What happens when everyone has stealth aircrafts?

[Dan Robertson]

I don't think that you will find the US can keep the stealth genie in the bottle anymore than it was capible of keeping the nuclear genie in the bottle.

 

As an example the UK MoD funded a project code named "replica" in the 1990's. The purpose of such was to develop a light weight stealth aircraft, they went as far as producing and testing a full scale replica in BAe systems radar test centre which is the most advanced outside of the US.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=...elated_article3

 

The realy reason for replica was to get on the JSF as full partner. The obvious inference to the DoD was that "replica" would go in pan european project as a rival to JSF if they weren't brought in as a level 1 partner.

 

The French lead european UCAV the Dassault Neuron is also very similar in design to the Boeing X45.

 

http://www.deagel.com/g/dassault-neuron-un...trator_870.aspx

 

It would be unfair to describe the rest of the world as being behind the US in aviation technology. In terms of technolgy there is little to choose all the US really have is a head start in experiance terms.

 

The reason Europe is behind on aircraft such as the Eurofighter and Rafael is because these programs dating from the mid 1980's that due to budget cuts are well behind schedule. However in terms of the next generation UCAV's which will be entering service in the next 10-20 years they will probably be producing equivilent systems.

 

As for the effects of stealth, I fully expect that stealth will become less of an advantage in the long term due to sensor fusion and networking. Additionally mobile bi-static radar is likely to become implemeted in the near future.

[Corinthian]

I've read somewhere that the S-37 has an RCS or signature equal to an F-16 at best.

 

What happens if everyone's got stealth planes? Well, they can't shoot what they "see" on sensors, so they'd end up flying until they see the "whites in their eyes" and since by then they'll be too close, short-range AAMs would do no good and they'll be using guns instead... and it's back to WW1 dogfighting....

[tankerwanabe]

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]

 

Yikes, I'm unfamiliar with all those.

 

Could you provide a reference to -

sensor fusion

data-linking

mutil-spectral sensor suite

[Brasidas]

Yikes, I'm unfamiliar with all those.

 

Could you provide a reference to -

sensor fusion

data-linking

mutil-spectral sensor suite

233900[/snapback]

 

http://www.spie.org/web/oer/august/aug97/sensor.html

 

If anyone interested is in DC in the near future.

 

http://www.oei-edu.com/r405.htm

Edited October 12, 2005 by Brasidas

[FlyingCanOpener]

I've read somewhere that the S-37 has an RCS or signature equal to an F-16 at best.

 

What happens if everyone's got stealth planes?  Well, they can't shoot what they "see" on sensors, so they'd end up flying until they see the "whites in their eyes" and since by then they'll be too close, short-range AAMs would do no good and they'll be using guns instead... and it's back to WW1 dogfighting....

233886[/snapback]

 

Look at the Minovsky-related articles in this Wikipedia article about the original Mobile Suit Gundam series to see what could happen when your scenario plays out

[Smitty]

I wonder if you couldn't use Space-based Radar to detect and track stealth aircraft.

 

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/sbr.htm

 

Current stealth aircraft are not even close to optimized for top-down RCS.

[Corinthian]

Look at the Minovsky-related articles in this Wikipedia article about the original Mobile Suit Gundam series to see what could happen when your scenario plays out

233926[/snapback]

 

Ouch. That hurt (lots of physics) All I know is that in the future, we'd have robots that look like humans, firing laser rifles and using laser swords, while the rest of humanity wear 18th Century clothes ala Gundam

[BansheeOne]

I wonder if you couldn't use Space-based Radar to detect and track stealth aircraft.

 

Well there was this Stephen Coonts novel that featured a satellite system which IIRC detected stealth aircraft by way of the disturbed air they were moving through. Have no idea how that should work, though.

[Josh]

I wonder if you couldn't use Space-based Radar to detect and track stealth aircraft.

 

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/sbr.htm

 

Current stealth aircraft are not even close to optimized for top-down RCS.

