It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Not-So-Secret Way to Kill a Stealth Fighter

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 04:07 PM
link   
The Not-So-Secret Way to Kill a Stealth Fighter


I saw this article and thought it was interesting.

The article writer theorizes that there's enough computing power to combine several low frequency radars together to get a missile close enough to the target. And then let the missiles own guidance do the rest.

Though I'm left wondering how effective it would actually be to use this technique to detect stealth aircraft.

And how fast would that radar system be taken out by the stealth craft they are trying to take out.



The United States has poured tens of billions of dollars into developing fifth-generation stealth fighters such as the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

However, relatively simple signal processing enhancements, combined with a missile with a large warhead and its own terminal guidance system, could potentially allow low-frequency radars and such weapons systems to target and fire on the latest generation U.S. aircraft.

edit on 23-1-2017 by grey580 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Also rain.

Funny thing about that rain.



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580

I love how people think that stealth is standing still while counter stealth is advancing in leaps and bounds.



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: dashen

Not so much anymore.



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580

Dust off the old AIM-4 Falcon missile with a 5 kiloton warhead. A little modern guidance work and Bob's your uncle.



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580

And don't forget the counter measures that are being used from the stealth air craft.



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Don't forget the electro magnetic canons that less of a distance curve coupled with a computer to calculate trajectory scenarios, it doesn't have to hit it just has to get close I think the only defense would be to have supersonic UAVs accompanying the manned one. And if it's a stealth fighter how would the radar even see it... it would have to be an orbital missile launch from a satelite to even register and catch up?



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: BeneGesseritWitch

Stealth doesn't mean invisible. All it does is reduce the range at which radar can get a return off the aircraft. The B-52 radar cross section is 100m2. The B-1 is a smaller fuselage and uses more curves and reduces that to 10m2. The B-2, in its latest iteration is somewhere around 0.0001m2. The B-21 will be smaller.

That means the B-52 could be detected farther than a surface to air missile could travel, while a B-2 would be closer to 40-50 miles by a radar that could shoot at it.

Lower frequency radars reflect off of eddies around the airframe, at specific points, and will tell you that there's something out there, but not well enough to shoot anything at it. It will detect stealth airframes farther out.



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 05:34 PM
link   
I really don't get stealth air craft? The claim the radar signature is that of a bird. What bird travels over 200 mph. I would think stealth guided missiles would be more practical anyway?



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 05:35 PM
link   
One big problem with trying to shoot down a stealth aircraft is the missile proximity fusing.

Not only ground based radars have problems seeing a stealth aircraft but so do the proximity fuses in the missiles fired at the stealth aircraft.

When the F117 came out it was found that the AIM-9 sidewinder missile influence fuse did not work right.
The US Navy has since upgraded the fuse.
thehowlandcompany.com...



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
I really don't get stealth air craft? The claim the radar signature is that of a bird. What bird travels over 200 mph. I would think stealth guided missiles would be more practical anyway?


Aviation radars pick up the migration of birds. You can't see individual birds, but the whole flock shows up as a fuzzy patch on the radar.

Stealth plane is designed to absorb radar or reflect it away from the originating direction. That led to some ideas of using regular radio amd TV transmitters as active radar sources and just measure any change in received signal strength. It would also work with multiple radar sources.

I guess the next thing is going to be to is to have a skin that can reflect light and radar signals around the craft like periscopes.



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: stormcell

BAE is working on that i hear.



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: stormcell

It's an over simplification, but I would think you could create a network of highly sensitive radar. Then filter out any returns traveling slower than aircraft stall speeds. Like setting the sensitivity on a metal detector. I would think modern high speed computers would make the system practical. But, how many other countries can afford stealth to make such a system needed?

I don't know what this has to do with anything. I watched a very good documentary on the air blitz of London.

The network of primitive radar, hundreds of human lookouts, and the investment in a telephone system was very impressive. It might have been a deciding factor by the early warning it provided.



