indian stealth technology

aaaditya

New Member
hey guys found this new interesting and confusing article on inidan stealth technology:

KOLKATA: India could soon be the third country in the world, after the US and France, to have a stealth bomber fighter aircraft in its armoury.

The Kolkata-based Indian Association for Cultivation of Science (IACS) has developed a technology to convert ordinary light combat aircraft into stealth jets that would go undetected on radar. The first stage of the experiment, which commenced in 1999, has been successfully concluded. The defence ministry has approved the technology and has given the go-ahead for "full-scale production" to begin. It is expected to start in about six months’ time.

According to IACS scientists associated with the project, the technology uses a special material to construct a shield on the plexi-glass canopies. It is the glass cover of the cockpit that usually betrays the presence of an aircraft as it reflects the laser beam that is emitted to catch them on the radar. The shield will cover the cockpit and deflect the laser beam on the shield in all directions.

"This will make sure the aircraft remains undetected on the radar. We are not sure if the same technology is used in France and the US. It has been developed in our own way and using our own techniques. If it works out well, this would be a big step for defence technology in India," said a scientist.

Defence officials said the advanced combat aircraft made in the US and France have a similar shield on the plexi-glass canopies. "This shield gives the canopies a golden tinge. This special layer scatters the laser beams emitted from a radar site either on the ground or in the air (AWACS). We’ve been trying to develop this technology for some time. The shield developed by IACS will boost our indigenisation efforts," an official said.

During the exercises at Kalaikunda where US F-16s took part, IAF officials got a closer look at the gold-tinted canopies. They also got a chance to test the technique by using ground-based radar. Interestingly, the F-16s from Singapore did not have the shield as the technology has not been transferred.

The defence authorities were so impressed with the new technology that they decided to fast-track the process and start full-scale production of the canopy following a test at Jodhpur recently.

"They had the option of going for a pilot project initially but they chose to skip it," said an IACS official. Fighter jets like Jaguars, MiGs, Mirages and Sukhois will now be fitted with this special canopy to enhance their stealth capabilities

here check out the link:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-1464563,curpg-4.cms

can someone explain how this technology works,also is this the reason why the us f16's and f22 have a darker tinted canopies?do fighter aircraft canopies have high radar signature when compared to the airframe?
 

aaaditya

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #2
well guys here is an image of the f16 gold canopy claimed to reduce the frontal rcs by 15%.

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?module=pnGallery2&func=main&g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=27619


here is an article on this stealth technology:

Aircraft Canopy Laser Porthole

An invention that optically isolates a laser beam from an aircraft canopy system eliminates excessive canopy glow from the pilot's view.



AFRL's Human Effectiveness Directorate, Crew System Interface Division, Visual Displays Systems Branch, Wright-Patterson AFB OH

The Human Effectiveness Directorate has developed an aircraft canopy laser porthole to eliminate canopy glow when using a laser. Combat aircraft pilots sometimes use infrared (IR) lasers to mark certain classes of ground targets at night. They handhold the laser and fly at the same time while wearing night vision goggles (NVGs) and laser eye protection (LEP). Currently, low-power IR lasers are used, however, the use of more powerful lasers can increase stand-off range. The canopy naturally acts as a light conduit causing a canopy glow, which is mostly due to the imperfections (particulate inclusions and bubbles) found within the material and exterior surface abrasions (scratches and sand/stone impacts). The glow interferes with the pilot's out-of-cockpit NVG visibility needed for flight, target acquisition, and designation. In general, glow increases as laser power increases. Laser light can also bounce around the cockpit, which is one reason the pilot wears LEP, however, the LEP may reduce NVG performance and the glow further degrades visibility. The canopy laser porthole optically isolates the laser light from the rest of the canopy, thus allowing increased laser power while still maintaining excellent out-of-cockpit visibility for the pilot. Benefits include increased laser eye safety within the cockpit, lowered IR signature emanating from the cockpit, greater stand-off slant range, and no canopy glow increase as abrasion-induced light scattering occurs in aging parts.


