Stealth Capability debate

[GGTharos]

Its no where near "they can't spot me, they don't even know we are here and they don't even see I launched a missile at them and I can be flying at home when missile hits to target".

 

Actually yes, it is just like that. You might get some indication that there's something out there, but you won't be able to do a whole lot about it: Your radar won't see a target (or it will see false targets), your IRST is very range-limited, and if your radar can't see a target, neither can your missiles - and this is right down to WVR range.

 

And that's essentially why everyone's jumping on the stealth band-wagon now.

 

Ground-based radars and AWACS will do better because they have larger antennas and higher power output, but they still get limited by stealth.

[Fri13]

Actually yes, it is just like that. You might get some indication that there's something out there, but you won't be able to do a whole lot about it: Your radar won't see a target (or it will see false targets), your IRST is very range-limited, and if your radar can't see a target, neither can your missiles - and this is right down to WVR range.

 

And that's essentially why everyone's jumping on the stealth band-wagon now.

You are seen from sky, you might not be targeted but you need to fly blind if not wanted to receive a ARM. And anyways if you are seen, you can be fired upon and guide missile closer and you are again lost all stealth benefits.

All that is required is that SOMEONE see you and gets a enough telemetry to get data for solution.

 

And there ain't such stealth technology that would not hide you. Why active counter measurement are tech to fool you. If you can't hide, its possible to fool your position, let the enemy shoot at you but waste missiles.

 

Eventually the combat is again in VWR, no wonder that USA has spent more money to get planes agile and maneuverable than on stealth technology, while has lost even in that and required to lower radically requirements to get their "Stealth" planes accepted to service.

 

The "Stealth" is a bad name for the technology, better would be just "RCS minimizer" or "radar wave substraction" but it is wanted to give a illusion to normal citizens that they can feel their paid taxes goes to some mystical "hi-tech" that renders their country fighters invisible and so on perfect fighter.

 

The air combat ain't anymore like 20-30 years ago where it is fighter vs fighter. There are far more other radars lighting up every plane there is.

[GGTharos]

You are seen from sky, you might not be targeted but you need to fly blind if not wanted to receive a ARM.

 

Oh, ok, we're into magical ARMs now :)

 

And anyways if you are seen, you can be fired upon and guide missile closer and you are again lost all stealth benefits.

 

... how about no? :) I mean, the real answer is always 'it depends'. Seen how? By what? By who? Am I already in an advantageous position anyway? In that case, do I care?

 

All that is required is that SOMEONE see you and gets a enough telemetry to get data for solution.

 

Yep, and all that's needed to stop global warming is for everyone to turn off their power plants, cars, planes, ships for-ever ... and plant trees.

Easy, right?

 

And there ain't such stealth technology that would not hide you. Why active counter measurement are tech to fool you. If you can't hide, its possible to fool your position, let the enemy shoot at you but waste missiles.

 

It is far more easy to fool someone when you have stealth on your side. That funky ECCM stuff - it's out there you know. On stealth planes, too. Right alongside the ECM.

 

Eventually the combat is again in VWR, no wonder that USA has spent more money to get planes agile and maneuverable than on stealth technology, while has lost even in that and required to lower radically requirements to get their "Stealth" planes accepted to service.

 

Stealth technology cost a lot more than maneuverability testing. Not only that, but the USAF and NASA did huge amounts of testing on maneuverability, and a lot of it was simply not implemented in fighter jets. Stealth was, and continues to be developed.

I don't see any thrust vectoring retrofits to F-15's, F-16's, F-18's, or F-35's.

 

The "Stealth" is a bad name for the technology, better would be just "RCS minimizer" or "radar wave substraction" but it is wanted to give a illusion to normal citizens that they can feel their paid taxes goes to some mystical "hi-tech" that renders their country fighters invisible and so on perfect fighter.

 

It's a great name, because it does exactly what it says. It does render those fighters pretty much invisible to sensors until you get really close.

 

The air combat ain't anymore like 20-30 years ago where it is fighter vs fighter. There are far more other radars lighting up every plane there is.

 

Actually, yes it is like 20-30 years ago. You pretty much just described 20-30 years ago vs. WW2.

[vicx]

Invisible cruise missiles from heaven will beat everything.

[GGTharos]

I thought that was AMRAAMs launched from Orbit ... or R-77's ... or KS-172's. Am I getting my missiles right? In any case, no, stealth cruise missiles won't beat everything. If they did ... we wouldn't have any other armaments.

[vicx]

I mean whatever this prototype can carry.

[GGTharos]

I hate to disappoint you, but it's probably covertly watching nudist beaches, not shooting stealth cruise missiles :D

[Ghostraider]

Stealth (radar detection) is not equal invisible. OK you have stealth but not in all frequencys.

[GGTharos]

You can have it in all frequencies that matter.

[Ghostraider]

Physics law can not be changed.

 

Talk with an Patriot Operater for example, they can detect the F-117 without problems and the system needs a Radar reflecting scurface like a Postcard to detect a Target.

[GGTharos]

I spoke with an AWACS operator who got whacked by an F-22 :)

 

F-35's, F-22's, B-2's - They're not F-117s. And I suggest you learn what the laws of physics actually are in this case instead of making some vague reference to 'laws of physics'. If you knew anything about the RF regarding this, you'd be saying 'I'm not sure, it depends', not 'you can't break the laws of physics'.

 

Incidentally, F-117's often used luneburg lenses for transit.

Edited January 3, 2015 by GGTharos

[Ghostraider]

Without external weapons O.K., with external weapon.... I think not

[Ghostraider]

The late Cold War preference for compact antennas and S-band operation has been supplanted by a preference for designs operating in the L-band and VHF-band. Of the six recent Russian acquisition radar designs, only one may operate in the S-band, the remainder being beyond any question L-band or VHF-band designs.

