What happens when everyone has stealth aircrafts?

[tankerwanabe]

1) How are is the rest of the world behind the U.S. in air stealth techology? I just saw some photos of the latest German UAV. It looks pretty stealthy (for my untrained eyes).

 

In other words, how long before another nation develops a stealth aircraft? (Not just low observe like a Raphael, but something equal in stealth to the F22.)

 

2) What happens when the world catches up with stealth? Will fighters go back to gunfighters? Is this why the US military is developing the air-borne laser in conjunction with the F22?

[Guest pfcem]

1)  How are is the rest of the world behind the U.S. in air stealth techology?  I just saw some photos of the latest German UAV. It looks pretty stealthy (for my untrained eyes).

233390[/snapback]

The shape of an aircraft will only go so far to improve its "stealthyness". To make a truly stealthly aircraft like the B-2 or F/A-22, riquires Radar Absorbant Materials & that is where the US holds a decided advantage.

 

 

 

In other words, how long before another nation develops a stealth aircraft?  (Not just low observe like a Raphael, but something equal in stealth to the F22.)

233390[/snapback]

Nobody knows but it is unlikely to happen anytime soon.

 

 

 

2) What happens when the world catches up with stealth?  Will fighters go back to gunfighters?  Is this why the US military is developing the air-borne laser in conjunction with the F22?

233390[/snapback]

Who says they will ever "catch up".

 

The only air-borne laser I am aware of is fitted to a 747 & is intended as an anti-ballistic missile system. The amount of energy required to produce a laser with significant destructive capability & range is enormous. Major advancements in power production & storage will have to occure before an air-borne laser can realistically be fitted to a fighter sized aircraft.

[Scott Cunningham]

Radar is just one means of detection. You might have to look at new means as well, such as laser scanning, EM disturbance, IR space sensors, etc....

 

There is no such thing as true stealth. At some point you are going to be able to see/hear/detect an aircraft. Current efforts focus on making them tougher to get a good radar reflection off of. We have been implementing stealth features in planes for years (look at the excellent SR-71) but the F-117 was the first to make it a primary design function.

[Gabe]

The shape of an aircraft will only go so far to improve its "stealthyness".  To make a truly stealthly aircraft like the B-2 or F/A-22, riquires Radar Absorbant Materials & that is where the US holds a decided advantage.

233394[/snapback]

 

The Germans are world leaders in material technology. I doubt they'd have much trouble making RAM if they wanted to.

[Guest pfcem]

The Germans are world leaders in material technology. I doubt they'd have much trouble making RAM if they wanted to.

233398[/snapback]

Germany has only relatively recently developed & produced RAM, but the US has been doing it for decades.

[mcantu]

THe project manager for the B-2 was once asked what the most important aspect of stealth was. His reply was "shape, shape, shape." It was in a volume of World Air Power Journal.

Edited October 10, 2005 by mcantu

[DB]

Germany has only relatively recently developed & produced RAM, but the US has been doing it for decades.

233407[/snapback]

Yes, and Lampyridae was only designed "relatively recently". That would be for values of "relatively recently" that correspond to "within my lifetime".

 

Radar stealth isn't magic, the principles are clearly understood. The key issue seems to involve the precision manufacture and assembly of specialist composite material structures. That capability isn't unique to the US - I might suggest that the highest precision composite manufacturing in the world is probably based in and around Woking and Brackley right now, and the biggest high-precision composite structures are built in Germany for the A380.

 

Where the US scores is in having the will and the budgetary priorities to have actually fielded something, which counts for much, but not all.

 

Do not confuse lack of capability with lack of will (or desire, or whatever).

 

My opinion on the question at hand - the classic "blindfold knife-fight in the dark" isn't really going to happen. Electro-optical systems just get better and better, are passive and extend "WVR" to ranges considered "BVR" only a decade or so ago, and that's just one technology.

 

David

[Guest pfcem]

Radar stealth isn't magic, the principles are clearly understood. The key issue seems to involve the precision manufacture and assembly of specialist composite material structures. That capability isn't unique to the US.

233430[/snapback]

 

If only it were that simple.

[UN-Interested Observer]

Does anyone else suspect that maintaining a 1 or 2 generation overmatch of every other country in the world was only feasible when no major combat operations were undertaken, and the economy was in a cycle of strong growth?

 

As things stand, the technology of F117 Nighthawk materials has been acquired by the Russians, as I remember a hasty convoy that entered and exited Yugoslavia before Nato troops could get in.

 

Also, I have to agree that using materials to absorb radio waves is not a prohibitive science. AIUI the prohibitive part is the extreme cost is damping all the emmissions from the vehicle you want to 'stealth'. All of them. As such indeed you end up with compromises, but it is necessary. If you damp every aspect but one, hazard a guess which aspect will be detected.

