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

They could use camera assisted technology similar to drones to get the missile close enough so the missiles guidance works better. I read somewhere that stealth doesn't work so well when the missile gets close. I don't know if that is true, it wasn't from a government site, it was an article from someone who used to work in the airforce.

a reply to: rickymouse

A lot of people confuse the concept of low observability with invisibility.

Stealth doesn't totally mitigate radar returns but reduces them by an order of magnitude so significant that an aircrafts RCS ( what the radar "sees" ) becomes the size of a small bird ( or less).

Stealth plan-forms deflect large amounts of electro magnetic energy, RAM coatings absorb even more, specific flight profiles further reduce RCS , often through corridors created by active and passive radar countermeasures, all combine to form "stealth".

Because radio waves follow the inverse square law, the closer a receiver gets to its target source the better the return is going to be.

There is also a huge difference between a search radar getting a "glimpse" and a tracking radar locking on with enough resolution for long enough to guide a weapon.

originally posted by: Jonjonj
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.

engage.

poverty will always be with us. if you are talking overseas the problem is that of corruption and lack of education. no matter how much money you divert to a basket case failed state country the money will not help the impoverished stop being impoverished. if you mean in the US the "impoverished" all look a little heavy to me. must not be starving. they all have indoor plumbing electricity cell phones, ipads, home pcs, gaming consoles, multiple tvs cars worth more than thier houses, air conditioning, heating, education through 12th grade...don't seem so poor to me. the poor of india or africa or south america would kill to be "poor" like american poor. the key to upward mobility is teaching kids that they can make decision about their life that result in better economic conditions. you can take the poorest homeless person and teach them means to grow if not rich very well off. that has happened. but if you just give that homeless person enough money to be comfortable where they are they will stay the way they are and stay where they are for the rest of their life.

throwing money, especially money taken by the coercive tax power of the government is not the answer at any rate. nor is skimping on defense or defense related technology.

the government's primary duty is to protect it's citizens from invasion by foreign powers (national defense) and ensure intra and interstate commerce. yet the first thing cut is always defense.

a reply to: boomer135

This is a smokescreen, basically done by rhe ilitary to get more funding.

A stealth plane is,easy to see on radar, because it isnt true stealth but built on a glitch inherent on every radar built by western companies. If anyone builds there own radar,theyll see your little,bird alomg with a lot of real birds.

You're also going to run up against a resolution issue at lower frequencies. The article addresses it briefly, saying processing power is improving, but the other issue is antennae sizes. Even with improved processing, physics dictate the lowest resolution possible at a given frequency. Knowing something is in a 30 mile cube of airspace is useful, but not a game ender. Especially when at those frequencies the radar is unable to differentiate between one return or a dozen in that cube of airspace, and as you've stated the clutter is very high at those frequencies.
And, of course, when switching to the higher tracking and targetig frequencies, the LO aspects begin to dominate again.

The technology is certainly worth pursuing, but it isn't the complete answer to stealth.

originally posted by: bjarneorn
a reply to: boomer135

This is a smokescreen, basically done by rhe ilitary to get more funding.

A stealth plane is,easy to see on radar, because it isnt true stealth but built on a glitch inherent on every radar built by western companies. If anyone builds there own radar,theyll see your little,bird alomg with a lot of real birds.

I'm not disagreeing with that. I think that it could very well have been said to get the pentagon to go the alternative route, which is simply fly faster than the missiles.

originally posted by: boomer135

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.

I think if we ever really tie into it with Russia or China they'll never know what hit them and we probably won't either.

a reply to: SonofaSkunk

I find it comforting in a small way that if World War 3 were ever truly on the brink of breaking out that the MIC will bust out any of the shiny little toys they've been working on since ww2.

Not because of the destructive power that they will unleash. But because anyone in a position of power who sees such a toy will sit down, knowing that they have already lost to something that they can't understand, let alone counter.

Or perhaps I should say I find it comforting to hold that belief heh.

a reply to: boomer135

I am of the opinion that once stealth became known and rolled out in large numbers that was actually a mistake, some F117's over flew britain and according to the story the US thought we did not know anything about it, apparantly the coversation went something like this "Oh we sent some prototype air craft over on a mission to ? last night and the RAF officer replied, "Yes we tracked them at ?hours from ? to ?" at which the USAF guy was a little shaken and asked how we had tracked them, our system is different to the one the US and Russians use and it had no problem identifying and tracking them along with other systems we have.

