Discussing stealth

[GGTharos]

Impractical? Sure. Impossible? I'm not so sure.

 

The problem is that 'impractical' in military terms is as good as impossible. As in 'we have better things to spend our money on'.

[Yellonet]

The problem is that 'impractical' in military terms is as good as impossible. As in 'we have better things to spend our money on'.

Agreed :cry:

[Yellonet]

First and foremost, such systems -already- exist (See PAtriot for example, not to mention Russian IADS)

The reason why they do -not- do what you describe, is that you're asking them to process signals that would normally be considered noise. In other words ... your idea is 'asking for it'.

:D

 

And that's where you're wrong. Detection is not tracking, and tracking a stealth aircraft is even harder than detecting it. And if your system has issues doing so because it'll be riddled with useless contacts and extremely prone to jamming (you ARE telling it to look for noise), what makes you think any missile you launch at your target will achieve anything? And what makes you think there's any reasonable positional accuracy against your target for a missile launch?

 

Why wouldn't he know? He can just fly in and bomb your little system from 40-60nm away where you essentially have no possibility of attacking him at all. Plus, how many HARMs can you stick on an F-16 or F-18? Each part that is suppressed, damaged or destroyed, eats away the capability of your system, and that will happen very quickly ... because while you're looking for stealth fighters and finding only decoys, countermeasures and jamming strobes - not to mention EMI - the rain is coming.

He wouldn't know because all he sees is that someone is painting him, seemingly too far away to see him, a passive system picks up the signal and passes the contact along to a third party that goes in "silently" for the kill.

Oh, Well, there are counters for everything isn't there. Except for stealth obviously :music_whistling:

[GGTharos]

And how do you track for a 'silent' kill? The F-22 is also equipped with missile launch and approach warning systems, as is the F-35 and MiG-35 ;)

 

Those aircraft are quite a bit more advanced than you think!

And yeah, the only viable -military- counter to stealth right not is to whack the airfield before they get in the air, because once they do, the exchange ratios will -not- be in your favor.

 

Stealth is there because it works, and because it's very, very hard to counter. Believe you me, if what you propose was 'simple' and 'practical' in any way shape or form, people would be on it already.

 

Stealth works DESPITE IADS datalinks. ;)

[D-Scythe]

I believe that RW reflections from source X off of a stealth aircraft can be picked up by reciever Y on the ground.

 

Of course it can be picked up. The problem is filtering out a "good" reflection from the bad (i.e. clutter). The normal mechanism for filtering out clutter is by the doppler effect. Targets are filtered out by their doppler return - a very basic equation is this:

 

 

The part in the equation I want you to look at is v. The variable v is the velocity of the transmitter relative to the receiver. Now, how can your magical receiver array know what is the velocity of the transmitter? It can only pick up radar waves reflecting off the stealth target, but it has no idea what painted the stealth aircraft in the first place - it could be that your AWACS 100 miles from the stealth aircraft, or that Su-27 flight 50 miles away, or that ground-based GCI radar 300 miles away. You can't possibly know.

 

That's why it's impossible to use conventional means of filtering out clutter, because you're reduced to tracking the target passively - that is, your using your receiver array to pick up on radar reflections, without actively transmitting RF waves itself. In a sense, you're basically trying to apply the concept of radar warning receivers (which also passively detects radar waves) and by making a really big RWR system, you intend to use it to track a stealth aircraft by trying to pick up on the radar energy after it is reflected off the target.

 

At least RWR has the advantage of only having to deal with radar waves before it has to reflect off the target.

 

I believe that a datalinked missile made today could be steered to a target very accurately.

 

You're kidding right?

 

I believe that filtering out decoys, birds, UFOs and younameit is possbile today when analyzing reflected RWs from a target, especially when you have multiple viewpoints (recievers).

 

You must have access to classified information, because it seems that your beliefs arise from information that the rest of us are not aware of.

[Yellonet]

Of course it can be picked up. The problem is filtering out a "good" reflection from the bad (i.e. clutter). The normal mechanism for filtering out clutter is by the doppler effect. Targets are filtered out by their doppler return - a very basic equation is this:

 

 

The part in the equation I want you to look at is v. The variable v is the velocity of the transmitter relative to the receiver. Now, how can your magical receiver array know what is the velocity of the transmitter? It can only pick up radar waves reflecting off the stealth target, but it has no idea what painted the stealth aircraft in the first place - it could be that your AWACS 100 miles from the stealth aircraft, or that Su-27 flight 50 miles away, or that ground-based GCI radar 300 miles away. You can't possibly know.

