Chinese and Russian Radars On Track To See Through U.S. Stealth

Came across this story today which I'm sure is gonna have the F-35 opponents drooling. However, since on ATS we deny ignorance, its only fair to report both sides of a story. I see this story being a leap frog to building the sr-72 in bigger numbers. It could very well be what this nation needs to advance the hypersonic flight window.

Seeing Stealth

A growing trend in Russian and Chinese radar could make U.S. stealth fighters easier to see and — more importantly — easier to target for potential adversaries, a former senior U.S. Navy official told USNI News.

U.S. fighters — like the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) — are protected by stealth technology optimized for higher frequency targeting radars but not for lower frequency radars.

Until now a focus on higher frequencies have not been a problem because low frequency radars have traditionally been unable to generate “weapons quality tracks.”

JSF and the F-22 are protected from higher frequencies in the Ku, X, C and parts of the S bands. But both jets can be seen on enemy radars operating in the longer wavelengths like L, UHF and VHF.

In other words, Russian and Chinese radars can generally detect a stealth aircraft but not clearly enough to give an accurate location to a missile

But that is starting to change.

“Acquisition and fire control radars are starting to creep down the frequency spectrum,” a former senior U.S. Navy official told USNI News on Monday.
With improved computing power, low frequency radars are getting better and better at discerning targets more precisely.

a reply to: boomer135

This is what makes it so interesting in the giant chess game we call stealth. It's all about the move and the counter move.

China probably has the blueprints and probably built the parts, so why would this surprise anyone?

That's exactly how they got a jump on our DoD satellites. Way to go American companies!

It doesn't surprise anyone. However people have discussed it before, I can't think of a time where it was written in this much detail on a major defense website. So kinda cool and kinda bad. I really hope it spurs the 72s development now.

Great we spent billions on a turkey in the F-35 that's not stealthy anymore.

Maybe some cooler tech will float out of a hanger now.

originally posted by: grey580
Great we spent billions on a turkey in the F-35 that's not stealthy anymore.

Maybe some cooler tech will float out of a hanger now.

Oh its still stealthy...just a couple of countries "might" be able to develop radars that can see it.

And hey let's be honest here. I know we're pivoting to the pacific or whatever, but seriously what are the odds that we go to war with Russia or China? Prob slim to none and if we do I'm pretty sure nuclear weapons will be involved anyway so screw it. There's still a couple hundred countries out there that the f-35 will excel in wars with.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I was hoping you'd be here to answer my latest irrelevant question. How do drones stack up against radar?

a reply to: boomer135

Of course, the lower frequency radio used for radar has some problems

a) more interference from conventional transmitters (you're right in cellphone & TV bands)

b) it's easier for ECM to distort returned waves as the wavelength starts to get up similar sizes as the aircraft

c) it's harder to distinguish one craft from another, and from spurious decoy reflectors

Each country has enough nukes to blow each other up 100x times so stealth only profits the military industrial complex. Perhaps that money be wiser spent on US crumbling infrastructure than lining the pockets of the super rich.

a reply to: Fargoth

Just like any other aircraft. It depends on shape, skin, intakes, etc. The RQ-180 is about as stealthy as they come, or more, while the Global Hawk is about as stealthy as a barn door.

originally posted by: Fargoth
a reply to: Zaphod58

I was hoping you'd be here to answer my latest irrelevant question. How do drones stack up against radar?

Drones tend to be more stealthy than conventional aircraft because for one they don't have a cockpit, and without the cockpit they can be "flatter". Of course I'm talking about the stealth drones and not predators and such. But drones like the RQ-170 and RQ-180, or other flying wing designs are by design really stealthy.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Fargoth

Just like any other aircraft. It depends on shape, skin, intakes, etc. The RQ-180 is about as stealthy as they come, or more, while the Global Hawk is about as stealthy as a barn door.

beat me to it!

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: boomer135

Of course, the lower frequency radio used for radar has some problems

a) more interference from conventional transmitters (you're right in cellphone & TV bands)

b) it's easier for ECM to distort returned waves as the wavelength starts to get up similar sizes as the aircraft

c) it's harder to distinguish one craft from another, and from spurious decoy reflectors

Absolutely correct. Its not going to be easy, but I'm assuming the Chinese hackers got into info from the US on how to detect and track them. Detecting is one thing, that's already been done, but they can't find a way to track them or even get a missile to lock onto them, which is where stealth still plays a huge factor.

a reply to: boomer135

This biggest thing here is the ability to guide interceptors into the area, that might then be able to find them.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: boomer135

This biggest thing here is the ability to guide interceptors into the area, that might then be able to find them.

Question. Much of the stealth comes from the coating/skin right? Is it possible to simply develop a new coating to defeat the new radars?

The game of chess that is military design...I mean really? Cool as hell for sure but...the reality is that things just get promoted, then rendered useless, then improved...who wins?? We all know who wins I prefer the new beer designs!

a reply to: Jonjonj

And have you ever looked at how much of what you take for granted every day comes from that technology?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Long wave radar has always been an issue for stealth. You can only cover so many frequencies in a single coating, so it's always been a trade off. Long wave lets you be seen, at least intermittently, but not fired on. The X band, and others that the stealth is designed against, can't see you which means you can't be fired on by radar guided weapons.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: boomer135

This biggest thing here is the ability to guide interceptors into the area, that might then be able to find them.

Question. Much of the stealth comes from the coating/skin right? Is it possible to simply develop a new coating to defeat the new radars?

Actually ram is just a small part of an aircrafts stealth. Its planform shape designed by modern computers is a bigger factor. Then what the aircraft has leftover to hide, that's when ram comes into play. Supposedly plasma stealth could one day make the planform design moot.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I am more than aware of technological adances thanks to military breakthroughs. I am not bad mouthing here but doesn't it seem like the whole thing is just getting stale now? I mean, with sooooooo much poverty and so many obviously more necessary sectors of society to be helped...I don't know, I understand and truly love the whole idea of innovation, however, and this is something that we know right? Nothing that is known that is useful is filtered down until it is no longer useful.