How stealth are stealth planes

[Cholerix]

While messing around with ME in DCS:A10 is found the F-117 and tested if it could attack a SA-11 battery without getting shoot down. It didn't work and I was wondering weather a real stealth aircraft could engage a SAM-Launcher without being detected or at least without being a target as complete stealth is not possible yet.

[mig29movt]

Well, there are 20+ tons metal objects flying around at Mach 1, you can't hide that but you can reduce the chance of being detected.

 

-----------------------

:poster_offtopic: free to be deleted

 

But that's just my opinion but I'm pretty sure that enough people will flood this thread with all sorts of opinions.

But still there are just opinions around, you're asking something, which can't be answered by the people who would know the answer(s).

 

Just one small adition: In Serbia they somehow managed to shoot down a F-117, but there are also plenty opions and rumours around out there...

 

Without getting to deep into politics (I hope): Who cares about stealth when most of te countries nowadays face wars against a bunch of farmers with AK-47s, the technology is now needed in the A-10C and comparable A/C not in Cold War-era full scale war thinking.

 

....Stop...

writing...

now...

:doh:

nevermind the rest just care about the first part.. that was all I wanted to say

[nscode]

it all depends on the skills of the crew on both ends.

[rextar]

While messing around with ME in DCS:A10 is found the F-117 and tested if it could attack a SA-11 battery without getting shoot down. It didn't work and I was wondering weather a real stealth aircraft could engage a SAM-Launcher without being detected or at least without being a target as complete stealth is not possible yet.

 

Dont forget that the stealths fly at 20000+

drop lgb,s and never get involved in low level.

As said without getting to much into it....they deliver and rtb.

[tflash]

Well, the F-117 was'nt really meant to directly engage a SAM site. The whole clue was to engage a high-value site, like a C&C bunker, by evading the SAM coverage protecting it. The whole point of stealth is that the radius of discovery becomes much smaller, so the SAM coverage has a lot of holes. Since most heavy SAM batteries are static and already located by intel, the F-117's flight plan consisted in flying in between the coverage zones.

 

The whole idea was that an F-22 would be able to directly engage an advanced SAM site by flying very high and dropping a jdam at supersonic speeds, so that it is launched outside the discovery cone.

There is no evidence that this has turned out to a real operational capability yet however.

 

The best ways to engage SAMS is by (stealth) cruise missiles and by Growlers with HARM missiles.

 

In Libya, if I'm right Tomahawk missiles and later Storm Shadow and HARM missiles took out air defenses, the B-2 stealth bombers went rather after airfields.

 

Very nice is also to sneak out air defense radars with attack Helicopters, as was done by Apaches in Desert Storm.

[Cali]

Put it this way, with all the sorties the F-117 flew in DS, not one was hit or downed. A good book to read about the F-117 is "F-117 Stealth Fighter Units of Operations Desert Storm by Warren Thompson" It's a very good look into the secret life of the F-117.

[nscode]

Since most heavy SAM batteries are static and already located by intel

 

they might have been static in vietnam era.

[jpm1]

for planes i think it's not such of not being detected but more being detected the later possible . when stealth planes enter the game F-22 not included , some SEAD planes have already cleaned the place . i think stealth caracteristic for planes is a political choice , to minimize the chance of being it by a mobile SAM and to avoid having a pilot captured . for ships (don't know if it's the question) stealth is very efficient , i heard that large ships can have the signature of fishing vessels . concerning F-22 stealth caracteristic , i can't tell if the plane is undetectable as annouced , as the plane is still pretty secret

[mvsgas]

While messing around with ME in DCS:A10 is found the F-117 and tested if it could attack a SA-11 battery without getting shoot down. It didn't work and I was wondering weather a real stealth aircraft could engage a SAM-Launcher without being detected or at least without being a target as complete stealth is not possible yet.

 

It isn't stealthy in the sim AFAIK. Same as every aircraft. Also, aircraft is not designed to attack SAM sites, more to avoid them and get pass them. F-16C, Tornado, F-4, SU-25T, SU-24, SU-32 and SU-30 will do better against a SAM.

[RIPTIDE]

It isn't stealthy in the sim AFAIK.

To airborne radar it is IIRC.

[tflash]

they might have been static in vietnam era.

 

Well, many countries are still in Vietnam era then. Even in OIF most heavy SAM installations were not being moved around. I agree S-300 and Patriot are semi-mobile and have relatively short setup times. So in theory you could be moving them around all along the conflict, but that isn't very realistic. Patriot batteries in OIF were quite static, since priority is offering coverage, not earning miles.

