How long will STEALTH be effective?

StellarX
I think that value was an avarage at combat ranges in Finland and to me that would mean from 100-1500m. Battlefield is even more confined here than in Central Europe. But those were head on situations (various angles ofcourse) in Ambushes both are deadly.

Originally posted by NJ Mooch
Last time I checked only 1 stealth aircraft has ever been “shot down”. That single report has been labeled as a lucky shot by some sources, others say it was tracked. It doesn’t matter what really happened; only one was lost during a combat mission.

The numbers of stealth sorties flown is not public knowledge, but losing one aircraft in the course of 15+ years of combat operations gives me the idea that it still works.

I think that is a worthwhile observation.

However, the US has not flown / fought against a modern, sophisticated foe, with advanced technical capabilities and a robust military doctrine. In the environments where stealth has been deployed, the foe has been outmatched at every level – technically, numerically and doctrinally.

I suspect that the advanced nations of the world are more than capable of mastering stealth, especially if the was an imperative to do so. It has been pointed out previously that stealth is not invisibility and has been foiled in a number of ways, such as the Royal Navy merrily observing stealth aircraft in the Gulf, much to the chagrin of their US allies (apparently).

Also, stealth is a combination of reduced radar cross-section, passive sensors, low IR signature and so on. I fail to believe that even an F22 or F117 etc would not be picked up by some of the modern infra-red detectors (such as PIRATE) at a variety of angles and at worthwhile ranges.

Additionally, none of us know the capabilities of the new radars coming into play, such as the S1850M. These radars - and I have seen it speculated / stated as having stealth detection capabilities - are possibly being devolped to tackle stealth-form anti-ship missiles as a likely future threat – after all there are already stealth cruise missiles such as Storm Shadow.

Regards

Originally posted by paraphi
I think that is a worthwhile observation.

However, the US has not flown / fought against a modern, sophisticated foe, with advanced technical capabilities and a robust military doctrine. In the environments where stealth has been deployed, the foe has been outmatched at every level – technically, numerically and doctrinally.

This is a worthwhile observation too, but I think you're overlooking the fact that the mission routes weren't ever changed, it was like clockwork. After this event happened there wasn't another one downed even while operating in same areas. The Serbians were much better trained in their AA systems than I would say the Iraqi's were, these 2 factors explain the incident. If you make a mistake against an opponent with any brains or skill, he WILL exploit that mistake.

How to detect a stealth aircraft: Link

Passive (multistatic) radar, bistatic radar and especially multistatic systems are believed to detect stealth aircraft better than conventional monostatic radars, since stealth technology reflects energy away from the transmitter's line of sight, effectively increasing the radar cross section (RCS) in other directions, which the passive radars monitor. Such a system could use either low frequency broadcast TV and FM radio signals ( these low frequency signals might cause parts of the aircraft to resonate increasing the RCS ) or cellular telephone.

Researchers at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign with support of DARPA, have shown that it is possible to build a synthetic aperture radar image of an aircraft target using passive multistatic radar, possibly detailed enough to enable Automatic Target Recognition (ATR). Roke Manor Research in the United Kingdom announced an experimental system that uses the signals broadcast from cellular telephone towers to track aircraft.The Dutch company Thales Nederland, the formerly known as Holland Signaal, have claimed to have developed a Stealth detection radar called SMART-L. So far the company has been unable to test it on a Stealth vehicle. The Dutch company Thales Nederland, the formerly known as Holland Signaal, have claimed to have developed a Stealth detection radar called SMART-L. So far the company has been unable to test it on a Stealth vehicle.

Originally posted by paraphi
However, the US has not flown / fought against a modern, sophisticated foe, with advanced technical capabilities and a robust military doctrine.

The Serbians had a pretty robust air defence network. I would agree with you on point that the USAF has not really had a major test in recent years however.

One other detection mode people do not talk about is the recent oepration status of the US's SBIRS satelite system. These planes could be tracked by sensative infrared detecting satelites by looking for the heating of the leading edge and the rest of the airframe from low earth orbit.

Originally posted by northwolf
StellarX
I think that value was an avarage at combat ranges in Finland and to me that would mean from 100-1500m.

The 500 meters average was based on post war summaries of the findings of American/British ( and i am not sure but i think German) combat reports after and during the invasion of France and the low countries. I have no specific information on the conclusions reached by other countries or averages over the entire range of second world war battlefields.

