cruise missiles, EW and opining a doorway for bomber

In a recent conversation here a few members were talking about the f-117s and various stealth aircraft. and it got me thinking. As SAM's and enemy detection methods get better it would seem that you would want to kick the door down so to speak for you stealth bombers. i understand that cruise missiles and Special ops could strike the first stationary targets, but i assume that no matter what the f117 and the b-2 HAVE to have some sort of craft to clear/escort the way so to speak

i was thinking that in the opening hours of a battle you launch you normal cruise missiles have them hit the known targets, and as your air craft fly over have some special cruise missiles with jamming and maybe even a laser designator as there payloads.

cruise missiles are relatively cheep(compared to air craft)

they have there own stealth

they could be launched by the attacking aircraft and loiter to use EW and targeting then when they are done be used as they normally are but with a smaller warhead.

what do you guys think?

a reply to: penroc3

That's pretty much the standard battle plan for an all out war. You send in some kind of recon platform, like the RC-135 to find SAM sites by trying to get them to come up, and mapping them, then you kick the door down with your SEAD aircraft, and cruise missiles.

One thing though is that while counterstealth systems are getting better, stealth is getting better a least as fast. The B-2 gets new skin every few years, that improves its stealth capabilities, and new stealth aircraft have staggering RCS numbers, as well as new electronic warfare systems out there.

a reply to: Zaphod58


i heard in Iraq they had a cruise missile that dropped some sort of metallic threads so to speak that disrupted all the power in the city, is that true?

also couldn't you use a DOPLAR type system to see the air disturbances in the wake of an air craft if said aircraft was invisible to radar, if you could track the disturbance in the air why not just aim at that and in the terminal phase of the SAM's flight just use IR or a proximity fuse?

a reply to: penroc3

They did. It was designed to short the transmission lines without destroying the power plants.

There are so many disturbances in the air already you'd be hard pressed to tell a natural occurrence from a plane going over. And most doppler radar is relatively short ranged.

blu-114

nerds are so fricken awesome in a war zone. a war fighters best friend is a plane with a belly full of gadgets nerds thought up.

ive actual sought out tech and weapons used from the gulf war onwards and havent ever heard of these! the things you can learn on ATS! it never ceases to amaze me.

stealth planes should be really easy to find. current radar uses the return from a radar and stealth planes dissipate a large amount so that it looks like background noise, allowing the plane to get in range with its weapons systems.

but there is a flaw, detection should be possible by looking for the void in returns from a known return, such as rain clouds, a stealth plane should show up as a void moving across such returns.

that is one of the things haarp was doing altering the upper atmosphere so radar waves would bounce back better from the ionosphere

a reply to: bigx001

It's not just dissipation it redirecting the radar reflection away or absorbing the radar so it doesn't return to the source. If it doesn't come back there is nothing to detect. I worked on the Aegis radars a while back so I have some practical knowledge on the subject.

originally posted by: bigx001
stealth planes should be really easy to find. current radar uses the return from a radar and stealth planes dissipate a large amount so that it looks like background noise, allowing the plane to get in range with its weapons systems.

but there is a flaw, detection should be possible by looking for the void in returns from a known return, such as rain clouds, a stealth plane should show up as a void moving across such returns.

that is one of the things haarp was doing altering the upper atmosphere so radar waves would bounce back better from the ionosphere

I think that you need to take your logic to the next step. If stealth is so easy to defeat by your methods, then why haven't our adversaries with their deep pockets employed your techniques? It's my guess that since the US invented the "practical" use of stealth and is constantly improving it. Then, you would have to conclude that by the time it is vulnerable to enemy defeat the US would have improved the technology.

The most common mistake made most people, here on ATS, is they assume that military technology is stagnant. By the time we see it here the technology is many steps down the road.

a reply to: bigx001

Yes, you could try things for finding 'noise anomalies' but it is much less reliable and precise. If you have something coming at you at 1000 km/hr---or 2200 km/hr---and you're in a war, you need some pretty precise identity, type, range, altitude, bearing & speed to counter.

If you don't know what "it" is, how many of "its" there are, whether the "its" are yours or theirs or birds, or rain or anything like that....

sure you may get an idea that Something Wicked This Way Comes, but you could get that from CNN.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: penroc3

That's pretty much the standard battle plan for an all out war. You send in some kind of recon platform, like the RC-135 to find SAM sites by trying to get them to come up, and mapping them, then you kick the door down with your SEAD aircraft, and cruise missiles.