The system will know where all radars in range are pointed, and if you can identify incoming RWs you should be able to identify them also after they've been deflected.

 

That's why it's impossible to use conventional means of filtering out clutter, because you're reduced to tracking the target passively - that is, your using your receiver array to pick up on radar reflections, without actively transmitting RF waves itself. In a sense, you're basically trying to apply the concept of radar warning receivers (which also passively detects radar waves) and by making a really big RWR system, you intend to use it to track a stealth aircraft by trying to pick up on the radar energy after it is reflected off the target.

 

At least RWR has the advantage of only having to deal with radar waves before it has to reflect off the target.

Something along those lines, yes.

 

You're kidding right?

Why?

 

You must have access to classified information, because it seems that your beliefs arise from information that the rest of us are not aware of.

:D

[Yellonet]

Anyway, as my suggestion of how to possibly combat stealth was so bad, come up with your own. That's actually what this thread was about. Consider it a challenge.

 

Get it good enough and you'll be picked up in a black van never to be seen again ;)

[p_o_d_2_2]

I think that was already posted. Take the planes out on the ground.

[tflash]

What about another approach, on similar lines.

 

1) you network your sensors over a huge area.

2) you constantly "measure" the emission activity in the observed airspace the same way you would register wheather phenomena.

3) you try to optimize the "noise picture" by taking into account as much as possible known emitters.

4) this gives you a statistical model of the "expected emission state" in that airspace area, the so-called "background radiation".

5) now, using advanced statistics and huge processing power you start scanning for "anomalies".

 

The idea is that is you now about the "landscape" of common noise, it cold be possible to identify what could be considered a relevant anomaly. You are helped in identifying relevant anomalies due to the fact that manned flight has a lot of known properties (not constantly doing 10G turns e.g., not flying hypersonic etc.). You could call such an anomaly a "systematic disturbance of the background noise picture".

 

This would enable you at least to detect UFO's (Unknown Flying Objects) in your airspace.

 

In fact, this is what advanced EWR radars (and, comparably, sonar equipment) are doing already all the time, so I fear the idea is not new enough.

 

Second, there is no way it helps you to track anything in a way you could use it for fire control. You could use it however to launch and guide QRA aircraft that will try to (enhanced) visually acquire the UFO.

 

One of the reasons I think supercruise should be a part of any future stealth concept. The error margins in ground-based guidance will be such that coming into visual range of a supercruising aircraft will be virtually impossible.

[GGTharos]

First off, the idea of detecting stealth aircraft using long-wavelength radars is not new. They're still harder to detect than conventional aircraft, but you can do it at much greater range than an engagement radar.

 

In other words, you guys are coming up with a solution that is already there in a much simpler and cheaper package.

 

The problem still is that NONE of those solutions are capable of guiding weapons on target reliably. In other words, those stealth fighters will still have a huge advantage against anything you can throw at'em. Not to mention they're their own AWACS/ELINT platforms.

[Pilotasso]

Long waves radar does not allow enough precision for weapons guidance, if you did chances were that the missiles would fly by with a considerable margin of error in its true location, or worse, loose track of it in the midle of flight.

[Slaunyeh]

So we[re back to the make your own planes, doublecross agents and get the counter detecting stealth plan of the ennemy.:D

[Yellonet]

So we[re back to the make your own planes, doublecross agents and get the counter detecting stealth plan of the ennemy.:D

Mhhmm... fluoridating the water supply of the enemy has always been a favorite of mine, polluting their precious bodily fluids before they even starts thinking of war :D

[SVK_Fox]

Best eay how to find stealth object is responder for secondary radar in the stealth plane :D

[Guest superanubistype]

I think the only viable concept of forcing stealth technology into a stalemate is if plasma stealth comes to frutition, In theory it's viable, Fight fire with fire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_stealth

[GGTharos]

It isn't viable even in theory right now. It works under certain laboratory conditions ... but if you notice, Russians sure aren't really pursuing 'plasma stealth' on aircraft, nope ... they are using 'conventional' RCS reduction techniques.