Battlefield is even more confined here than in Central Europe. But those were head on situations (various angles of course) in Ambushes both are deadly.

That was the average engagement range is non and i did not study the entire report to check what percentage were frontal arc type shots.

Stellar

Originally posted by FredT
The Serbians had a pretty robust air defence network.

It was also very limited and almost entirely obsolete and it's 'robustness' was as result of the apparent good training and their doctrinal choices. NATO could probably have done more damage to Serbian air defenses and airfields/aircraft but i already happen to believe that they have not acknowledged the extent of their losses

I would agree with you on point that the USAF has not really had a major test in recent years however.

I would argue that they have not had major test since the second world war. and that's it been fumbling from one disasterous air campaign to another. If the the two gulf wars is going to do anything it's going to give a lot of people a false sense of security based on the belief that the USAF are in fact anywhere near as well equiped as it could have and and certainly should be.

One other detection mode people do not talk about is the recent oepration status of the US's SBIRS satelite system. These planes could be tracked by sensative infrared detecting satelites by looking for the heating of the leading edge and the rest of the airframe from low earth orbit.

I am kind of suspicious about using infrared to detect something against a 'warm' background when the USSR , and i suppose the US, could deploy radar equiped ( RORSAT for the USSR) sattelites back in the late 60's. The USSR deployed them over oceans but i am sure computing power have long ensured that these could be deployed over land.

Stellar

funny to read all these exotic methods to detect a "stealth" aircraft, but the true key here is the wavelength, nothing more, thats the reason why "older" radars can see the plane, why targeting and searching radars can do the job, but stealth features helps the ECM against tracking and in general air-borne radars -it dont make you invisible, but helps your jamming systems-, thats also the reason why the B-2 isnt a pre-emptive attack bomber, but a mobile ICBM hunter, after the main searching radars were nuked

The russians have been able to track stealth for years.


Track is the key here.

By using meter radar (Long wave) they can tarck the `hole` made by a null radar return

brilliant i here you say - but LW radar cannot used to direct anything fast and 3 meters in length at a target.
so yes , the russians can track stealth with the `bar lock` radar etc but shooting at it is a new trick.

www.aeronautics.ru...

Not So Fast, Low frequency radars aren't the marical radar systems people think. the above artical also points out the flaw with low frequency systems:

On the other hand, the width of low-frequency bands makes it difficult to detect a target with sufficient accuracy (in the range of 30-50m), to provide targeting information to SAMs or AAAs. Thus LO aircraft and missiles at the moment continue to enjoy the advantages of stealth."

However, as technology on both sides evolves and changes, this situation might change as well. The question is in who's favor?

Will the Radar people figure out how to inprove the accuracy of these systems so they can track stealth aircraft?

OR

Will the stealth Wizards figure out how to hide from even these systems?

Stay tune to find out!

Tim

[edit on 6/10/2007 by Ghost01]

I did mention that above

brilliant i here you say - but LW radar cannot used to direct anything fast and 3 meters in length at a target.
so yes , the russians can track stealth with the `bar lock` radar etc but shooting at it is a new trick.

in such veiled language - a missile cannot use meter wavelength to target anything.


but unless there is a way to disguise the radar hole then it will be tracked.

Even if the radar cannot be used to launch ordnance at the aircraft, as long as they can still track it then it is still handy to have the radar. Since the position and heading of the aircraft can be relayed and updated, it will make an interception much more effective. I don't particularly care if the aircraft is stealth, if the intercepting pilots have visual contact and are able to keep an eye on said aircraft, they will be able to move into close range. At close range you will quite likely be able to IR tracks (Remember, it's still pretty noticeable when you're up close, even on the F-22) and possible gun shots off. This is assuming that the aircraft is moving on a strike mission since flying deep into enemy territory and hanging around until they throw some fighters at you for you to shoot down is not a traditional combat practice; just because some SAMs have a hard time launching missiles at you doesn't mean that they won't get the shots off from time to time.