[Josh]

Does anyone else suspect that maintaining a 1 or 2 generation overmatch of every other country in the world was only feasible when no major combat operations were undertaken, and the economy was in a cycle of strong growth?

 

As things stand, the technology of F117 Nighthawk materials has been acquired by the Russians, as I remember a hasty convoy that entered and exited Yugoslavia before Nato troops could get in.

 

Also, I have to agree that using materials to absorb radio waves is not a prohibitive science. AIUI the prohibitive part is the extreme cost is damping all the emmissions from the vehicle you want to 'stealth'. All of them. As such indeed you end up with compromises, but it is necessary. If you damp every aspect but one, hazard a guess which aspect will be detected.

233440[/snapback]

 

I am unaware of any project in another country to produce a low RCS plane of the same degree as say an F-22. Europe is producing Eurofighers, Rafales, and Gripens. The Russian's are still building Su-27 flavors. Japan's best air to air interceptor is I believe F-15J's. The PRC is still trying to build first rate 4th generation fighters along the lines of the Su-27 series and needs a little more work. It seems unlikely that any of the countries that have the potential technology to produce such an a/c have anything like the will to spend the money, let alone the will to deploy them in anger. None of projected or currently produced a/c have anything like the degree of low RCS as the F-22, and the only possible exception that will be in foreign hands in the forseeable future will be, AFAIK, the F-35.

[Ivanhoe]

I doubt there will be much "knife fight in the dark" either, or the supposed "attack subs passing in the night" scenario. World powers will develop a "defense in depth" system using ground radar, UAVs, aerostats, AWACS, all linked and using array processing to put air defense fighters on the case. The air defense matrix may not be able to establish a firing solution for the SAM crews, but if they can establish an 80% probability of an OPFOR stealth aircraft within a 2 km box, an air defense fighter manned or unmanned should be able to close and shoot.

 

Heck, we might even see heavy ADA firing high altitude starburst rounds to backlight stealths based on low probability solutions from the radar matrix.

[Brasidas]

In my last round of interviews, I did one with a company who had designed an IR array that could see a 1m cube of ice over 2000 miles away in space. Aircraft were no problem. This array was five years old. Extrapolate what a more modern array could do today, from that.

[Chris Werb]

To be honest, I'm more worried about what will happen when 'everyone' has guided MLRS or similar (much, much cheaper than true stealth aircraft). I hope conventional deterrence holds when a first strike will be a simple, low collateral damage affair. I only noticed the other day that both Greece and Turkey both now have ATACMS, which is worrying enough.

[Sikkiyn]

1)  How are is the rest of the world behind the U.S. in air stealth techology?  I just saw some photos of the latest German UAV. It looks pretty stealthy (for my untrained eyes).

 

In other words, how long before another nation develops a stealth aircraft?  (Not just low observe like a Raphael, but something equal in stealth to the F22.)

 

2) What happens when the world catches up with stealth?  Will fighters go back to gunfighters?  Is this why the US military is developing the air-borne laser in conjunction with the F22?

233390[/snapback]

 

 

Counter question(s).

 

A. Who has the budget for R&D and production of enough systems to make a difference?

 

B. At what point does A damage the economy?

[savantu]

Well , I remember readin declassified CIA documents about the state of the military complex of the USSR and one area where the russian had a substantial lead over the US was chemistry and to be more precise laser based chemistry ( altering substances characteristics by using laser and other energy beams ).Research in that area in the USSR for producing new materials was considered to be very advanced.

In many areas of research the russians were at least on par or more advanced.

 

The difference was another : implementation. The russians sucked there while the US had a considerable advantage.

 

Projects like the Mig MFI show that the russians were capable of producing stealth planes.And since research is their ace they tested Tu22s which had a plasma shield to make it stealth with excellent results ( completly invisible or smt like that ) back in the '90s.

 

As for Germany ,IMHO if will existed ( money are there ) they could very well give a run for its money to the US armament industry on every level.But if they do that ww3 is a matte of years.

Edited October 11, 2005 by savantu

[swerve]

In my last round of interviews, I did one with a company who had designed an IR array that could see a 1m cube of ice over 2000 miles away in space. Aircraft were no problem. This array was five years old. Extrapolate what a more modern array could do today, from that.

233526[/snapback]

 

Anyone have any idea what ranges the current IRST systems on aircraft have? Depends on target, of course, but I wonder what sort of ranges they can pick up - oh - various fighter-sized aircraft.

[savantu]

Anyone have any idea what ranges the current IRST systems on aircraft have? Depends on target, of course, but I wonder what sort of ranges they can pick up - oh - various fighter-sized aircraft.