[Slaunyeh]

Plasma in the sky ? = Great balls of fire ? :D

[Pilotasso]

I think the only viable concept of forcing stealth technology into a stalemate is if plasma stealth comes to frutition, In theory it's viable, Fight fire with fire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_stealth

 

Plasma stealth in fighters has been the myth in the longest run already as an excuse to say F-22 is doomed, but one that has been remarkably the most far fetched closed mind ever to spread over the aviation enthusiast community, just because it has been theorized. Often people jump from a theory into a practical weapon out of nothing to favour their arguments, and theres also those who reads from the former and gets realy convinced by that. Snowblall efect.

 

Everytime I remind those apologists "where the hell are you going store, or generate all that plasma inside the airframe?" I end up being ingored no matter how relevant that question actualy is.

 

And when I ask "dont you realize it interferes with its own aricraft just as will to others" I get the response thats acceptable. :huh:

[Guest superanubistype]

The important thing here is the theory works, even if in a lab enviroment, I just dont think the technology exsist's for it to be viable military application NOW. IF plasma stealth did become viable it would make any stealth fighter instantly redundant.

 

Pilotasso as for weight/size issues any modern technology designed soon loses weight and size very rapidly, Especially electronics. The one thing I do know is that plasma gas is a by product of the light emitted by a laser, If I remeber right lasers create plasma by ionising oxygen surrounding the laser beam.

 

I'm not arguing for stealth plasma as I beleive the technology simply does not exsist, but I definatley would never rule it out.

[GGTharos]

The important thing here is the theory works, even if in a lab enviroment,

 

Nope, that's not the important thing at -all-.

 

I just dont think the technology exsist's for it to be viable military application NOW.

 

THIS is the important thing. Not only is it not viable NOW, it won't be viable for far too long, if ever.

 

IF plasma stealth did become viable it would make any stealth fighter instantly redundant.

 

Oh? How so? I mean, plasma stealth will interfere with the craft's own radar, which still won't detect stealth fighters, but it might have an 'ultrabright' IR/X-Ray/whatever signature and existing stealth fighters will still out-detect it. Well?

 

Pilotasso as for weight/size issues any modern technology designed soon loses weight and size very rapidly, Especially electronics.

 

That's not how it works. Once you build a radar/whatever, you can expect to replace it with lighter components as an upgrade in maybe 20 years. Not earlier. It's not viable economically to sustain faster upgrades.

 

I'm not arguing for stealth plasma as I dont beileive this technology is viable but I definatley would never rule it out.

 

 

Why even consider it if it's absolutely irrelevant right now?

[D-Scythe]

Oh? How so? I mean, plasma stealth will interfere with the craft's own radar, which still won't detect stealth fighters, but it might have an 'ultrabright' IR/X-Ray/whatever signature and existing stealth fighters will still out-detect it. Well?

 

I'd like the see his response to this.

[Guest superanubistype]

How can you possibly say that this technology is totally unviable, You could probably write absoultley everything you know about plasmas on half an A4 sheet of paper!.

 

All lasers create a very, very fine layer of plasma as a by-product by ionising the surrounding oxygen, fact. Lasers can be manipulated in all 3 dimensions by magnets, gravity, mirrors, lenses and defraction (prism).

What you must appreciate is that all the ingreidients are there, It's just no one is clever enough to put the cake toghether...Yet, or maybe never.

 

And Mr Scythe there is a very simple answer to that question, If the technology became viable radar would be redundant, Plasma is a negativley charged ionisied gas, It cannot be picked up by ANY radiation emiter or receiver, And it also does not generate any type of radiation.

 

Heat is needed to create a plasma it is possible for it to be detected by heat sensors but not like the conventional IRST heat sensors we all know and love, this IRST sensor would have to be supercooled well beyond the conventional ones that exsist to be able to detect these low heats emmissions for any type of BVR fight to be viable.

 

If you really beleive this technology is unviable your mad, I'd bet a months salary that there are labs out there experimenting on this as we speak trying to make it a viable technology.

