This is a discussion on Super radar detecting US stealth plane within the Space & Defense Technology forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Yeah I just read the rest of the thread I apologise, but really if everyone (all the mojor players) have ...
Yeah I just read the rest of the thread I apologise, but really if everyone (all the mojor players) have stealth radars what is the point of developing stealth characteristics? I understand it if you factored it into your design as a secondary goal but as a primary goal now that seems stupid to me.
Yeah I just read the rest of the thread I apologise, but really if everyone (all the mojor players) have stealth radars what is the point of developing stealth characteristics? I understand it if you factored it into your design as a secondary goal but as a primary goal now that seems stupid to me.
You need to read the short history lesson on LO aircraft within the body of this thread again then.
Its because LO characteristics are evolutionary.
In real terms, the F-117 is regarded as obsolete. (and yet its only 25 years old).
eg, every modern LO design constructed since the advent of computers
has exploited an observability advantage by using different concepts, materials and/or system vulnerabilities.
LO is not a fixed technology. eg, LO manned aircraft in modern terms are already on their 4th production generation, unmanned LO aircraft are already on their 5th or arguably 6th generational design. The classified development platforms are on their 4th (known) iteration.
Just as LO platforms exploit vulnerabilities in detection systems, and detection systems employ counter solutions, so will LO platforms exploit another detection vulnerability.
A cursory look at the history of technology development shows a continuing darwinian cycle until the next generational tipping point is reached.
Any notion that LO aircraft are going to be obsolete ignores the reality that every detection system or package developed was circumvented.
Technology as such tends to be a mobius strip in a lot of respects
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
Ok thanks for clearing that up so planes are evolving along with their ability to detect them... So Stealth technology was sort of a 1990's advantage now made obsolete by detection systems in the 2000 era. I cant wait to see the next evolutionary cycle thanks gf.
Ok thanks for clearing that up so planes are evolving along with their ability to detect them... So Stealth technology was sort of a 1990's advantage now made obsolete by detection systems in the 2000 era. I cant wait to see the next evolutionary cycle thanks gf.
Well, one generational type of LO technology developed in the mid 80's remained viable right up until that technology became less viable due to advances in detection systems. (ie, retirement set for 2008)
However, one must also look at the fact that in a twenty year period the US for example actually had 3 different types of manned LO platform in production - and all use different types of exploitation. Not all systems can detect all 3 over a given detection layer/range. Each therefore still has an exploiting advantage within a threat layer.
Its incredibly naive (and somewhat ignorant in my view) when discussion is centred around "stealth" as though its a divisible and singularly identifiable technology stream that can be countered with "x" detection system. In fact it usually demonstrates to me a spectacular failure in comprehending the concept of LO at all.
I find it interesting that american LO advancements (or stealth amongst the more exuberant posters) has been derided and yet there is no shortage of countries undergoing their own revolution in military capability who have LO programs underway.
The same silly type of riposte has been used when discussing the death of the aircraft carrier (and yet the UK, France, Russia, China and India all have new generation conventional combat aircraft carriers in development, and there are any number of countries that have expeditionary carriers under development for their own procurement cycles). Similarly the death of the tank has been parlayed about ever since the germans developed high calibre centre fire rifles in WW1.
Technology evolves - that's the cogent lesson
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
No... It's believed Australia and Russia are developing such Anti-Stealth Radars
JORN has some anti stealth detection capabilities, but it still cant target a VLO platform. It is hardly an 'anti stealth' radar. In fact there is an ongoing thread regurading this HF OHR system (which is stated to be the most capable of its type in the world):
Have a read. Aparently it has detected VLO platforms before, but just detecting a platform does not mean you can do anything about it. You need to be able to track a target to engage it, and JORN (and the russian equivelent) can not do that.
I wonder if a steath B-2 can be deteced by its IR signature? Also, at high altitudes the exhausts form contrails (in certain conditions) which could also show on radar.
I wonder if a steath B-2 can be deteced by its IR signature? Also, at high altitudes the exhausts form contrails (in certain conditions) which could also show on radar.