Even recessed the early 117's still have a thermal trail and computer systems with high update high resolution radar also track them well enough by speed even though there return signature is reduced as it is still present and a bird does not fly that fast, all depend's how much data you process as most radar ignores or filters out smaller signature's to screen out bird's and is dependant on a human operator but a computer can keep track of and analyse far more data so does not need that screening.

I know that story from a former Top RAF engineer and instructor who also told he how the RAF brass eventually allowed the Harrier pilot's to fly there way during a friendly combat excercise with american fighter pilot's flying the then main american fighter (F18's or F16's I can't recall the conversation), up to that point having to fly the harrier as any other fighter the americans where winning hand's down in all simulated engagement's but when there commanding officer gave them the green light to fly in there own way the harriers suckered the US pilots into overshooting them then came up behind them and turned the tables with there superior manouverability, it was after that the American's bought the Harrier which in my opinion is still the finest multi role fighter bomber in the world and I don't think it is outdated at all, now it is American only as our idiot of a prime minister retired our harrier squadrons while putin rubbed his hand's together and gave himself a hearty slap on the back.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: boomer135

I am of the opinion that once stealth became known and rolled out in large numbers that was actually a mistake, some F117's over flew britain and according to the story the US thought we did not know anything about it, apparantly the coversation went something like this "Oh we sent some prototype air craft over on a mission to ? last night and the RAF officer replied, "Yes we tracked them at ?hours from ? to ?" at which the USAF guy was a little shaken and asked how we had tracked them, our system is different to the one the US and Russians use and it had no problem identifying and tracking them along with other systems we have.

Even recessed the early 117's still have a thermal trail and computer systems with high update high resolution radar also track them well enough by speed even though there return signature is reduced as it is still present and a bird does not fly that fast, all depend's how much data you process as most radar ignores or filters out smaller signature's to screen out bird's and is dependant on a human operator but a computer can keep track of and analyse far more data so does not need that screening.

I know that story from a former Top RAF engineer and instructor who also told he how the RAF brass eventually allowed the Harrier pilot's to fly there way during a friendly combat excercise with american fighter pilot's flying the then main american fighter (F18's or F16's I can't recall the conversation), up to that point having to fly the harrier as any other fighter the americans where winning hand's down in all simulated engagement's but when there commanding officer gave them the green light to fly in there own way the harriers suckered the US pilots into overshooting them then came up behind them and turned the tables with there superior manouverability, it was after that the American's bought the Harrier which in my opinion is still the finest multi role fighter bomber in the world and I don't think it is outdated at all, now it is American only as our idiot of a prime minister retired our harrier squadrons while putin rubbed his hand's together and gave himself a hearty slap on the back.

An this is relevent how?

There was a big rumour the stealths were tracked, but they were on their way to an airshow navigating on full radar and EMC and in touch with Air Traffic.

Last paragraph is just pro RAF irrelevance, Harrier is not superior to F-18, Typhoon, Grippen, Rafale, or Tornado even.. except in the VTOL role.

Btw - I am English and worked on Harrier, Tornado, EFA and Hawk.

a reply to: SirDrinksalot

I did say multi role, not interceptor did I not, now the guy whom I spoke too was not someone who I can give detail's on but he worked on everything from the 1960's to the early 90's, knew how to change a battery without removing the seat etc in one airframe and was a practical expert on most aircraft, he tought other mechanic's, I believe he worked on most airframes and No that is not propeganda as the RAF had to fly in accord with the rules but when there senior officer gave the green light they flew as the Harrier was meant to be flown and as they had been trained and the US marine core are now trained using the nozzles to slow them fast in mid flight and outmanouvering the other jet's in flight, now there is no way in a fair dog fight they could beat the faster US interceptor's or in a standoff air to air exchange but in a test of flight manouverability they had the edge, still that was not there role as you know and in my opinion the only real challenger for the Harrier was the old SAAB fighter developed in sweden for short take off and landing so as to use country road's and forrests as cover, it was a superior air dominance fighter and multi role to the Harrier but lacked Vtol capability but it was Stol which in most cases is almost as good, while the harrier is outdated as far as air frame and avionic's are concerned the new F35 is not even ready to be deployed as a VTOL role aircraft and in that role is inferior to the Harrier but as a normal multi role fighter though without the lift fan and using the increased load space thus provided it is a far better air craft obviously.

