If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
How long until current 'stealth' techniques are compromised?
Hi, I've been browsing the newsgroup archives for the last month and haven't
found a clear answer to this question. I find alot of the subject topics here tend to go off on to talks about politics. It seems alot of importance is put into stealth for aircraft these days, just wondering who is working on a countering radar system for it? And if these newer aircraft with their current 'stealth' ability become compromised, I assume importance would go to who sees who first and how good long range missile technology has become? If that happens, then which recent aircraft has the advantage? And what about companies such as MiG who have been rumoured to be working on a non-standard stealth system? I don't know any details, but I am wondering if it designed to reflect radar away from the listener or if it absorbs the radar itself? Thankyou for your time. muskau |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 12:36:38 +1000, "muskau"
wrote: Hi, I've been browsing the newsgroup archives for the last month and haven't found a clear answer to this question. I find alot of the subject topics here tend to go off on to talks about politics. It seems alot of importance is put into stealth for aircraft these days, just wondering who is working on a countering radar system for it? Roke Manor is looking at a system called Celldar, its probally best if you read their website. see:- http://www.roke.co.uk/sensors/stealth/celldar.asp Cheers And if these newer aircraft with their current 'stealth' ability become compromised, I assume importance would go to who sees who first and how good long range missile technology has become? If that happens, then which recent aircraft has the advantage? And what about companies such as MiG who have been rumoured to be working on a non-standard stealth system? I don't know any details, but I am wondering if it designed to reflect radar away from the listener or if it absorbs the radar itself? Thankyou for your time. muskau John Cook Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them. Email Address :- Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
muskau wrote:
: It seems alot of importance is put into stealth for aircraft these days, : just wondering who is working on a countering radar system for it? To give a direct answer to the question, stealth is always compromised... Because designers have to find a compromise between stealth and aerodynamics, engines, armament, cost, etc. Stealth is not absolute; designers aim for a small radar cross-section but they can't reduce it to zero. For the same reason, "everyone" is working on a countering radar. A better radar will also by definition more effective against stealth aircraft. The systems that are marketed as "anti-stealth" radars are bipolar or multipolar radars that separate the receive from the transmitter; not a bad idea, because stealth is designed to reflect radiation away from the transmitter, but not a very effective solution, because designers aim to reflect radition in only a few narrow directions. AFAIK none is capable of more than giving a general indication that a stealth aircraft is in the area. The debate is now on where the balance should be. The USAF appear the believe that it should be heavily towards stealth, and is willing to accept the penalties for that -- internal weapons carriage, for example. Outside the USA there is less emphasis on stealth and more on the 'conventional' combat aircraft characteristics, in part for cost reasons, in part because operators believe that stealth will be difficult to retain 'in the field'. Personally I do think that stealth has become more fashionable than its tactical importance will justify. Compare it to the importance attached to Mach 2+ performance in the 1960s. : And if these newer aircraft with their current 'stealth' ability become : compromised, I assume importance would go to who sees who first and how good : long range missile technology has become? If that happens, then which recent : aircraft has the advantage? It hardly depends on the individual aircraft, it depends on the 'information' environment. In that sense air combat has not changed since 1940, when radar gave the RAF a vital advantage. The 'stealth' designs may still have an advantage in the sense that their designers build them to rely less on their own radars (which would give their position away) and provide them with the hard- and software to collect data from other sources. But less stealthy designs will have those as well. -- Emmanuel Gustin |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"muskau" wrote in message . au...