233559[/snapback]

 

40km front 100km back for the SU27/35 IRST.

 

20/25km for MIG29.

[Zaraguina]

Some european countries are together to make a stealh ucav : nEUROn.

The first prototype should fly in 2010 ...

 

Bah, they already made a mistake in the translation. I guess we must replace ' real ground-to-air weapon firing from an internal bay' by ' real air-to-ground weapon firing from an internal bay' ...

[LeoTanker]

Does annyone know more about the stealth capability of the S-37? It is said to be pretty stealthy, but it looks "wrong". Is it more or less stealthy than the canceled MiG 1.42 (which looks more "right" for stealth)?

[Brasidas]

A lot of the newer buzzwords I see today in optics, are things like "sensor fusion" and "data-linking" multiple sensor sources to single informational nodes. You can figure out where the emphasis is being placed more recently.

 

I'd say a multi-spectral sensor suite is going to be damn hard to beat for anyone in the stealth game within the next five years.

[swerve]

A lot of the newer buzzwords I see today in optics, are things like "sensor fusion" and "data-linking" multiple sensor sources to single informational nodes. You can figure out where the emphasis is being placed more recently.

 

I'd say a multi-spectral sensor suite is going to be damn hard to beat for anyone in the stealth game within the next five years.

233610[/snapback]

 

That sounds right.

 

Things like Jindalee, IR & electro-optical sensors, Vera, a militarised version of the Roke Manor system - plug 'em together, & it's hard to hide.

 

The Chinese tried to buy Vera systems from the Czechs, & I've heard they have a cruder analogue of Jindalee (the Russians have had something similar, though less capable AFAIK, for ages).

[Tony Williams]

An extract from Flying Guns – the Modern Era: Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations since 1945:

 

There is a continual battle between missile sensor and countermeasure technology. In the future, stealth technology applied to aircraft may considerably shorten target acquisition and combat ranges, putting into question the worth of modern BVR (beyond visual range) AAMs. The possible future use of anti-radar missile guidance as a way of overcoming stealth characteristics may force fighters to make minimal use of their own radars, further reducing acquisition and combat distances. It may also prove increasingly difficult for either IR or radar-homing missiles to lock on to their stealthy targets, additionally protected by extensive electronic jamming and IR countermeasures.

 

Of course, modern guns are usually aimed by the plane's radar which could also be jammed (although less easily than the much smaller and less powerful missile seekers) but laser rangefinders could make an acceptable alternative in providing fire control data. If planes eventually become 'laser-proof' as well, the possibility presumably exists of linking variable magnification optical sights to a computer which would be able to analyse the image, identify the plane, calculate its distance, speed and heading and provide gunsight aiming information accordingly, all without emitting any signals.

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

[tankerwanabe]

Counter question(s).

 

A. Who has the budget for R&D and production of enough systems to make a difference?

 

B. At what point does A damage the economy?

233548[/snapback]

 

The EU for one. A China and Russia combo. Maybe Japan and Russia?

 

At this point in time, the R&D may seem enormous. However, as time grows the technology is filtered to the rest of the world either by self-innovation or espionage.

 

I can't think of too many weapons technology that the U.S. possessed that the rest of the world fails to catch up.

 

I don't know much about stealth technology other than that it originated from a Soviet math equation that the Soviets failed to take advantage of. So I can't give you a price to determine whether R&D is economically feasible.

Edited October 11, 2005 by tankerwanabe

[tankerwanabe]

In my last round of interviews, I did one with a company who had designed an IR array that could see a 1m cube of ice over 2000 miles away in space. Aircraft were no problem. This array was five years old. Extrapolate what a more modern array could do today, from that.

233526[/snapback]

 

Could you tell me how an airborn IR system works? Does it need radar guidance?

 

Do you boresight a specific sector in front of the aircraft, scan it and go to the next sector?

 

I'm thinking that the IR detected a 1m cube because it knew where to look.

 

Do you think that there is some unpublished IR stealth already in place with the F22? I mean if you think about it, stealth to radar or not, once the F22 goes supersonic, its IR signature should be detectable by a SU27 IR system.

[tankerwanabe]

Does annyone know more about the stealth capability of the S-37? It is said to be pretty stealthy, but it looks "wrong". Is it more or less stealthy than the canceled MiG 1.42 (which looks more "right" for stealth)?

233608[/snapback]

 

I don't know how they are able to hid those gigantic intakes.

 

And there are still alot of attenas sticking out of it.

 

And I'm not sure how they're able to hid those pylons and external weapons.

 

I'm unsure of the Flanker's radar system. If you're going to use stealth, you need some passive detection system. I'm not sure if the Flanker's IR is going to cut it.

 

You could put all the advance tiles on it, but at a certain point, design takes over.