check out this link for full and the detailed article:

http://www.afrlhorizons.com/Briefs/Mar01/HE0008.html
 

rossfrb_1

Member
aaaditya said:
{snip}
The Human Effectiveness Directorate has developed an aircraft canopy laser porthole to eliminate canopy glow when using a laser. Combat aircraft pilots sometimes use infrared (IR) lasers to mark certain classes of ground targets at night. They handhold the laser and fly at the same time while wearing night vision goggles (NVGs) and laser eye protection (LEP). Currently, low-power IR lasers are used, however, the use of more powerful lasers can increase stand-off range. The canopy naturally acts as a light conduit causing a canopy glow, which is mostly due to the imperfections (particulate inclusions and bubbles) found within the material and exterior surface abrasions (scratches and sand/stone impacts). The glow interferes with the pilot's out-of-cockpit NVG visibility needed for flight, target acquisition, and designation. In general, glow increases as laser power increases. Laser light can also bounce around the cockpit, which is one reason the pilot wears LEP, however, the LEP may reduce NVG performance and the glow further degrades visibility. The canopy laser porthole optically isolates the laser light from the rest of the canopy, thus allowing increased laser power while still maintaining excellent out-of-cockpit visibility for the pilot. Benefits include increased laser eye safety within the cockpit, lowered IR signature emanating from the cockpit, greater stand-off slant range, and no canopy glow increase as abrasion-induced light scattering occurs in aging parts.
{snip}
Admittedly I know very little about this sort of thing. But this sounds like baloney to me. Hand held lasers in an aircraft?? Is this an early April 1 joke?

rb
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
rossfrb_1 said:
But this sounds like baloney to me. Hand held lasers in an aircraft??

The comment about lasers in the cockpit is absolute rubbish. I suspect that the person writing the article knows very very little about systems.
 

chrisrobsoar

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
gf0012-aust said:
The comment about lasers in the cockpit is absolute rubbish. I suspect that the person writing the article knows very very little about systems.
Laser in the cockpit, rubbish, well may be not.


The following Laser Pointers were unapproved but were purchased by the local commanders and distributed to the supporting pilots.

I have spent a couple of hours looking for the article explaining the background. As I came across it by accident the first time, I have been unable to find the link.

So for the present please excuse me for not posting the link, but I will try the give you a brief account of the article from memory.

In Iraq the local US ground commanders were not satisfied with the close air support they were getting. A lot of the trouble was that the data provided by the UAVs was insufficiently detailed to allow them to accurately call in air support, particularly in the urban environment. There were also problems in getting the aircraft to hit the right target and to carry out damage assessment.

The solution was that the local commanders bought commercial digital cameras and Laser pointers (both IR & visible types) and gave them to the pilots. This gave the pilots the option of using the Laser pointer to identify the target and ask the ground commander to confirm that it was indeed the target, or to take a picture that was relayed back to the ground commander for confirmation.

I think that the digital cameras were mainly used for tactical mission planning and the fly and damage assessment after an attack. The Laser pointers appeared to be used for target confirmation prior to the attack.

Bright Green Laser pointers have also been used by troops on the ground to slow down suspect high-speed vehicles.

Buying unofficial kit, which is subsequently officially adopted is rather like what happened with GPS during the first Gulf War.


Yes initially I was surprised as well.

The following is some information showing the type of Laser pointers deployed and a warning about the use of this equipment in helicopters.


The Air Commander's Pointer (ACP) is a long-range infrared (IR) pointer and illuminator designed specifically for combat aviators. The unit is mounted on a fabric foot with Velcro hook sewn to the bottom. It is designed to attach to a user-supplied glove, modified with supplied Velcro pile sewn to the top. When properly installed, the battery compartment is positioned on top of the hand and the finger-ring around the index finger. A momentary ON/OFF switch is embedded in a position that allows easy activation with the thumb.

Description Model Number National Stock Number

ACP-2, Air Commander's Pointer (50 mW) ACP-2 5855-01-420-0812
ACP-2A, Air Commander's Pointer (100 mW) ACP-2A 5855-01-420-0814
ACP-2B, Air Commander's Pointer (175 mW) ACP-2B 5855-01-485-4221


http://www.nvec-night-vision.com/products/details_R.asp?Msg=20&System=ACP-2&Category=10

Page 18 Use of Commercial Laser Pointers in US Army Helicopters/NVG

https://crc.army.mil/MediaAndPubs/magazines/flightfax/2004_issues/ffoct04.pdf
 

LancerMc

New Member
The idea that the U.S.A.F. is putting port holes in aircraft to use hand held laser is outlandish. I doubt any pilot flying could ever hold his hand steady enough to mark a target or spot of interest clearly.

From what I understand the golden tinge doesn't diminish the canopy Radar Cross Section because there isn't much of one in the first place. In reality it diminish the radar return from the pilot and the actual cockpit and instruments. I believe the golden tint was first used on the F-117, to better hide the pilot and cockpit from the radar scope.