 

I guess youi're more lucky with moving around shorad's.

[EtherealN]

Yeah, as far as strategic SAMs go, I much better like the Serb and Russian habit of creating fake sites than the idea of moving things around constantly. A site that's moving cannot be relied upon to offer it's capability whenever the need arises. But if you have fake sites keeping the opposition busy, and is being good about proper EMCON with the actual sites, you can really cause problems. (Or, in the serb fashion, let the OPFOR waste expensive munitions blowing up microwave ovens.)

 

The real sites can then act as snipers, shooting precision shots amidst the confusion.

 

SHORAD is already mobile ofc, and can do it's part in making prosecution of targets difficult.

[nscode]

Actually, our SAMs were never static for more than 12 hours, and even the huge early warning radars were modded to be semi-mobile. A static SAM site is a wasted SAM site. With enough cruise missiles to spare, they will fall and who's protecting you then? For round'o'clock protection, use multiple sites. With a well trained crew, dissasembly takes around 15-20 minutes, and truck stop to opperetional is up to 30, but can be less.

 

And as far as protecting an objectve - you can forget about that too. Rather, keep the objective itself mobile if you can. If you can't - forget it and move along, don't waste resources. (oh, they plowed empty bunkers day in and day out. why - I do not know)

[EtherealN]

Thanks for that insight, nscode.

 

One word, or abbreviation rather, that I think can help people appreciate the actual nature of stealth, is the "technical" term used: Low-Observable. It's not that stealth aircraft are invisible to radar, they just use a big suite of "tricks" to reduce their RCS - thus making them harder to "observe" on radar.

 

A further complication is the fact that your observability varies with the spectrum used. Radar isn't anything special - it's just regular light, but at a different wavelength, same as radio is "just light". And of course, there is no such thing as a plane that is "LO" or "stealth" as far as the visual spectrum goes. A "proper" stealth aircraft has to include countermeasures for a lot of these things - they'll have various tricks to absorb/redirect radar waves for the most used wavelengths (theoretically they might, for example, be entirely non-stealth at the wavelengths used by weather radar and several others, but if those wavelenghts are "cluttered" with things like clouds, rain, birds, and shows every density differential in the atmosphere... who cares - no-one will be able to use it to find your plane anyhow), and then add other things to reduce their IR fingerprint (another portion of the spectctrum, one that allows passive detection if left unchecked), and so on and so forth.

 

But essentially, you might still be able to detect the stealth plane using conventional means. It just requires specific circumstances that the designer of the stealth plane wasn't able to anticipate or had to do a design tradeoff for.

[nscode]

One more insight when you've mentioned weather radars - 60% of Yugoslav early warning radars were destroyed or put out of action - and 100% of weather radars :) Also, there is a rumor that all of our kind neighbours that offered their sky for use by NATO were forbidden to use theirs.

 

But maybe, that's just since they were static ;)

[tflash]

I agree whith what is said above, but let's not underestimate stealth either. Suppose you can fly in Lockon online with a modded plane that is detected a few seconds later, I guess you would sign up for that. In many scenario's it would make a dead or alive difference.

 

Don't forget the F-117 and the B-2 DID enter denied airspace AND hit a lot of targets. The B-2 recently went into Libya at a moment there was no coalition air dominance yet and a large portion of the Air defenses were still alive and kicking.

 

I agree the Serbian mobile SA-6 faired much better than their static SA-2/SA-3 counterparts in survivability (much more so than in effective air defense performance), but the best protection for the Serb ground forces proved to be ... stealth tactics.

[Headspace]

Low observable is there to lessen the chances of detection and then engagement, not eliminate it. It isn't a cloaking device.

[Cholerix]

Thanks for the replies.

I kept looking around after I opened this thread and found some interresting things: As an example the S-300 utilizes frequncies from 8 to 20 GHz. They can be absorbed by the material on the skin of stealth aircrafts. But it is still very difficult to hide from frequencies of 2 GHz and below. The T-50 will have a special radar that uses 2 GHz. But there are also some ground based radars that utilizes these frequencies. The downside however is a lower resolution.

Sources if anyone cares:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_%28missile%29#Radar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_technology#Low-frequency_radar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_T-50#Avionics

 

 

Also, aircraft is not designed to attack SAM sites, more to avoid them and get pass them. F-16C, Tornado, F-4, SU-25T, SU-24, SU-32 and SU-30 will do better against a SAM.

I just wanted to know if it works but I didn't really expect it.

[mvsgas]

Some hit the LP player?, it's skipping

[Cholerix]

@MATT

This is interesting but it isn't really about the topic.