Stealth might be Overrated

Stealth might be Overrated?

Generally when I hear that statement I start warming up the 'you don't know what you're talking about' missiles. Stealth has been an extremely useful technology for the US military since the day it was put on an airplane. The number of lost planes in battle has dropped significantly due to stealth bombers like the F 117 and B2 taking the vanguard and wiping out anti-air facilities, clearly the way for everyone else to fly in and unload relatively safely.

However Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert told a Washington audience Feb. 4 that stealth might be "overrated" for future fighters. Since I don't like telling Admirals they don't know what they are talking about I find myself at a loss. This guy just doo doo'd on the best advantage the US Airforce has had since it's creation.

www.airforcetimes.com...

"What does that next strike fighter look like?" Greenert asked. "I'm not sure if it's manned, don't know that it is. You can only go so fast, and you know that stealth may be overrated. … Let's face it, if something moves fast through the air, disrupts molecules and puts out heat – I don't care how cool the engine can be, it's going to be detectable."

Of course the airforce boys rushed to correct his mistake politely. Words like 'Hugely Important' were repeated. Even Lockheed Martin jumped in to declare Stealth foundational technology for the upcoming 6th Gen fighter.

I am starting to think the Admiral Greenert knows capabilities of enemy weapons systems have caught up to the advantage that Stealth once supplied. That over the next 20 years, the short timeline for a Gen 6 Fighter, he expects anti-Stealth technology to advance so much and spread so far as to make Stealth much less relevant. That Stealth technology is limited by the sheer physics of flying objects through air at high speeds.

It's a sad day to be honest. Stealth is dying. A once amazing advantage is slipping away. I don't know what the 6th Gen Fighter will look like but I'm suspecting it won't rely on Stealth anymore. Eventhough some still try to cling to that advantage.

a reply to: noeltrotsky

I see it as part of the overall package. A little bit of an advantage, added to another little advantage and another small edge. it adds up. The whole package now having a big advantage. Picking stealthy aircraft amongst non-stealthy ones in a strike package. EW added into the equation.

I don't know if was the same dude, but one general stated the F-35 may have a lower RCS than the F-22..if flown in multiple numbers?? Say what? Just what the hell don't we know about the 35's actual capabilities??

Last point. Have you considered the possibility that his comments are a smoke screen?......

Active camo/stealth is the next thing on the horizon - Stealth by design won't matter because they're going to be bending wavelengths around the jet.

a reply to: noeltrotsky

He's taking about stealth as it relates to high speed craft. If you have a mach seven fighter it's not going to be very stealthy because it's going to glow like the sun on IR, no matter what you do to the skin. The F-22 is probably pushing the boundaries for stealthy aircraft and speed.

One of the aspects that both services agree on in a sixth generation fighter is speed. They both eventually want hypersonic aircraft. But it won't be very stealthy in that aspect of its flight. So the question becomes if you go stealthy, or if you use that speed for its advantage.

originally posted by: coldkidc
Active camo/stealth is the next thing on the horizon - Stealth by design won't matter because they're going to be bending wavelengths around the jet.

Interesting thought. I didn't think that tech would help against heat signatures and the like. Don't know how far advanced it is or if applications to fighter jets are being tested. Probably because I don't have clearance....hahaha

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: noeltrotsky
He's taking about stealth as it relates to high speed craft. If you have a mach seven fighter it's not going to be very stealthy because it's going to glow like the sun on IR, no matter what you do to the skin. The F-22 is probably pushing the boundaries for stealthy aircraft and speed.

One of the aspects that both services agree on in a sixth generation fighter is speed. They both eventually want hypersonic aircraft. But it won't be very stealthy in that aspect of its flight. So the question becomes if you go stealthy, or if you use that speed for its advantage.

I think you're on target. Speed is critical. It is funny that Adm. Greenart said you can only go so fast. That seems to say speed is limited due to Stealth.

I suspect Greenart is thinking unmanned drones that fly extremely fast and have super maneuverability. I've suspected this is coming for a little while. I don't think the Military complex is all on board with the future direction.

a reply to: noeltrotsky

We won't see that for sixth Gen. They're still several years from testing a system that doesn't have lag over long distances, or is autonomous enough to fly an air to air mission. If they're looking at milestone A by 2018 or that area we're looking at optionally manned aircraft at best.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Are you referring to a unmanned A2A platform? or the active camo? I was under the impression that the active camo was pretty far along

a reply to: penroc3

Active camouflage has its own issues to overcome.

I'm talking about unmanned air combat.

a reply to: Zaphod58

BAE has a pretty neat active IR camo system. make tanks look like a car, or people or nothing. I don't think it would fool a hellfire II as it has millimeter radar but it might be useful stealth for something?

I would think if that fusion deal is effectively utiized , lasers or plasma devices will become the new toy.

a reply to: penroc3

It might work on a small UAV or even a Predator type MALE, but on a large aircraft you're talking some pretty extreme temperatures at times. It's a lot harder to hide the IR signature.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Is it even worth my time in trying to find millimeter wave stealth techniques? between that and terminal optical guidance where the missiles knows what aircraft/tank its after looks like, it seems like it would be unstoppable.

a reply to: penroc3

Good luck even finding they exist.

There are some.... interesting ways to spoof optical guidance.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I wonder if they are using older tech. and getting rid of CMOS and CCD to get around some of those methods. I don't know what that older stuff would be but I bet that would solve some of the jamming.

I saw a demo that some students did a project that jammed camera with different wave length,

www.youtube.com...

not the students but the general IDEA is the same. get the right frequency and right type of light and I assume you good to go.

a reply to: penroc3

With optical guidance where the missile looks for a specific planform it's just a matter of altering that form so it doesn't recognize it anymore. The if you can jam the other seekers it's using in coordination with the optical, you can spoof it.

One way is the laser jammer. It only works against missiles with a lens type seeker (IR and optical). The laser hits the seeker and blinds it, sending it off course once it can't see anymore.

a reply to: Zaphod58

changing the way aircraft look seems very $$$. And other then V.G wings and such I don't see how you could change the outline to the point of confusing the seeker mid-flight.

I personally don't think stealth will ever go out of 'style'

obviously if you have high supersonic or hypersonic air craft you would just use your speed to protect you. but not everything can move at mach 3+. Boeing has a pretty sweet hypersonic missile so speed might not always be able to save you. I think speed and E.W will be the bread and butter of fast movers and altitude and stealth will be right at home with everyone else.

a reply to: penroc3

And what do you think it does to your visual signature of you put a light here and there on the fuselage? There are only so many frequencies a visual system can use.

You're over thinking the problem. You don't have to physically change your planform, only make the seeker THINK it doesn't match what it's looking for.

a reply to: Zaphod58


That has always been a problem of mine. It's amazing how a few lights will make all the difference. Lets take Russia as an example. How would America get there hands on them? I know during the cold war pilots would defect with there wears and we would comb over all there stuff.

with out the 80's type of cold war going on, are we still getting our hands of non American hard wear? It has to be super hard because if it wasn't then we could just get all the images they loaded into them and switch out stuff up accordingly

a reply to: penroc3

They just buy stuff from friendly countries. My brother in law used to work in the missile exploit office. They do a lot of work from observational data.