I have never heard of any canopies designed to protect against laser light, but that is new factor in Civilian Aviation. A few years ago, some guy thought it would be cool to shine a green laser at taking off airliners. One pilot was temporarily blinded in the incident. I think some companies are coming up with ideas to better protect airliners against this kind of threat.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
LancerMc said:
The idea that the U.S.A.F. is putting port holes in aircraft to use hand held laser is outlandish. I doubt any pilot flying could ever hold his hand steady enough to mark a target or spot of interest clearly.
A few years ago (1980's) the Russians lasered a low flying RAAF Orion that was dogging it when it came close to territorial waters (it was when the new subs were being built and the russians were sniffing around the general test location) They temporarily injured one of the crew. It was also an illegal act and to an incident where the AusGov basically said that if it was repeated then it would be considered a warlike act and a response might ensue. The Soviets never came back into that area of interest.

chrisrobsoar said:
Laser in the cockpit, rubbish, well may be not............

Yes initially I was surprised as well.

As for the handheld laser issue. I was looking at it from the perspective of USAF pilots running around with "powerpoint specials" lighting up targets in the battlespace etc....

I would still regard it as nonsense based on some work we did in the early 90's with a focussed light source designed to transmit data over a LOS and short (WVR at ground level) course.

We had substantial problems getting reliable locked connections - due to a number of factors. Handheld target designating is not easy - even in a static and prone position. Handheld TD whilst in a moving platform is almost useless. We tried it on shore to ship communications - and trying to get an operator to lock onto a small target receiver (let alone a small target area like a tank) becomes quite interesting - if not debilitating. If someone is trying to do this in complex airspace where people are focussed on keeping you out of their backyard - then there is no way that a single manned piloted aircraft is going to be able to lase, lock and continue with no break on target. then there are issues of physical medium interference between designator and target - you don't need much to break lock

I'd be really really curious to see the post system eval reports on the issued designators as if the american exp was any way near close to what we discovered, then they were a WOFTAM.

The mil designators were not std issue - and I assumed that they were also short lived due to the above. even a backseater would struggle to lock and hold onto a fixed target while they were moving. add in the dynamics of a moving target and a moving base platform plus the fact that a human is the least accurate gimbal in "use" - and you can start to see why variables work against it being a successful weapons integration solution ;)

Laser desig at ground level - absolutely, in an aircraft - see the above.

If you think that handheld laser spotters are stable and useful on moving platforms, then consider the problems that abound with RAMICs and LADR which are "easier" weapons solutions to "manage".
 

Wooki

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
What??

I am totally confused by this report. Perhaps it wasn't translated correctly?

The bone dome in a cockpit is a fantastic radar reflector and hence the radar reflective coating on the cocktpit.

As an aside that is what you look for with regard to a man in the water... don't take your helmet off unless you absolutely have to.

Lasers?.... how does that contribute to stealth? Maybe they mean electromagnetic radiation?

:dunce

cheers

W
 

rossfrb_1

Member
chrisrobsoar said:
Laser in the cockpit, rubbish, well may be not.


The following Laser Pointers were unapproved but were purchased by the local commanders and distributed to the supporting pilots.

I have spent a couple of hours looking for the article explaining the background. As I came across it by accident the first time, I have been unable to find the link.

So for the present please excuse me for not posting the link, but I will try the give you a brief account of the article from memory.

In Iraq the local US ground commanders were not satisfied with the close air support they were getting. A lot of the trouble was that the data provided by the UAVs was insufficiently detailed to allow them to accurately call in air support, particularly in the urban environment. There were also problems in getting the aircraft to hit the right target and to carry out damage assessment.

The solution was that the local commanders bought commercial digital cameras and Laser pointers (both IR & visible types) and gave them to the pilots. This gave the pilots the option of using the Laser pointer to identify the target and ask the ground commander to confirm that it was indeed the target, or to take a picture that was relayed back to the ground commander for confirmation.
{snip}
On reflection (pun intended), I can envisage some use (at a pinch) from slow moving aircraft like helicopters and the like. Having played around with a few laser pointers, I still think it would be extremely difficult for anyone in a moving aircraft to designate with a hand held laser, especially the pilot. Marking something (presumably vehicle sized) at a distance measured in kilometres seems like a hard ask. Just how long does a target need to be designated? Out to what distance is this handheld technique supposed to be effective to?
I still think hand held laser designation in a fast jet (eg F-16) is just out of the question. The idea that you could have a little window in the cockpit to poke a laser through seems ludicrous. Ever opened a car window a little at high speed? Multiply that by a factor of at least five.

rb
 

EnigmaNZ

New Member
What a confused article eg " it reflects the laser beam that is emitted to catch them on the radar. " we are talking about 2 different sensors here, radar is not laser based.