[GGTharos]

How can you possibly say that this technology is totally unviable, You could probably write absoultley everything you know about plasmas on half an A4 sheet of paper!.

 

That's how much -you- know about it. I know a little more than that - but yeah, not everything ;)

 

All lasers create a very, very fine layer of plasma as a by-product by ionising the surrounding oxygen, fact.

 

Which is not enough to do anything for your aircraft unless you're willing to give it so much power it'll blow a sattelite out of orbit. Fact. Okay, maybe slightly exagerrated fact ... but the point is, you can forget flying in anything resembling a formation ;)

 

Lasers can be manipulated in all 3 dimensions by magnets, gravity, mirrors, lenses and defraction (prism).

 

Yes, delicate manipulation vulnerable to lots of things, not to mention overheating - why do you think LRD's aren't being used for plasma stealth? ;)

 

What you must appreciate is that all the ingreidients are there, It's just no one is clever enough to put the cake toghether...Yet, or maybe never.

 

And you should appreciate what you've written here ;) The 'ingredients' as the case may be are -not- all there, and that's why it hasn't been put together.

 

And Mr Scythe there is a very simple answer to that question, If the technology became viable radar would be redundant, Plasma is a negativley charged ionisied gas, It cannot be picked up by ANY radiation emiter or receiver, And it also does not generate any type of radiation.

 

Plasma does in fact interact, and radiate. LOTS. That's PRECISELY because you are ionizing it.

 

Heat is needed to create a plasma it is possible for it to be detected by heat sensors but not like the conventional IRST heat sensors we all know and love, this IRST sensor would have to be supercooled well beyond the conventional ones that exsist to be able to detect these low heats emmissions for any type of BVR fight to be viable.

 

I don't know where you got that idea, but ionizing -anything- requires significant and detectable amounts of energy. We're talking beyond the power of radar here. It will be VERY detectable. That's if your aircraft can take off under the bulk of all this equipment required to generate said plasma.

 

If you really beleive this technology is unviable your mad, I'd bet a months salary that there are labs out there experimenting on this as we speak trying to make it a viable technology.

 

Hand the money over then :)

[tflash]

Seems to me that with maturing AESA radar technology and progress in onboard computing power, active cancellation techniques are much more likely to be a next area of research than plasma. But in fact even that is a stalemate: if the radar party has the same computing power progress, advances in cancellation will be met by advances in frequency hopping etc.

 

Lets put it this way: in Flanker times, if you wanted to outperform say, an Eagle, you just went for a bigger radar dish. Exactly what you find on the Flanker. In the digital era, its all about computing power.

 

If you have the biggest computing power during design, you can make stealth aerodynamic shapes and RAM coating. If you still want your fighter to have an edge when all the competition has caught up with the production process (not yet the case!), you will try to have the fastest, the biggest computer on board. With the fastest datalink. Once AESA technology is mature (still not completely the case) you can put T/R module arrays everywhere: in the wings, in the tail, in the body ...

 

And then you have this bandwidth issue: be prepared to have some fiber optics onboard your plane, and you will watch your CPU cooling, because you are going to compute big time!

[Guest superanubistype]

True ionised plasma is radioactive, not all plasmas are ionised, I gave this as an example because I remeber being shown how a laser interacts with gases, A very bad example on my behalf, This technology would almost certainly use non ionised plasmas.

 

I'm certainly no expert in this but if you want to know the theory behind stealth plasma read the sections here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_stealth on 'Plasmas on aerodynamic surfaces' & 'Absorption of EM radiation'.

 

Lasers/light can be 'gently manipulated', The Diamond light source in the UK manipulates light in a 360 degree light ring it is approxitmatley 1 km in in overall length, Yeah thats huge but not the booster ring that fires light around 360 degrees in less than 60 meters that is by no means 'gentle manipulation of light'.

 

http://www.diamond.ac.uk/default.htm

 

The joint european torus JET is a Fusion reactor it also pushes plasma in 360 degree circle in less than 20 meters.

 

http://www.jet.efda.org/

 

Both these machines can serioulsy manipulate plasmas and light not to mention ETA, OK there huge but there not meant to fly but this is also evidence the ingredients are there.

 

I dont think IRST would be very effective behind a thick layer of gas, the same way IRST is effected by water in the air.