Pretty much all stealth aircraft are designed to mask their IR emissions to some extent so what are these "certain conditions"?
There is a sizeable load of complete nonsense in this thread in terms of people’s complete lack of understanding about stealth and in particular radar low observability.
A stealth aircraft like the F-117, B-2, F-22 and F-35 is designed to reduce its radar signature to such a point it becomes impossible to track. It does this via two main methods: channelled radio frequency (RF) energy reflection and radar absorption materials (RAM). The second part is pretty straight forward – absorb the RF so you can’t be detected/tracked. The first part requires a bit of geometry knowledge to understand, but very basic.
A stealth aircraft is designed to reflect RF to 45, 135, 225 and 315 degrees (NE, SE, SW, NW). This is why all the surfaces are symmetrically aligned. Because of this its radar reflection to 0, 90, 180 and 270 degrees (N, E, S, W) is very small (and usually almost nothing thanks to RAM). Stealth designers make sure that enough RF is reflected to match background radiation, black holes can be detected.
While this may seem to be an incomplete solution, reflecting RF to the non-cardinal points of the compass makes an aircraft impossible to detect and track. Because its moving.
A moving vehicle will sustain a pretty solid angular relationship to something located in front of it, on its sides and behind it. But the angular relationship to something at 45, 135, 225 and 315 degrees will widely fluctuate.
Because of this the radar peak reflection areas are not exposed to any radar long enough to enable detection. The only way around this is if the aircraft begins to hover or the radar precisely matches its course and velocity, which since it can’t track it in the first place is impossible, or a very large number of radars are networked together to notice all the brief reflections (which is much easier to say than do on the scale needed to track a stealth aircraft).
Stealth is designed to work against the kind of radars and how they are positioned on the battlefield in relationship to the stealthy aircraft. Since different radar frequencies can be reflected and absorbed in different ways sometimes compromises have to be made. Also the lateral relationship between the aircraft and the radars need to be taken into account.
The reason JORN can supposedly detect and track the B-2 is it is not designed to face a radars operating from high above it, as over the horizon backscatter radars (like JORN) do by reflecting RF of the ionosphere (like an AEW&C flying at 240,000 feet) or at such low frequencies. However a stealthy aircraft like the US Navy’s A-12, if it ever flew, optimised to defeat radar from above, if it ever worked, could possibility defeat JORN. Of course this is assuming that the B-2A hasn’t been fitted with a new layer of 5-20 MHz RAM across the top of the aircraft…
How much does it cost roughly per plane to coat them in RAM? What is the ideal type of radar to defeat or mitigate the effects of American low observable technology? Is there even one?
And in regards to the F-35 JSF, is that as LO as the F-22?
How much does it cost roughly per plane to coat them in RAM?
RAM is not like buying paint from the hardware shop. There are different methods, coatings and characteristics. 20 years ago they were literally applying RAM blankets (and they were actually called "blankets" onto some platforms. Some coatings are sprayed on in special conditions - and recoated after "nn" missions. Its therefore impossible to state a price as 1) there is no public information
2) it will vary with the platform to be coated as to what RAM coating is applicable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lobbie111
What is the ideal type of radar to defeat or mitigate the effects of American low observable technology? Is there even one?
I think you need to read and absorb the comments made about the history of LO aircraft development again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lobbie111
And in regards to the F-35 JSF, is that as LO as the F-22?
No, The F-22 is designed for air dominance its an air superiority asset, its LO characteristics are tuned for likely mission roles. ditto for the JSF which in all likelihood will be first day of war anyway as it will be the majority DEAD/SEAD asset.
chalk and cheese
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
How? I'm all ears! The contrails can form in certain athmospheric conditions, but the IR engine exhaust signature, IMO, can't be fully masked. The defenders can use AWACS and/or other interceptors to scan the sky with IR detectors during a crisis.
How? I'm all ears! The contrails can form in certain athmospheric conditions, but the IR engine exhaust signature, IMO, can't be fully masked. The defenders can use AWACS and/or other interceptors to scan the sky with IR detectors during a crisis.
I forgot that you are the resident ewarfare and sensor expert. If you say so.
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