233943[/snapback]

 

The closest opperational equivalent was RORSAT. The power requirements meant each one had to have a nuclear reactor (radio thermal generator or something like that, not a pressurized water reactor) and they had to be in LEO in like 250 miles orbits. The number of satellites necessary to provide even one sweep an hour across the globe (and it could not be localized to a single location because of the range and orbital mechanics) would be something like a dozen or two. Not remotely feasible.

 

High altitude balloons however could be workable. There are some projects in the works to develope technology where the entire side surface of a balloon is the antena, allowing for a large, low freq signal that would be good for localizing stealth a/c.

[LeoTanker]

I've read somewhere that the S-37 has an RCS or signature equal to an F-16 at best.

 

233886[/snapback]

 

 

Hmmm... that´s what I thought too. So why do they keep developing this bird?

And why did they drop the MiG 1.42? it was said to have good stealth capability...

 

And why did the Germans drop their project in the 1980´s? It also seemed prommising...

[Guest phil gollin]

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

233407[/snapback]

 

 

Strange, I thought that the Germans were world leaders in RAM, using it in WW2 for Snort heads, etc....

 

They also experimented with it on aircraft.

 

The British also were experimenting with it for Landing Craft and coastal forces (BUT much less sophisitcated, using rubber and chicken wire !)

[toysoldier]

Look at the Minovsky-related articles in this Wikipedia article about the original Mobile Suit Gundam series to see what could happen when your scenario plays out

233926[/snapback]

 

jedi pilots beat your gundam pilots, anytime!

at least in Death Star trench fights

[tankerwanabe]

Hmmm... that´s what I thought too. So why do they keep developing this bird?

And why did they drop the MiG 1.42? it was said to have good stealth capability...

 

And why did the Germans drop their project in the 1980´s? It also seemed prommising...

234124[/snapback]

 

These are your options -

 

1. Their budget is running dry, and there is no more money to develop a fresh aircraft.

 

2. They have something up their sleeves which would lead them to believe that stealth is not as good as we think.

 

3. The Mig 1.42 (where do they come up with these names?) is not nearly stealthy as they first claimed, but mere marketing hype to take some funding from Su.

 

We know that stealth is not complete invisibility to radar. The B2 has a signature of a marble? The F117 the signature of a baseball? But they do have signatures. So it is possible to detect it, just improbable, for now.

 

Hmmm, do the Russians have something up their sleeves in radar technology that the West doesn't know about?

[Josh]

I don't think that you will find the US can keep the stealth genie in the bottle anymore than it was capible of keeping the nuclear genie in the bottle.

233773[/snapback]

 

It takes a good decade or more for any aircraft project to reach IOC, even outside the US. Since there are no known low RCS designs on the drawing boards the world over, perhaps more because of financial than technical restraints in some cases, its fair to say that the US will monopolize stealth technology for the next couple decades at least. How effective new sensors and counter measures will make those a/c remains to be seen, but it seems to me the stealth a/c will always have a slight advantage or at the least will force one side to develope much more costly sensors to achieve equivalent detection ranges, volumes, and quality.

[Josh]

We know that stealth is not complete invisibility to radar. The B2 has a signature of a marble?  The F117 the signature of a baseball?  But they do have signatures.  So it is possible to detect it, just improbable, for now. [/i]

 

Not all that improbable. All 'stealth' is in the radar sense is a reduced radar cross section (I believe the engine exhaust is also mixed with ambient air in most designs to reduce IR). The a/c is shaped so that from some aspects the radar waves deflect off the a/c at an angle to their axis of propogation and do not reflect directly back to the transmitter/emitter. Bistatic radar for instance works by having the sensors not necessarily colocated with the receiver, so that the radar waves that are reflected away from the transmitter/receiver might be received by a different receiver set. Also RAM is used to as much as possible absorb radar waves into the a/c.