And what about companies such as MiG who have been rumoured to be working on a non-standard stealth system? I don't know any details, but I am wondering if it designed to reflect radar away from the listener or if it absorbs the radar itself? Sounds like "plasma stealth". I don't believe that's been demonstrated in any shape or fashion past theory level. Stealth design is part of the overall package. By its lonesome, a stealthy airframe can be useful just from the reduced signature, sure, but it's a one-trick pony just flying along, and that one trick is self-compromising when releasing weapons since a weapon bay door has to pop open long enough to release. But combine the stealthy airframe with tactics and operations that take advantage of the reduced signature at the same time as using various factors against the adversary, and you've got a force multiplier that will work under a much wider range of circumstances. The notion of a lone pair of F-117s coming over the horizon to put iron on a bunker is simplistic. The reality is much, much more involved. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
It seems alot of importance is put into stealth for aircraft these days,
just wondering who is working on a countering radar system for it? I guess nobody working on it now as many developed countries for example US,UK and Germany have already very capable counter LO multi-statics available. (West) Germany was the first nation that started with the development of counter LO systems in post WWII,in 70s german magazine "Stern" published a small article about (German) government pork and among many others called a project sponsored by German ministry of Research&Technology a gov't pork as the energy efficiency of this form of radar was much lower than conventional radars. Of course the "stern"authors did know anything about about stealth platforms when they published this article and critized this radar development as a n unneccesary development.. More than 30 years after they developed first dedicated counter LO radar,Germans still have the most capable counter LO system as newest generation of German counter LO system is capable of extracting target data from polarisation data. US and UK systems are also very capable,US system is even capable to produce an image of target for ATR purposes but their computing power requirements are much higher than German system and also they could be more easily jammed. And what about companies such as MiG who have been rumoured to be working on a non-standard stealth system? I don't know any details, but I am wondering if it designed to reflect radar away from the listener or if it absorbs the radar itself? In the era of HPM weapons,trying to absorb incoming electromagnetic energy would be suicidal,you must try to reject as much electromagnetic energy as possible,if you only could of course!. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Keep in mind that radar transmitters can be detected much farther out
than they themselves can detect a target. Iraqis found that out. Walt BJ |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
John Cook wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 12:36:38 +1000, "muskau" wrote: Hi, I've been browsing the newsgroup archives for the last month and haven't found a clear answer to this question. I find alot of the subject topics here tend to go off on to talks about politics. It seems alot of importance is put into stealth for aircraft these days, just wondering who is working on a countering radar system for it? Roke Manor is looking at a system called Celldar, its probally best if you read their website. see:- http://www.roke.co.uk/sensors/stealth/celldar.asp I doubt the effectiveness of the Celldar system in the future as Cell phone energies are getting smaller and smaller as designers try to increase battery life. Already, digital cell phones using CDMA technology transmit with energies less than the noise level of the RF spectrum. This means that any given cell phone is useless for detection. As the number of cell towers increase, they will also probably drop in power to avoid any backlash from the EM radiation they put out. This means with time, Celldar will probably lose effectiveness. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Chad Irby" wrote in message om... In article , (robert arndt) wrote: The strange thing is that our "friends" are putting more money into anti-stealth than our "enemies"... You might note that most of Europe still worries about Russia, which has worked on stealth aircraft in the past. LOL! Sure....That must be it.... The [often duplicitous] Europeans are pouring significant amounts of money into anti-stealth radar and weapon systems to counter a hopelessly bankrupt Russia which cannot even afford fuel for it's current aircraft; and even at the height of it's power didn't come close to fielding a stealth aircraft. Not to mention the fact that Russia has sided with 'Old Europe' far more often than not lately, and that these Europeans have taken seemingly every step possible to attempt to thwart any American geopolitical and military advancement in the last three years. But I'm sure these systems are to counter all the imaginary Russian stealth aircraft that will never be built. Think about it... what is the REAL market for anti-stealth systems? Third world dictatorships and despots who would like to carry an ace in the hole against the American forces, and are willing to pay highly to get it (but cannot develop it on their own). Period. Not that the Europeans will freely sell these systems on the open market right away (well, maybe the French), but the mere existance of a proven, effective anti-stealth system will be an extremely powerful political tool for the European powers to carry when trying to 'reign in' the USA (and believe me, that is their only, ultimate, objective). Simply the threat of providing (or maybe 'leaking') this system to a foreign unfriendly power may, theoretically, give the US military pause in considering an action, and give the EU a bigger say in matters the USA chooses to take up (as their current say is somewhere around zero right now). Frankly, it has become obvious that while Europe may not (yet) be an all-out enemy, they are certainly an often hostile adversary, and definiately not an ally. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Flight test update - long | nauga | Home Built | 1 | June 5th 04 03:09 AM |
SWRFI Pirep.. (long) | Dave S | Home Built | 20 | May 21st 04 03:02 PM |
IFR Long X/C and the Specter of Expectations | David B. Cole | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | February 24th 04 07:51 PM |
Israeli Stealth??? | Kenneth Williams | Military Aviation | 92 | October 22nd 03 04:28 PM |
Long Range Spitfires??? | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 3 | September 9th 03 10:05 PM |