The error margin of "low" frecuency isnt so high, means ranges of VHF or MHF, the extreme UHF -above 10GHz- is the affected by stealth features, good MHF and VHF have a margin of meters, nothing can be stealth at ranges below 3GHz, and that is UHF, but most search radars works at such frecuencies, you dont need a "hole", what you only need is a searching radar to pick the plane, and point the tracking radar in that direction waiting that the missile get closer to pick the signal and intercept the plane, also you can use the searching radar and use and IR seeker head on the missile, among other possibilities

sa-2 used 2-3GHz tracking radar to direct their missiles -manual mode, modern tracking radars with 10-12Ghz came later- in the vietman war, despite the problems of the primitive wire guidance, electronics, human error, and lack of command integration, did a good job, that frecuency is enought to have a precise missile

Originally posted by ludaChris
This is a worthwhile observation too, but I think you're overlooking the fact that the mission routes weren't ever changed, it was like clockwork.

Often claimed but not something that is in fact ever suggested by the USAF. If they did make such a claim i would be very surprised as no air force in existence fights this way or will use it as excuse for their failures.

You are however free to post the source...

After this event happened there wasn't another one downed even while operating in same areas.

The F-117's were never again operated at altitudes where they were at any real risk from these air defense systems so it stands to reason that no more were lost.

The Serbians were much better trained in their AA systems than I would say the Iraqi's were, these 2 factors explain the incident.

Well the Iraqi's were acknowledged to have shot down a few dozen planes while the Serbs were only credited with two. I do not happen to believe that and while i may probably be able to prove that the USAF and allies lost half a dozen or more planes i am not sure if i can prove the number i really have in mind.... The Serbs were clearly better trained and well briefed on how to disrupt interdiction strikes without seriously risk to themselves and i have wondered how they so effectively blunted NATO without suffering more damage or inflicting more official casualties; it really is a mystery to me.

If you make a mistake against an opponent with any brains or skill, he WILL exploit that mistake.

And in most wartime situations the majority get killed for simply following orders and doing as their told making few if any mistakes in the process. It's a popular perception and myth that individuals with rifles, tanks or airplanes have to make 'mistakes' to get themselves quite dead...

Stellar

I'm not too familiar with this, but is Russia's "stealth" implementation a little different than ours. In one of those stealth shows on the History Channel, it indicated that Russians were claiming that plasma provides stealth. The example used was the US space shuttle. When it reentered the atmosphere plasma would form around the shuttle. Apparently, the Russians noticed it and may be utilizing it. Anyone familiar with this? Is this the type of stealth they'll use for the PAK FA?


Irv

Originally posted by Irvinraw
I'm not too familiar with this, but is Russia's "stealth" implementation a little different than ours. In one of those stealth shows on the History Channel, it indicated that Russians were claiming that plasma provides stealth. The example used was the US space shuttle. When it reentered the atmosphere plasma would form around the shuttle. Apparently, the Russians noticed it and may be utilizing it. Anyone familiar with this? Is this the type of stealth they'll use for the PAK FA?


Irv

Not only can you use plasma for RAM, you can get some quite amazing aerodynamic side effects. Sometimes good, sometimes bad.

We are indeed working on it, there is more than one project going on.

Originally posted by StellarX

The F-117's were never again operated at altitudes where they were at any real risk from these air defense systems so it stands to reason that no more were lost.

Just curious.. where did you hear this information from? Reason I ask, that's news to me and am not insinuating anything either way because I haven't heard anything either way.

But, supposedly a second F-117 was damaged...

[edit on 30-6-2007 by Midav]

First, I'm in no way an aviation expert.

My view of the 117 being downed is purely hypothesis.

Kentucky windage.

An AA sight gets word via radio that bombs are falling
in a (hypothetical) North-East pattern at a guessed speed
of (insert speed).

AA operator calculates and shoots a volley containing the
"golden bb".

One hits said 117, and we have a downed air-frame.

Is this unlikely ?

Asking,
Lex

Originally posted by Lexion
An AA sight gets word via radio that bombs are falling
in a (hypothetical) North-East pattern at a guessed speed
of (insert speed).

AA operator calculates and shoots a volley containing the
"golden bb".

One hits said 117, and we have a downed air-frame.

Is this unlikely ?

Yes!

Your theory isn't bad. However, the strikes in a modern war are timed according to Target Priority not location. The goal is to take out the most critical targets first and then move to those of less importance. Using this system, you can nessacerly predict a pattern.

Also, once stealth aircraft like the B-2 and F-117 have completed their targeting sheets for the mission, they usually look for the shortest, and lowest threat escape root to get back home!

Tim