,000ft looking on a calm day, ie is it (max detection range) a matter of miles difference or tens of miles?
And, does LO work for ASM's?
If its only miles, does it matter?

Last edited by gf0012-aust; October 25th, 2012 at 04:23 AM.
ASSAIL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 25th, 2012   #10
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,108
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASSAIL View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
ditto



Lose that opportunity with MIMO, OTHR or anything with decent lookdown companions wandering around upstairs.
I sometimes feel somewhat bemused by surface ship LO as most escorts gadabout with fat ships.

Have the various stealth designs been quantitatively assessed? and what advantage does a say FREMM have over an ANZAC. Imagine an aircraft search radar at 15,000ft looking on a calm day, ie is it (max detection range) a matter of miles difference or tens of miles?
And, does LO work for ASM's?
If its only miles, does it matter?
I suppose the trick is looking smaller and different to what you really are. i.e. if a DDG looks like a fishing trawler or OPV it may be ignored in favor of the less capable FFG that looks to be the greater threat. This applies to missiles finding / selecting targets as well, as the LO characteristics of a platform can only aid Nulka / chaff etc. in doing their jobs.

Don't know for sure but I wouldn't be surprised of an OHP had a larger signature across a number of spectrums than a Burke while the newer F-100 may be better again and the DDG-1000 would set the new standard.

All this stuff is outside my comfort zone so what I have been raving on about is pretty much guess work.
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 25th, 2012   #11
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 14,713
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASSAIL View Post
I sometimes feel somewhat bemused by surface ship LO as most escorts gadabout with fat ships.

Have the various stealth designs been quantitatively assessed? and what advantage does a say FREMM have over an ANZAC. Imagine an aircraft search radar at 15,000ft looking on a calm day, ie is it (max detection range) a matter of miles difference or tens of miles?
And, does LO work for ASM's?
If its only miles, does it matter?

I think there are far too many variables in play to start giving answers with confidence (esp in an open forum)

eg red teams capability, geo issues on where all their forces and sensors are etc nature of the threat and then simming that model against all the contendors.

then there is the no small issue of what the skimmers systems were designed to do, whether they are being companioned etc...

eg, basically you're running a version of the combat capability scenarios (which have been renamed)

its a variation of the platform assessment (again running the CCS) against the platform itself but also across different friendly force constructs
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 25th, 2012   #12
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
ASSAIL's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 1,012
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
I think there are far too many variables in play to start giving answers with confidence (esp in an open forum)
I didn't really expect answers, the questions were rhetorical in order to display the variables.
You gave an example of a Bourke (sorry, that was V ) but to my mind any advantage they have is surely minimized by the non stealthy mast config (not that their hulls are particularly LO)

Many make claims about the stealthiness of individual designs but a naval TG/formation is just that, unmistakable and when in company with the fleet train/major units there seems to be little or no advantage.

In many cases "stealth"on a warship seems to be a fad and in no way comparable to LO in combat aircraft.

Last edited by gf0012-aust; October 25th, 2012 at 03:31 PM. Reason: Correction
ASSAIL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 25th, 2012   #13
Defense Professional / Analyst
Lieutenant Colonel
aussienscale's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Northern Rivers, NSW
Posts: 1,216
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post

I didn't really expect answers, the questions were rhetorical in order to display the variables.
You gave an example of a Bourke (sorry, that was V ) but to my mind any advantage they have is surely minimized by the non stealthy mast config (not that their hulls are particularly LO)

Many make claims about the stealthiness of individual designs but a naval TG/formation is just that, unmistakable and when in company with the fleet train/major units there seems to be little or no advantage.

In many cases "stealth"on a warship seems to be a fad and in no way comparable to LO in combat aircraft.
To my mind though, to what end in a marine environment does stealth come in usefull ? A marine situation has many other options ! Without going into to much details, deception still has a lot of legs in this day and age

Last edited by gf0012-aust; October 25th, 2012 at 03:31 PM.
aussienscale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 25th, 2012   #14
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 14,713
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by aussienscale View Post
To my mind though, to what end in a marine environment does stealth come in usefull ? A marine situation has many other options ! Without going into to much details, deception still has a lot of legs in this day and age
Concur

major surface combatants in major missions will be part of a broader emitting footprint - although its still possible for Task Forces to "go missing" when they shutdown the emitters etc....

The LO/VLO analogy is far more relevant to subs as they are primary ISR platforms in the water - after subs you're talking about niche assets which are fundamentally grey/green/brown water.

you rapidly hit the "how long is a piece of string" when you discuss LO assisted skimmers

eg the first gen was about structural change - eg redesign the skimmer so that there were less reflective bits, enclose the walkways, add reflective angles to the citadel etc.... but structural changes are expensive and are a visible thing to counter.

emission, like armour is far more down the path of managing it electronically - and companioned up with other assets to fill some gaps.

eg the concept of vehicle armour has traditionally been about RHS values, compounds, laminates, speed, silhouette, managing IR etc... now its also about ballistic detection radar, anticipative reactive armour blocks etc rather than reactive armour....

the whole self defence, walking softly options have shifted from structural design etc to companion and electronically assisted.

All the reactive armour and sensor doodads in the world are going to struggle to assist a tank thats got an apache wandering about overhead with lookdown sensors and weapons systems that will go through the top like it was a can of baked beans.

skimmers are no different in that sense

its all about the threat relative to the capability of the platform, be it isolated or be it as part of a group of happy wanderers.
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 25th, 2012   #15
Moderator
Major General
RobWilliams's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,233
Threads:
My - very primitive - knowledge on how soft kill missile countermeasure systems work means that wouldn't chaff and the like be more effective in countering radar guided ASM? It doesn't stop the ship being targetted but it increases the effectiveness of certain countermeasure equipment.

This judgement is based on that if current amounts of chaff is enough to screw up a lock on a current ASM then wouldn't the same system on a LO based surface ship mean that it'll have a bigger effect on screwing up the lock as the original lock was against a smaller "target" if you like + the disruptive effect of the chaff would appear greater because the original target would be harder to keep the lock maintained?

Or is that complete hogwash? Considering it's not really based on evidence, just making guesses that seem logical to me.
RobWilliams is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:27 AM.