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Probably not safe or cost effective. Use a station that only broadcasts radar beams. Then use receiving stations looking for holes / shadows in the broadcasted radar beam?
edit on 23-1-2017 by neutronflux because: Added shadow

edit on 23-1-2017 by neutronflux because: Removed reply to self



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: stormcell

This would be a stretch too, but air is a fluid? Systems that could listen for the sound signatures of stealth aircraft? The principal of how submarines identify and track targets in a fluid medium?



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Yes, that's roughly what the E-2D upgraded Hawkeye does.

news.usni.org...

There is some much more advanced signal processing combined with a physically large antenna, and lower wavelengths. Nevertheless, lower wavelengths does present difficulties. It is more difficult to tell what the object is---is it a friendly, hostile or a civilian airliner?

It is much more difficult to have a missile which has its own internal radar guidance, because the missile can't have a nosecone which is 2 meters wide, like the E-2D radar.

And lower frequency inevitably leads to lower resolution and precision. It's why radar originally went from this WW2 low frequency up to much higher frequencies in the first place.

Coastal England is a very small place to have human lookouts when they knew the Germans were coming from a given direction and not at too high altitude. Without contrails, many aircraft would be essentially invisible to unaided eye in daytime and totally invisible at night. Noise won't help either.

edit on 23-1-2017 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

The problem is that it's not as easy as saying "filter out anything slower than aircraft stall speed". When the early doppler radar came out, you could effectively disappear simply by turning towards it. It measuredvelocity of the target, and by generating a low velocity it filtered out the return.

It's much less of a problem now, with the processor power available, but unless you have a huge computer, there's still going to be a lot of clutter.



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 07:55 PM
link   



blogs.reuters.com...

How much will new U.S. stealth bomber really cost? Nobody knows.
By Lawrence Korb November 3, 2015

First, what will the bombers actually cost? The Air Force claims it can build 100 for no more than $564 million each. But even if that were true, the price tag does not include the development costs, estimated to exceed $20 billion.



The old gamble of using expensive and cutting edge technology with the hope that a relatively low cost breakthrough doesn't make it obsolete. Or the ability to maintain the technology is lost.

Two examples that contradict each other.

One, Hitler's drive for bigger tanks. The tanks became too fuel thirsty, hard to maintain, and to heavy for off-road use. I think in the battle of the bulge, something like 80 German tanks were abandoned in place. The tanks were either stuck, or there was no way to fuel and maintain them.

I think the ploy of placing large guns on the relatively cheap Sherman tank was an effective strategy in other campaigns.

The flip side.

Two, the American mindset for fighters in the pacific. I would guess the American fighters were heavier and more costly than the Zeros. However, American's dedication to powerful planes, better armor, and pilot survivability lead to American air superiority.
Not sure how effective using the smaller aircraft carriers played out?
edit on 23-1-2017 by neutronflux because: Closed quote



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 09:10 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

There are a number of factors overlooked by that article, and by all the "stealth is obsolete because of x radar" articles.

Low frequency radar works best against fighter sized platforms. They have angles a large tailess bomber doesn't. That bomber also has room the fighter doesn't for more RAM to counter the radar.

The longest ranged air to air missile in use is used by the S400. It tops out around 400 miles. At that range accuracy against any aircraft won't be great. A stealth aircraft, even a fighter probably wouldn't even be seen, and certainly couldn't even be fired on. At the same time, weapons carried by those aircraft have ranges out to almost 600 miles. A low frequency radar is usually very large and easy to locate and target.

Stealth is not standing still. One reason for the shape of the B-21 is because that shape works well against UHF/VHF radars, as well as legacy radars. Stealth is advancing as fast as counter stealth.



posted on Jan, 23 2017 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I wouldn't put my trust in stealth. I think the merging of technology with artificial intelligence and electrical wide field disruption systems that can fry / scramble fly by wire systems will be the dominant force.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join