The old Jaguar was another good aircraft in it's day, Just like the american A10 warthog is the best ground attack aircraft even today but precision guided ordinance has done away with the need for such flying gattling gun's.

I have met some pretty intesting people, a former SAS guy who hid half submerged in a muddy stream in north Korea for several day's waiting for a high priority target, Another who told me how impressed he had been by the Turk's over in Korea who had cleared there battle field and pressed there uniform's only a few hour's after a battle so as to host a VIP visit by a general.

Relevant how, that radar detection was correct and no they were not flying to an air show, it is just one of those thing's you might or might not have heard about (you must have though if you were a RAF specialist) but remember the F117 is now regarded as poor early generation stealth and the Russkies took a different stance on stealth using a system that produced ionised gas from an aeriel like structure near the front of there plane and would envelope the plane below certain speed's thus reducing radar signature of even a normal (and uncompromised) air frame, it was not as good as stealth and was in developement before the end of the cold war so weather they then continued or it somehow got bought up by the west after the cold war is a big question.

Today though Drones are the next generation of military aircraft as you know and even civil aviation usually only have a pilot to sit chaperone over automated systems with some aircraft being able to take off and land as well as guide themselves between destinations, (people like a pilot though), if google estimates of being able to simulate and upload an image of the human mind are correct though the future may be intelligent machines, I just hope the toaster does not stage a slave revolt.

If you want propeganda look the Vulcan, by the time of the Falklands it was woefully outdated and needed that many refueling tankers to reach the falklands it was both a testament to the ingenious planning and competance of the RAF and of the stamina of there flight crew's but gave the Argentinians a fright as they suddenly thought we could bomb there city's from britain.

I believe if the public is aware of it, it is only because a 2.0 exist somewhere. Its like a game of cat and mouse but, you let the mouse out on purpose because you know its not your best mouse.

On another note.

I think we brag way too much. The U.S. needs to resort to the old ways. Like the floppy's and old comps governing the nukes. I still own a C64 and to me it is far more superior as far as potential and security. We need a new comp, system, and network that combines the old with the new and IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE ON YAHOO NEWS, ATS, OR WIRED LOL.

originally posted by: framedragged
Not because of the destructive power that they will unleash. But because anyone in a position of power who sees such a toy will sit down, knowing that they have already lost to something that they can't understand, let alone counter.

Or perhaps I should say I find it comforting to hold that belief heh.

That's assuming full rationality. Well, Saddam in 1991 faced the same thing. Apparently the story goes that he wasn't so worried about American bombing, after all Baghdad et al had been subjected to Iranian bombing & missiles for many years in the previous decade and it didn't do that much.

There were Soviet generals advising him (remember that Iraq was primary ally of the USSR then). He was honestly completely shocked by the US attack, having no conception how accurate and fierce it would be. The Soviets were similarly shocked by his ignorant naivete: "WTF were you expecting?" It's also rumored that one of them remarked, after seeing the F-117 in action against a heavily defended (with Soviet air defense equipment) capital, "I'm grateful we never had a war with NATO, we would have lost badly by surprise."

And look at 1914, the best military minds had no conception what they were getting involved with.

a reply to: Zaphod58

So do they void the need for this money pit?

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.

The best air defense is a good offense?

Truly---ground sites have the strong limitation that they don't move at 600 mph.

So the trick is to get within infrared or eyeball detection range. Without getting hit yourself.

a reply to: Fargoth

Not in the least. They're not capable of air to air, and are far more vulnerable to interception. Depending on the range to their controller there is a one second lag between control input and the controls moving on the UAV.

originally posted by: mbkennel

That's assuming full rationality.

Ah there you go, grounding me back in reality as usual lol. And you can even have a visceral demonstration of it, throw it right in Ryan Gang's face, and they don't even know what happened.*

Perhaps my statement should be closer to "I find it comforting in a small way that if World War 3 ever broke out it would be over very quickly thanks to the MIC will busting out any of the shiny little toys they've been working on since ww2."



*That might be my absolutely favorite speculation of Bedlam's

a reply to: Zaphod58

Hey Zaph,

Isn't there a whole lot the article is leaving out like our multi tiered approach to stealth. The planes are pretty stealthy but what about EW craft wrecking any chances the radars are going to see or be able to do anything. Also, rumor has it there's this new skin that's capable of....hold on a second my computers acting all wack-----------------


.....

....

a reply to: Zaphod58

Ok thanks for the info.