Top pilot calls for halt on stealth programs

[Groove]

New radar systems will make stealth planes as we know them right now obsolete rather sooner than later.

[sobek]

New radar systems will make stealth planes as we know them right now obsolete rather sooner than later.

 

How? You can't detect a target if it's not reflecting energy back at you.

[Groove]

Passive Radar technology like Silent Sentry.

 

Cassidian works on a radar system which uses TV and Radio signals.

[Eddie]

Even the most stealthy aircraft still reflect some radar energy. It is possible, although technically very difficult, to detect them. Who is to say what future systems may be able to do.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

How?Youu can't detect a target if it's not reflecting energy back at you.

 

Serbia, 1999, village of "Буђановци" (Budjanovci) ...

[lobo]

Serbia, 1999, village of "Буђановци" (Budjanovci) ...

 

Article related to this shootdown:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20209770

[Kenan]

Serbia, 1999, village of "Буђановци" (Budjanovci) ...

 

Yes but that they didn't -know- it was invisible. :D

[Weta43]

Do they move though?

Launchers, command vehicles, Stationary radars with ESA, dug in armour etc ?

No, they don't move...

 

How? You can't detect a target if it's not reflecting energy back at you.

 

I'm probably not telling you anything you don't aready know, but "Stealthy" designs are tuned to specific bandwidths, use radio waves of another wavelength and they's no longer stealthy.

(the obvious example at the very short end of the spectrum being light, which is why they're not invisible to your eyes)

 

I'm pretty sure I've read a number of countries are trying (testing ?) synthetic apature radar at much longer wavelengths than conventional search & track radars. They might have greater margin of error, but they'll detect, & give intercept guidance to weapons with their own terminal guidance ..

Edited November 12, 2012 by Weta43

[sobek]

Cassidian works on a radar system which uses TV and Radio signals.

 

Not sure how that is supposed to work since those have such long wavelengths, they'd have a hard time detecting anything smaller than a mid sized hill with it. There's a reason current radars use microwaves.

 

Also, something like that would only be applicable to ground based stationary systems, since the antennae would be too large for fighters or mobile units.

Edited November 12, 2012 by sobek

[marcos]

How? You can't detect a target if it's not reflecting energy back at you.

In the future it may be possible to raster scan the entire sky with a laser, who knows what the future will bring. I also predict that stealth, in its current guise will become obsolete.

 

It took 40 years after the invention of radar for it to be defeated, so maybe 40 years after the invention of stealth, it will also be defeated.

[marcos]

Passive Radar technology like Silent Sentry.

 

Cassidian works on a radar system which uses TV and Radio signals.

That's actually pretty fascinating. Makes sense too:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_radar

[Groove]

Not sure how that is supposed to work since those have such long wavelengths, they'd have a hard time detecting anything smaller than a mid sized hill with it. There's a reason current radars use microwaves.

 

Also, something like that would only be applicable to ground based stationary systems, since the antennae would be too large for fighters or mobile units.

 

Passive radars don't send any energy, the sniff for "electromagnetic holes" in the sky. IIRC a czecz passive radar technology which was bought by the US some years ago could be packed into the trunk of a sedan.

[wilky510]

Serbia, 1999, village of "Буђановци" (Budjanovci) ...

You sure love this incident, don't you? :smilewink:

[wilky510]

So by reading some comments on this thread, people think stealth will be useless in the near future by looking into their crystals balls. So what if we somehow cancel the whole full stealth fleet project and go for an interim solution? What will the US do when J-20, PAK-FA stealth designs have matured. Just be outclassed until this new wonder weapon radar is available and matured enough to be effective against stealth aircraft?

 

But if 400 F-35s cost the same as 1600 F-16s, the F-35 can't be in 4 places simultaneously. Same issue with the Raptor. In a straight head-to-head it can turn the odds on their head, but in a large strategic battle, it has no powers of self-replication. The less aircraft you have, the more limited your offensive/defensive front. You can't defend as much and you can't attack as much simultaneously. Your game plan is more limited. You either spread the Raptors wafer thin, or you narrow your field of play.

