Stealth warships capabilities
- Thread starter pcchoo1
- Start date
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?
Would you like to narrow your question down for us?
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
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.
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 a moderator:
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.
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
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 a moderator:
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 a moderator:
ConcurTo 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
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.
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.
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.
The thing with chaff is that has a better chance of fooling weapons systems with no smarts
eg some curr gen missiles can drive through on an anticipated target point if their sensors get jumpy - much like your GPS in a tunnel where newer models still generates direction to destination based on prev input. which is why "chaff and chink (zig-zag" kicks in to play
Its also why if the weapons has smarts on board and can be handed off, it doesn't matter if onboard loses signal - the controlling handler (other networked asset such as another Av-ASW or suitably kitted AWACs etc could take it through to terminal
proximity weapons have an advantage then over contact weapons.
I agree entirely. Stealth for green/brown/littorals/fast attack etc is self evident but, despite the discussion for, I still struggle with it for blue water battleforce ships.
I haven't read the conops for the Zumwalts, but I can see the benefit for them as they will be more likely than others to be operating independently (I think)?
Last edited by a moderator:
Most of what are called ‘stealth’ warships are most certainly not. Lots of ships have angled sides and the like and it reduces their radar signature some of the time but not in the multiple significant figure levels needed to have a tactical effect on detection range. At best they are kind of making their blip smaller so they look like a deep sea trawler rather than a destroyer. Which has its benefits but it’s nothing like an LO aircraft in operational use.
The only two true stealth warships that I know of are the Sea Shadow and the Zumwalt. Because both of these ships have the capacity to control their natural ship roll so as to present an appropriately angled hull surface to searching radars. They also have the CONOPs to operate in a signals managed way more like a submarine than a normal skimmer. The weaponised Sea Shadow even had a planned stealth version of the Patriot missile which it was going to massacre unsuspecting BEARs and BACKFIREs with.
SteelTiger 177
New Member
I remember at one time the U.S.Navy was also looking at developing a aircraft carrier with stealth capabilities and there was a model of one that i saw by Aros models on th 1250 ships website(this was before it changed to Morningside models) and i saw the model again at Alnavco.I imagine trying to actually develope a stealth carrier would be much harder than a ship like say the U.S.S. Sea Shadow or Zumwalt.There's some who wonder what would a stealth aircraft carrier would be used for aside from being used as a launch pad for special operations which is why it nver became a reality.
King Wally
Active Member
In my honest opinion if you want a stealthy ship you get a Sub. Maybe I'm missing something but it just seams like a bloody hard (and expensive) exercise at fluctuating results to try and convert a destroyer into a stealth attack weapon? I've got this weird feeling this Zumwalt DDG-1000 will end up in a museum next to a RAH-66 Comanche within the "missapplication of stealth" wing.