 

Even discounting bistatic, low RCS planes can be detected fairly easily if they have the wrong orientation towards the transmitter/receiver or if so much power is hitting the aircraft that the signal is still detectable. For instance head on a B-2 has 1/10,000th the radar signature of a B-52 head on, or something like that. However due to the inverse square law and  the two way trip for radar waves, the actual effect on detection range is (verrrrrry roughly) only the square root of the square root of 10,000--or the square root of 100, or a 10-fold reduction in detection range basically. So hence if a B-52 is detected at 200 miles, the B-2 would be detected by the same set more in the neighborhood of 20. Inside that range the B-2 becomes as easily tracked as the B-52 is at 200. Its just that the B-2 can just fly around your radar site at that point (plus although I don't know for sure, I'm willing to bet the B-2 has an ECM suite that would make an EA-6 blush).

 

This is an extremely over simplified explanation as the degree of abosbtion or deflection of the signal is also frequency dependent from what I understand. But my basic point is that its just a question of enough detectable energy making it back to the receiver of a radar set; its not a hit or miss, random kind of thing and it is subject to several vulnerabilities on top of that. How ever it does make the detection process exponentially more difficult, especially when combined with other counter measures such as active jamming or supression.

 

 

Hmmm, do the Russians have something up their sleeves in radar technology that the West doesn't know about?

 

Extremely unlikely. there's been rumors of 'plasma' shielded a/c which, IMO, is utter bullshit because otherwise they could sell the technology to the industrialized world for enough hard currency to fund their entire military.

 

Given the state of the Russian military, even the air force which if anything is rather pampered compared to anything besides the strategic rocket forces, the much more sound explanation is that Russia doesn't have the money to buy new planes, let alone fund new plane designs.

 

234217[/snapback]

Edited October 12, 2005 by jua

[savantu]

Given the state of the Russian military, even the air force which if anything is rather pampered compared to anything besides the strategic rocket forces, the much more sound explanation is that Russia doesn't have the money to buy new planes, let alone fund new plane designs.

 

 

That's BS.It is actually the other way round , Russia doesn't have money to buy new weapons so they spend the maximum amount possible on developing new designs.

 

Why ? To preserve the technological skills of the design bureas as Putin stated some time ago.It is of outmost importance for Russia to maintain high levels of innovation and keep its design bureas busy because nothing is harder than starting from scratch.

 

What's the point of buying masses of T90s and SU35s when they are already obsolete ??

Better design something which is 30 years more advanced and buy it 20 years from now.

[Josh]

That's BS.It is actually the other way round , Russia doesn't have money to buy new weapons so they spend the maximum  amount possible on developing new designs.

 

Why ? To preserve the technological skills of the design bureas as Putin stated some time ago.It is of outmost importance for Russia to maintain high levels of innovation and  keep its design bureas busy because nothing is harder than starting from scratch.

 

What's the point of buying masses of T90s and SU35s when they are already obsolete ??

Better design something which is 30 years more advanced and buy it 20 years from now.

234265[/snapback]

 

I'm of the opinion Russia doesn't have the money to do either, but whatever. Certainly if there is a stealth a/c being designed they've managed to be very quiet about it, and they're designing it despite the fact that two other complete designs were passed over and never produced. Surely in addition to the capacity to design new a/c the skilled labor to actually produce one also is a bit of a comodity? And I for one consider the T-90 and Su-35 to be serviceable platforms, if not always up to their Western counterparts.

Edited October 12, 2005 by jua

[tankerwanabe]

Hmmm, do the Russians have something up their sleeves in radar technology that the West doesn't know about?

 

Extremely unlikely. there's been rumors of 'plasma' shielded a/c which, IMO, is utter bullshit because otherwise they could sell the technology to the industrialized world for enough hard currency to fund their entire military.

 

Given the state of the Russian military, even the air force which if anything is rather pampered compared to anything besides the strategic rocket forces, the much more sound explanation is that Russia doesn't have the money to buy new planes, let alone fund new plane designs.

234242[/snapback]

 

I don't mean develop a whole new generation of aircrafts. But a new generation of radars that can detect stealth technology. If successful, this would render an entire generation of American technological lead in stealth.

 

This is would be relatively less expensive than developing an entire generation of aircrafts, and highly profitable as all remaning aircrafts would want the upgrade.