The preference for lower bands is intended to defeat stealth shaping and coatings optimised for S-band and X-band threats, but also electronic warfare self protection systems most of which cannot jam below the S-band due to antenna size limitations

 

 

Look here: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-02.html

[pyromaniac4002]

The preference for lower bands is intended to defeat stealth shaping and coatings optimised for S-band and X-band threats, but also electronic warfare self protection systems most of which cannot jam below the S-band due to antenna size limitations

 

The bottom line is "defeating stealth shaping and coatings" is a relative term. No matter what, stealth characteristics provide very tangible benefits compared to non-stealthy designs. Lower radar bands make some progress against stealth, but they're still very, very far from seriously degrading the tactical advantage that it gives.

[GGTharos]

The late Cold War preference for compact antennas and S-band operation has been supplanted by a preference for designs operating in the L-band and VHF-band. Of the six recent Russian acquisition radar designs, only one may operate in the S-band, the remainder being beyond any question L-band or VHF-band designs.

The preference for lower bands is intended to defeat stealth shaping and coatings optimised for S-band and X-band threats, but also electronic warfare self protection systems most of which cannot jam below the S-band due to antenna size limitations

 

Which of these are physics laws?

 

I know: None.

 

There are radar systems out there which operate in the low frequency bands and they need special software to detect and track stealth targets at a useful (not full) distance. I hate to point out the obvious: the reason for this is that stealth is ... stealth. Yes, you can do the same with X-Band radars.

 

There's no breaking of physics laws, there are no magical low-frequency radars, and there are no magical stealth-defeating radars.

 

Look here: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-02.html

 

That website isn't credible. Sorry. Yes, you can find useful things in it ... if you know enough to cut through the agenda.

[outlawal2]

Without external weapons O.K., with external weapon.... I think not

 

Well no sh%t... You don't load external stores on a stealth plane if stealth is one of the current mission requirements...

 

This is a discussion about stealth properties, not ridiculous scenarios that won't happen...

[TAW_Blaze]

The bottom line is "defeating stealth shaping and coatings" is a relative term. No matter what, stealth characteristics provide very tangible benefits compared to non-stealthy designs. Lower radar bands make some progress against stealth, but they're still very, very far from seriously degrading the tactical advantage that it gives.

 

I agree. Higher wavelength may provide longer detection range against stealth but by how much we don't know, and even then it's still smaller than the same wavelength against a classic 4th generation fighter.

 

Reducing detection range has incredible effect on combat. We're on a modern combat simulator forum, imagine your fighter aircraft of choice being detected at 10 times shorter distance by any airborne fighter radar. 60nm detection ranges cut to 6nm. Basically results in NEZ shots in pretty much all situations. Then I haven't spoken about SAMs and whatnot..

[aaron886]

That website isn't credible. Sorry. Yes, you can find useful things in it ... if you know enough to cut through the agenda.

 

If more people understood this, I seriously think internet discussions of LO would be more productive. ;)

[GGTharos]

^^^^

 

Forum won't let me rep you :D

[thawall]

A stealth plane does definitely have its advantages and for some missions it is currently even a requirement (eg. A2/AD). But the biggest disadvantage of stealth in my opinion is currently cost. There is simply no stealthplane, which is produced in high numbers. If the F-35 ever will be, remains to be seen. And numbers are definitely important in a symetrical air war!

 

I think, passive sensors are the way to go: IRST like PIRATE (EF) have TWS capability and ranges for frontal detection are estimated from 50-90km but up to 150km ranges seem to be possible. IRST also allows to automatically identify targets based on the IR signature of a plane (identification is still huge problem in BVR combat). Coupled with a mid/long range IR missile and no active radar emissons (plus e.g. some frontal RCS reduction measure) even a 4+ gen fighter is a very dangerous combo for a stealth plane (for much less cost & maintenance).

 

And even stealth planes can't hide from IR...

[GGTharos]

Funny how everyone likes to mention IRSTs, forgetting that the main sensor of the platform is still the radar. Not only that, but now IRSTs are magically capable of identification 'based on IR signature'.

 

Also, I believe the F-22 has already been built in 'high numbers'. As for the cost - stealth aircraft aren't that far from their non-stealth contemporaries in TCO.

[thawall]

Because active radar gives away your position, and then even with stealth features, you can be easily detected...

 

Also 192 F-22s is *not* many in comparison to the 1600 built F-15s it replaces (about 400 are still in use, afaik). Furthermore, its sortie rate per day seems to be less also, which means that the impact of its low numbers is even worse.

[vicx]

It looks like IR or optical is going to become the new primary sensor. OR a big ear shaped sensor to listen for stuff. Or laser-scan the whole damn sky (which is active optical search I guess)

Edited January 3, 2015 by vicx

[TAW_Blaze]

Numbers are relative, no point comparing a cold war era production line to the situation of the past 20 years or so.

 

All this talk about the cost isn't so sensible either. Most of the aircraft's cost is the avionics today, provided you want competitive avionics to the date, you will have to spend on the same advanced AESA, TEWS, etc. Avionics can take up to 60% or more of the cost of a modern fighter.

[thawall]

What about the cost required to maintain the RAM coating and increased costs/time in maintainance due to stealth?

 

Regarding numbers: what is essential is that you have enough operational planes to fly the required missions. The lower the sortie rate, the more planes you need. This is what dictates the numbers.

 

Simple example:

Lets say, 80% of F-22 are operational at any time (153). Now, if the sortie rate of the F-22 would be 20% below that of the F-15, then those 153 operational F-22s could only fly the same number of missions as 122 F-15s, effectively reducing their effective use.

 

I'm not saying that the same numbers are required as in cold war times, but 192 may be even less than it seems.