One thing though is that while counterstealth systems are getting better, stealth is getting better a least as fast. The B-2 gets new skin every few years, that improves its stealth capabilities, and new stealth aircraft have staggering RCS numbers, as well as new electronic warfare systems out there.

Out of curiosity, what's the heaviest defendend airspace you know of that the B-2 has flown through? I remember reading Ben Rich's skunkworks book, and he provided an anecdote from one of the engineers of the F-117 who said that when he was watching the news on the eve of the first Gulf War, and buildings started blowing up behind the reporter and only then did the AAA start, he knew than that their stealth really worked. It gave me goosebumps. Wondering if there's been any similar moments for the B-2, with more modern IADS.

a reply to: quatro

Iraq in 2003, and Yugoslavia in the 90s.

WRT the Nighthawk, the first indication it worked was when they kept finding dead bats around the aircraft every morning.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: quatro

Iraq in 2003, and Yugoslavia in the 90s.

WTR the Nighthawk, the first indication it worked was when they kept finding dead bats around the aircraft every morning.

I've also heard that was the result of the paint fumes killing the bats.

a reply to: quatro

Not exactly. It wasn't fumes anyway.

The bats kept flying into the aircraft. They couldn't see them with their sonar. This is one of my favorite topics so I'm gonna write up a response soon.

a reply to: boomer135

There was a little more to it than just couldn't see it with sonar, although that did play a large role in it.

originally posted by: penroc3
In a recent conversation here a few members were talking about the f-117s and various stealth aircraft. and it got me thinking. As SAM's and enemy detection methods get better it would seem that you would want to kick the door down so to speak for you stealth bombers. i understand that cruise missiles and Special ops could strike the first stationary targets, but i assume that no matter what the f117 and the b-2 HAVE to have some sort of craft to clear/escort the way so to speak

As zaph mentioned, this is the battle plan for MOST wars we fight in. Like in Iraq in 2003, helo's took off and destroyed the southern early warning sites and SAM's in Iraq, allowing the stealths an easier path into Baghdad. The aircraft you speak of is the F-16 wild weasel. These guys fly to the area that SAMs are known to be in and as soon as the radar lights up the F-16, they fire HARM missiles at them, effectively destroying them. Its one of the most dangerous jobs in the air force.

i was thinking that in the opening hours of a battle you launch you normal cruise missiles have them hit the known targets, and as your air craft fly over have some special cruise missiles with jamming and maybe even a laser designator as there payloads.

cruise missiles are relatively cheep(compared to air craft)

they have there own stealth

they could be launched by the attacking aircraft and loiter to use EW and targeting then when they are done be used as they normally are but with a smaller warhead.

what do you guys think?

Your talking about the secret aircraft that flys with the F-117s a lot. But there job isn't an escort, so to speak. Its laser designation and EW duties sure, but they don't necessarily escort them in.

Remember that Baghdad in 2003 was considered one of the most heavily guarded defenses in the world, and we took out its defense in under a day using stealth and tomahawks. Hell even the tankers went into Iraq that first night after the stealths dropped bombs in Baghdad.

Theres a documentary on like the history channel of the B-2 and they talk about going into Baghdad. They say that when they opened the bomb bay doors to drop the bombs, no triple A fire was launched until after the bombs had hit their targets. and even then they were just firing in the sky. They couldn't pin point the bombers at all.

Stealth gets a lot of bad rap today in this world, from people complaining that it doesn't work, or bitching that the JSF isn't as stealthy as the F-22. Well guess what, it isn't supposed to be. But the F-35 is still way more stealthy that the F-117 ever was, and look what that plane did in Baghdad. And if stealth isn't the way in the future, then how come the Russians, Chinese, Japanese, Indians, etc are all desparately building their own stealth fighters? Why is there so much R&D cash committed to find ways to beat stealth? bottom line is they cant stop it then, and they cant stop it now.

originally posted by: boomer135
The bats kept flying into the aircraft. They couldn't see them with their sonar. This is one of my favorite topics so I'm gonna write up a response soon.

I've heard both theories and I haven't found anything that confirms either one But it does make sense that since bats rely on echo location, the F-117 shape could deflect the sound waves and screw up the bats navigation...at least I assume that would be the cause. Would the RAM be able to absorb sound at all like it does radar?

a reply to: quatro

RAM traps just about everything that penetrates it.

It was a combination of both the RAM, and something else (not fumes) on the airframe that killed all the bats that flew around them.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I think I know where you're going with that....

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: quatro

RAM traps just about everything that penetrates it.

It was a combination of both the RAM, and something else (not fumes) on the airframe that killed all the bats that flew around them.

Electrical current?