A porthole is not a hole in the canopy lol. It is an area isolated from the rest of the canopy. The laser shining through the perspex reflects some of it's light off the inside layer around the cockpit, as it passes through the thickness of the perspex it hits the outside layer and is reflected back through the canopy thickness, the reflected light strikes the inside layer of the canopy and is reflected back out, passing around the canopy causing it to glow. I think the perspex is laminated as well, creating a internal mirror effect, a bit like a wave guide.


------------------|------ <Canopy
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/|\/\/\/ <Reflected light
------------------|------ <Canopy
Laser pointer>|

I prosume it can be a simple as cutting out a core, then glueing back in and smoothing over, so creating a wall around the "porthole" to prevent light reflecting around the canopy, and use solid, not a liminated section.

-----------------------|------ <Canopy
Reflected light>>|/|\| <<<<Reflection blocked by barrier
-----------------------|------ <Canopy
Laser pointer>>>|

All guestwork on my part lol, but seems logical.

Edit: just read this - "When aircraft missions changed from high to relatively low altitudes in the mid 1970's, thin glass windscreens were replaced with thick, laminated plastic windscreens to protect the aircrew from bird impacts. While providing more protection, the plastic windscreens are optically inferior to glass."

"Gold-tinted canopies have been noticed on the EA-6B and the F-16C/D. On the EA-6B, the coating is a shield against electromagnetic radiation from the Prowler's powerful jamming pods. On the F-16C/D, officially the purpose of this treatment is classified, but it is believe that the gold coating reduces the aircraft's radar signature, by reducing reflections off the complex interior shape of the cockpit. In both cases the coating is a very thin layer of actual gold metal, not a gold-tinted paint.
Other aircraft, such as the F-15E and F/A-18C/D, have a distinct greenish tinge to their canopies. This is a different coating (on the inside of the canopy rather than the outside) that reduces internal reflections to help visibility."
 
Last edited:

hovercraft

New Member
radar waves and light waves are two different things, how can laser beam effects on radar waves(electro magnatic)? it is not possible. and why f-22 has darker tinted canopy, i think they use graphite particals in the glass or plastic of the canopy, because graphite particales absorbs the radar waves slightly, they do this for extra low radar cross section, because in cockpit same things reflects the radar waves in very high quantity pilot's seat is one of them. and other idea is, my be they uses polarization filter sheet in/on the canopy glass to reduces the sunshine effect in pilot's cabin. If you are good in photography(like me) then you will know about it.
aadita your whole artical is looking like fantasy, or a dream, not reality it is out of physics principles.
 
Last edited:

norinco89

New Member
Wow all my god plexi glass! lol. Plexi glass is not a stealth tech. Real stealth tech would be resistant paint, material, shape and engine exaust cooling systems(to avoid infared). Those are stealth. And lasars and radar? whatever source you are using stop using it.
 

TheDefender

New Member
norinco89 said:
Wow all my god plexi glass! lol. Plexi glass is not a stealth tech. Real stealth tech would be resistant paint, material, shape and engine exaust cooling systems(to avoid infared). Those are stealth. And lasars and radar? whatever source you are using stop using it.
Lolz dont say that if Indians say that they can make a fighter stealthy this way then belive them caz when Indians say something then they can do that ;) you will see the results no one is going any where we are all here to see what India can do
 

aaaditya

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #14
TheDefender said:
Lolz dont say that if Indians say that they can make a fighter stealthy this way then belive them caz when Indians say something then they can do that ;) you will see the results no one is going any where we are all here to see what India can do
well my dear defender,if you think that only americans are in posession of stealth technology then you are mistaken,off course americans are the pioneers and may be are still ahead of other countries,but the other countries are also working on such technologies and many have put them in service.

take for example india,they have developed a ram coating for their jaguars which reduces the rcs signature by 70% for a 50kg weight penalty.

check out this article:

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Aircraft/Specs/index.html

go to the comments section of this article and check out the 4th paragraph.
 

norinco89

New Member
See that is stealth.

Well depends on what you define on stealth.

No country has yet to match the F-117 or B-2 level of stealth.

I never said America has the monopoly on stealth. the F-2 has stealthy curves, resistant paint and material. the Eurofighter has stealthy feaures and so does the Rafale.

But true stealth is still a US monopoly. :usa
 

powerslavenegi

New Member
norinco89 said:
See that is stealth.

Well depends on what you define on stealth.

No country has yet to match the F-117 or B-2 level of stealth.

I never said America has the monopoly on stealth. the F-2 has stealthy curves, resistant paint and material. the Eurofighter has stealthy feaures and so does the Rafale.

