This is a discussion on Super radar detecting US stealth plane within the Space & Defense Technology forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by felixdrake
The balance of power has been in favor of 'hide' for aircraft for some 30 years. ...
The balance of power has been in favor of 'hide' for aircraft for some 30 years. Now it is shifting slowly towards 'seek'. That said, a UAV is harder to detect than a full fledged jet plane, being smaller. Perhaps this will simply mean our delivery systems will need to get smaller for a smaller footprint and carry smaller, more concentrated, more precision ordinance that will be deployed in larger quantities.
)
One of the most modern UAV's - Israel ones - apparently were no problem to be detected and shot by ancient Ossetians Admin. Text Deleted. Lets keep the veiled geopolitical DNA comments out of this, (it's irrelevant to this discussion) SAM's and fighters. This rise a good question if UAV's and stealth generally are REALLY that hard to detect and shot as some peoples like to claim...
Last edited by gf0012-aust; January 4th, 2009 at 07:32 PM.
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 11,138
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrom
One of the most modern UAV's - Israel ones - apparently were no problem to be detected and shot by ancient Ossetians Admin. Text Deleted. Lets keep the veiled geopolitical DNA comments out of this, (it's irrelevant to this discussion) SAM's and fighters. This rise a good question if UAV's and stealth generally are REALLY that hard to detect and shot as some peoples like to claim...
We don't know how many flights those UAVs made. We don't know how many were actually shot down. We don't know how many attempts were made to shoot down before they were actuall downed. Finally lets at least place some of the blame on the operators. What does that leave us with? It leaves us with guesstimates. I don't think we can make an effective judgement call based on that once instance. How about UAV losses over Iraq? Or Serbia?
EDIT: For your information Chrom the UAV incidents last spring happened over Abkhazia not Ossetia.
Last edited by gf0012-aust; January 4th, 2009 at 07:33 PM.
We don't know how many flights those UAVs made. We don't know how many were actually shot down. We don't know how many attempts were made to shoot down before they were actuall downed. Finally lets at least place some of the blame on the operators. What does that leave us with? It leaves us with guesstimates. I don't think we can make an effective judgement call based on that once instance. How about UAV losses over Iraq? Or Serbia?
Exactly. All we can say is that at least one drone, looking like a non-LO Hermes was shot down by a russian fighter plane, most likely a MIG.
Given that one can make a capable UAV with great utility for a specific set of tasks rather small compared to manned aircraft we might to see soon some of VLO design setting off for the sky.
Exactly. All we can say is that at least one drone, looking like a non-LO Hermes was shot down by a russian fighter plane, most likely a MIG.
Given that one can make a capable UAV with great utility for a specific set of tasks rather small compared to manned aircraft we might to see soon some of VLO design setting off for the sky.
Exactly. All we can say is that at least one drone, looking like a non-LO Hermes was shot down by a russian fighter plane, most likely a MIG.
That UAV was not even remotely LO. It had a sensor stalk and a ball turret for the camera - it might as well have a flag hanging out it's back.
Hermes btw is NOT LO. have a look at the design.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firn
Given that one can make a capable UAV with great utility for a specific set of tasks rather small compared to manned aircraft we might to see soon some of VLO design setting off for the sky.
The US was using ram coated UAV's in the 60's and 70's Against the tech of the day, they were regarded as LO/VLO (they regularly ran missions into China)
Considering that VLO UCAV's have been developed for the last 5 years - and are at trials stages - I'm guessing that its sooner than expected.
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
That UAV was not even remotely LO. It had a sensor stalk and a ball turret for the camera - it might as well have a flag hanging out it's back.
Hermes btw is NOT LO. have a look at the design.
By saying that the Herman is a non-LO i meant actually that it is not LO
Quote:
Considering that VLO UCAV's have been developed for the last 5 years - and are at trials stages - I'm guessing that its sooner than expected.
Yes. VLO UCAV's will play an important part in the near future. The availability and development of various types of guided VLO missiles and bombs will open up new possibilies and challanges.
Stealth always was, at best simply going to be another stage on the perpetual tussel between offensive and defensive technologies. Don't know why people get so hung up about the idea that Stealth can be defeated. If the users of Stealth aren't preparing for the day when it ceases to work then I suspect they should be shot for being incompetent. Its not going to last forever and people are very busy working to defeat it, I suspect.
yes. in india they are talking about radars which can see and analyse raindrops, so obiously it's a matter of time before having sucsessfull stealth enters another way of thinking, like putting ramjets on the fighter and go mach 6++. No technology is static, that's why it can be dangerous to rely on a platform like the f-35 for the next forty years.
let's wait a couple of years with buying the abortion-jet, and let's see what passive radars and ir-seekers look like in 10 years before ordering this expencive dog.
yes. in india they are talking about radars which can see and analyse raindrops,
Any of the Bureau of Meteorology weather radars can do that, or any of the weather radars fitted to airliners. Nothing new here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarkozy
so obiously it's a matter of time before having sucsessfull stealth enters another way of thinking, like putting ramjets on the fighter and go mach 6++. No technology is static, that's why it can be dangerous to rely on a platform like the f-35 for the next forty years.
Given the two current technologies available - a 4.5 gen aircraft or a 4.5 gen aircraft with an additional feature that is a gamechanger at the moment making it a 5th gen aircraft - you still believe a 4.5th gen aircraft is better do you? A SMLE Lee Enfireld is a fine rifle, it will kill people just fine. Would you rather take that into battle or the latest FN SCAR in 7.62 fitted with night sights and an M203?
Your quote " No technology is static" is where you shoot your own argument down ("bam" I guess)- it is for exactly that reason that deveopment of LO airframes needs to continue to stay ahead of the opposition. If you don't keep pursuing the latest you get behind in the tech/counter tech war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarkozy
let's wait a couple of years with buying the abortion-jet, and let's see what passive radars and ir-seekers look like in 10 years before ordering this expencive dog.
Yeah good idea - we'll let the Chinese and Russians who also seem to believe in the same technology as this expencive (sic) dog close the gap substantially before we decide to join the bandwagon.