[DB]

It takes a good decade or more for any aircraft project to reach IOC, even outside the US. Since there are no known low RCS designs on the drawing boards the world over, perhaps more because of financial than technical restraints in some cases, its fair to say that the US will monopolize stealth technology for the next couple decades at least. How effective new sensors and counter measures will make those a/c remains to be seen, but it seems to me the stealth a/c will always have a slight advantage or at the least will force one side to develope much more costly sensors to achieve equivalent detection ranges, volumes,  and quality.

234237[/snapback]

I disagree on a couple of counts.

 

There are several reasons why no non-US stealth designs are on the drawing board, none of them are primarily financial.

 

One is that there is no current, credible threat.

 

A second is that there *are* stealth UAV/UCAV designs on the drawing board. The F-22 and F-35 are likely to be the last of their kind. With minimal convetional threat, Europe is going to rely on Eurofighter and Rafale and jump the step of a natively designed full-on stealthed, manned aircraft.

 

Not to mention that they fully expect the US military industrial complex to sell them F-35 when their F-16s wear out.

 

David

[Brasidas]

It takes a good decade or more for any aircraft project to reach IOC, even outside the US. Since there are no known low RCS designs on the drawing boards the world over, perhaps more because of financial than technical restraints in some cases, its fair to say that the US will monopolize stealth technology for the next couple decades at least. How effective new sensors and counter measures will make those a/c remains to be seen, but it seems to me the stealth a/c will always have a slight advantage or at the least will force one side to develope much more costly sensors to achieve equivalent detection ranges, volumes,  and quality.

234237[/snapback]

 

jua, sensors are way cheaper than LO aircraft. Just FYI.

[UN-Interested Observer]

I have heard that the paint is a crucial element in the B2 stealth aspect. I've heard it emphasized to an extent that they are re-painted after every flight.

 

And if they used that paint on the F117 then Russia has it too.

[Guest pfcem]

i was under the impression that  "plasma stealth" was at the stage where it was proven theoretically possible and possibly experimentally validated in the lab...but that it was so utterly far away from being implemented on an aircraft that its completely off the radar so to speak (pun intended)

234373[/snapback]

I remember reading somewhere that the Russians claimed to have fitted a Mig-31 with an experimental "plasma stealth" shield system. The general concensus was that it was a falacy as in order for the "plasma stealth" shield system to have worked as claimed, it would "microwave" the pilot.

[Macarthur]

ah, the plasma radar shield, It is a real project (AFAIK) and is technically feasible, the problem is mostly in cost and size (So far, Plasma Shields are too large and too expensive for fighters, and can't output enough fro bombers) but if the system ever becomes feasible it would cause a drastic shift in air combat doctrines. for starters, AIrcraft would go from nocturnal to Dirunal as one side affect of plasma is light, while thats counterproductive at night, its perfect for blending with ambient light during the day. the plasma shield would also disrupt LIDAR type sensors.

[Brasidas]

ah, the plasma radar shield, It is a real project (AFAIK) and is technically feasible, the problem is mostly in cost and size (So far, Plasma Shields are too large and too expensive for fighters, and can't output enough fro bombers) but if the system ever becomes feasible it would cause a drastic shift in air combat doctrines. for starters, AIrcraft would go from nocturnal to Dirunal as one side affect of plasma is light, while thats counterproductive at night, its perfect for blending with ambient light during the day. the plasma shield would also disrupt LIDAR type sensors.

234405[/snapback]

 

And it would also set off every IR sensor from so far off it's not funny. Plasma shield = highly detectable.

[Brasidas]

I have heard that the paint is a crucial element in the B2 stealth aspect. I've heard it emphasized to an extent that they are re-painted after every flight.

 

And if they used that paint on the F117 then Russia has it too.

234346[/snapback]

 

1) F-117 is first generation LO.

 

2) B-2 is second generation LO and uses more RAM and therefore paint than F-117 which was more dependent upon LO geometry and than surface treatment.

 

3) Even if the paint was on the F-117, it is by no means certain that the Russians could reproduce the method necessary to arrive at the chemical compound the US developed simply from a captured sample.