But true stealth is still a US monopoly. :usa
Ahem...... I am sorry but Russians were there first again :D :p:
"In 1966 a Russian scientist named Pyotr Ufimtsev wrote a paper called "Method of Edge Waves in the Physical Theory of Diffraction," which described the mathematics required to develop aircraft that could evade radar. The paper was extremely technically dense, and employed a set of formulas originally developed a hundred years earlier by Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell to reach its conclusions. Even if you understood the impact of what Ufimtsev was saying, you had to read almost the entire 40 pages before getting to the zinger.

Nine years later the US Airforce Foreign Technology Division finally translated it from its original Russian, and it was picked up by a bright engineer in Lockheed's Skunkworks (the same group that went on to develop the SR-71 Blackbird, and which earlier had created the U2 spy plane). He happened to have just started working on the Skunkworks' first real stealthy aircraft, and so was primed for unorthodox thinking on how to reduce the radar ."

http://military.discovery.com/convergence/stealth/article/article.html

http://richardsona.squarespace.com/
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
powerslavenegi said:
Ahem...... I am sorry but Russians were there first again :D :p:
no they weren't. the scots were. ;) The Russians actually never were able to convert that complex theorem into a working flying shape.

in addition, the US has never claimed to invent stealth - or more correctly LO aircraft.

What they have done is convert the scottish and later russian formulae into working designs. This is to the extent that they are now on their 4th production generation of combat aircraft, their 3rd platform generation of unmanned platforms, and at approx the 5th or poss 6th (depending on how you ID the platforms) of research aircraft.

Meanwhile - since their first combat production aircraft flew in 1982 - no one else has shown any LO comparable aircraft to the world - and certainly not squadron operational.

The US is the only one who has produce 4 generational production designs of manned combat aircraft where everybody can see the results.

They're the first to do that by a golden mile. - in that sense, they do have an absolute monopoly - thats since 1982.

So, if anyone should be granted more kudos it should be the Scots - not the Russians.

powerslavenegi said:
Nine years later the US Airforce Foreign Technology Division finally translated it from its original Russian, and it was picked up by a bright engineer in Lockheed's Skunkworks (the same group that went on to develop the SR-71 Blackbird, and which earlier had created the U2 spy plane). He happened to have just started working on the Skunkworks' first real stealthy aircraft, and so was primed for unorthodox thinking on how to reduce the radar ."
There is some really bad research here as well, the SR-71 Skunkworks team designed and delivered on a working platform in 1966 not 9 years after Pyotr Ufimtsev's treatise on stealth. The first operational flight was in 1968 and Ben Richs team didn't have access to Russian data at that stage anyway as the US didn't discover it for another 7 years. - So, the US didn't discover the formulae and theorems for almost 10 years after Ufimtsev's publication - but the SR-71 was already built and flying. 8 years prior.

In real terms, Oxcart (the A-12) - the flying demonstrator of the SR-71 first flew in 1962 - some 4 years before Pyotr Ufimtsev's papers. Lockheed also started Oxcart in 1956, some 10 years before Pyotr Ufimtsev's work - so the notion that the US used Pyotr Ufimtsev's work to build the Sr-71 is absolute rubbish.

Whoever wrote the article has messed up their research and assumptions by not checking things properly. ;)


I should add, that I fail to see what this has to do with regards to Indian Stealth - so back on topic folks.

No more discussion distractions please....
 
Last edited:

norinco89

New Member
Back on the Indian stealth thing what does Lasars got to do with radars and stuff. So could you list me some stealth techs india come up with.

Is there anyway to go undetected not by design wise but by electronical warfare wise.
 

aaaditya

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #19
norinco89 said:
Back on the Indian stealth thing what does Lasars got to do with radars and stuff. So could you list me some stealth techs india come up with.

Is there anyway to go undetected not by design wise but by electronical warfare wise.
india has developed composites and ram coating,work is currently going on flyash coating.

i believe the french spectra jammer mounted on the french rafale jet has this capability,though iam not exactly sure,it is claimed that the spectra absorbs the radar waves from the sensors and fires out of phase radar beam back to the receiver,i wish someone here would explain about that concept.
 

coolieno99

New Member
Incoming radar waves is analyzed for frequency and amplitude(strength). The spectral jammer would generate an equivalent electromagnetic waves with the same frequency and amplitude, but with phase angle of 180 degree with respect to the incident wave. Then the generated waves would canceled out the reflected waves, so in effect there would be no reflections.

A while back I read an article China developed RAM using metallic particles.
 
Top