If the USAF buys only 400 F-35's, they did some terribly wrong. Even with the inflated prices, they need buy enough to replace F-16's. That's why the F-22 production line was stopped, to save money for more F-35's. From what i've seen.. the USAF is gonna try and stick to as many as they can buy. Even if they can't afford it, the program is already too far forward, and to be honest there's no interim solution on the books for an F-35 alternative. Starting a new program right now would end up costing more than just buying the F-35's.

[marcos]

So by reading some comments on this thread, people think stealth will be useless in the near future by looking into their crystals balls. So what if we somehow cancel the whole full stealth fleet project and go for an interim solution? What will the US do when J-20, PAK-FA stealth designs have matured. Just be outclassed until this new wonder weapon radar is available and matured enough to be effective against stealth aircraft?

I guess a lot depends on how stealthy the J-20 and PAK-FA will be. As a first attempt at stealth, they may not be any better than an F-117, which isn't much better than a EF2000 or Rafale from some RCS figures I've seen banded about (all between 0.025 - 0.1m2). What was classed as a stealth plane 20 years ago, wouldn't be one today. Unless the RCS falls under 0.003m2, it might not even be correct to class them as 5th gen fighters.

 

If they have 1700 F-35s, then problem solved I guess.

[112th_Rossi]

All this could be redundant if scientists perfect invisibility cloaks that cloak everything from microwave to visible light.

[silverofx441]

But if 400 F-35s cost the same as 1600 F-16s, the F-35 can't be in 4 places simultaneously. Same issue with the Raptor. In a straight head-to-head it can turn the odds on their head, but in a large strategic battle, it has no powers of self-replication. The less aircraft you have, the more limited your offensive/defensive front. You can't defend as much and you can't attack as much simultaneously. Your game plan is more limited. You either spread the Raptors wafer thin, or you narrow your field of play.

 

Exactly! We seem to repeat past mistakes over and over again. Germany went down that road in WW2 when they produced the Tiger tank. In the end, though it was one of the best tank fielded during the war, it didn't change the outcome. they where expensive to built, it took more time to built, it took more raw material to built. For the same price of a Tiger tank, they could built four tanks of lesser "caliber". Case in point: the were never more than a handfull of Tigers at any point if time and place during the conflict and although one Tiger could be responsible for the destruction of dozens of ennemy armor, in the end, they were swamped. And another thing: no matter what people think, no one weapon is so far in advance that it will remain unbeatable for any leght of time during a war. Its been proven time and again in the long history of human conflict. Why do governments have to re-learn this lesson the hard way every time is beyond me.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

You sure love this incident, don't you? :smilewink:

I sure do not. It was just a comment following a silly argument.

[GGTharos]

Poor example. Germany was trying to build better tanks with relatively unskilled labor for the job. Changes things when you don't leave that part out.

[Pilotasso]

Its been proven time and again in the long history of human conflict. Why do governments have to re-learn this lesson the hard way every time is beyond me.

 

 

People only go to the doctor wen they are sick, and since goverments get re-elected every 4 years, military spending being multi year endeavors they never make good publicity to get peoples votes. Short term thinking thus prevails.

Edited November 12, 2012 by Pilotasso

[sobek]

Passive radars don't send any energy, the sniff for "electromagnetic holes" in the sky. IIRC a czecz passive radar technology which was bought by the US some years ago could be packed into the trunk of a sedan.

 

That sounds mighty esotheric to me. :)

[sobek]

I sure do not. It was just a comment following a silly argument.

 

A comment that did not contribute anything. You can just as well build a fighter with geometry that would not reflect the wavelength used by those modified radars.

[GGTharos]

It is esoteric.

 

The idea of bi-static radar has nothing to do with 'holes' in the sky, you can't track such a thing since you're not mapping EM density. The idea is the same as bi-static radar.

 

Since what we consider normal radar can be evaded by stealth because it depends on receiving reflected energy at the same location where it was emitted from, and stealth is used to reflect this signal elsewhere, the multitudes of antennae in those new systems are use to receive those reflections in different locations than the emitter. Whether that can be particularly successful is hard to say ... I'd bank on ECM completely wiping such a system out.

[Pilotasso]

Poor tactics usualy self defeats the best features of any equipment. It serves nothing keeping mentionend the same event, now well known, over and over.

[112th_Rossi]

Yep. Weapon systems are only as good as their users.