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.

 

Can stealth be beaten...??

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2007 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by AcesInTheHole
In my opinion, stealth technology would not be needed if you were able to fly at incredible speeds. Who cares if they see you if they have no weapons or craft that can catch you?


The problem is that in the not so distance future there could be fielded lazer type weapons. If and or when that happens all your speed means nothing.




posted on May, 29 2007 @ 12:10 PM
link   



I don't think you will be able to get much in the way of tracking/fire control data from such systems but i suppose it may serve countries who do not have the extensive designed air defenses of the RF..

I don't know if it can lock on targets and fire but..even if sams can't get a lock on it with such sistem it's still an advantage, you can see it comming, and interceptor fighters can be sent since they know it's location.



posted on May, 29 2007 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH

Originally posted by AcesInTheHole
In my opinion, stealth technology would not be needed if you were able to fly at incredible speeds. Who cares if they see you if they have no weapons or craft that can catch you?


The problem is that in the not so distance future there could be fielded lazer type weapons. If and or when that happens all your speed means nothing.


Can you please provide a link that can explain these types of weapons? I also added this link to a thread that talks about visual stealth technology.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 30 2007 @ 01:08 AM
link   

That was how the F-117 worked and the B-2 still does and unless the F-22 can fly sorties at a tremendous rate in all weather not much has changed.

I am extremely disapointed that the USAF is only getting, 180 Raptors! There was originally going to be something like 300.



Or by hopelessly outdated barely in service radars.

Stellar, you know as well as I know that there WAS a reason for the F-117 getting shot down. But it does go to show that occasionally a Stealth aircraft may be detected.


Everyone, Stealth does NOT mean invisible.

[edit on 30-5-2007 by PisTonZOR]



posted on May, 30 2007 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by PisTonZOR
I am extremely disapointed that the USAF is only getting, 180 Raptors! There was originally going to be something like 300.



They were originally going to get over 700!!!


(IIRC)



posted on May, 30 2007 @ 05:09 AM
link   
I was viewing a u.k rapier unit at work training on picking up hawks (red arrow type planes) near lakenheath when they picked up a target turned out to be a F117. They were even able to track it with the sytem now i heard that the guys tracking it got in a great deal of trouble.

www.army.mod.uk...

Regard's
Lee




posted on May, 30 2007 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by PisTonZOR
I am extremely disapointed that the USAF is only getting, 180 Raptors! There was originally going to be something like 300.


The original request was for about four times as many but considering the massive cost overruns and extended development time they are getting far fewer and will replace F-15's on a less than 1/2 basis. As F-15's go that is probably not a bad deal ( as superior as the F-22 are to F-15
's) but it will mean that they will be quite spread out around the world and that it may not be possible to concentrate them sufficiently ( while keeping your feet on the ground elsewhere) to either defend what you have or take something from someone else.



Stellar, you know as well as I know that there WAS a reason for the F-117 getting shot down. But it does go to show that occasionally a Stealth aircraft may be detected.

Everyone, Stealth does NOT mean invisible.


So you don't believe the Wesley Clarke when he say that it was tracked and shot down? Any specific reason why they 'may' be detected instead of being tracked all the time?



Originally posted by pepsi78
I don't know if it can lock on targets and fire but..even if sams can't get a lock on it with such sistem it's still an advantage, you can see it comming, and interceptor fighters can be sent since they know it's location.


Russia still operates many ABM/EW radars that are more than able to see large attacks coming ( F-22's can not yet carry the type of weapons that are a threat to Russian air defenses networks or industrial potential) without the aid of any Sam radars. Unless one is going to use the facilities of radio/tv/cellphone broadcasters outside of Russia this type of technology will not help much as the enemy will already be inside your borders.

I don't have any real problem with these types of technologies but i doubt that Russia needs them or are now relying on such.

Stellar



posted on May, 30 2007 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX



Stellar, you know as well as I know that there WAS a reason for the F-117 getting shot down. But it does go to show that occasionally a Stealth aircraft may be detected.

Everyone, Stealth does NOT mean invisible.


So you don't believe the Wesley Clarke when he say that it was tracked and shot down? Any specific reason why they 'may' be detected instead of being tracked all the time?


You mean when he said that someone was passing information to the Serbs about missions including the stealth tasking orders that included routes, times, altitudes, targets, call signs, etc?

As for reasons for being detected there are probably a good dozen or two for why. They include antennas/lights being extended, bomb bays/wheel well doors not completely sealed, doors open, aircraft flew through rain (for the F-117), skin oil on RAM (F-117), etc.


F117 shoot down was mere luck and atrocious planning
By way of example, they noted that even a standard turning maneuver could increase the aircraft’s radar cross section by a factor of 100 or more. Such turns were unavoidable in the constricted airspace within which the F-117s had to fly.15 Another unconfirmed report suggested that the RC-135 Rivet Joint aircraft monitoring enemy SAM activity may have failed to locate the SA-3 battery thought to have downed the F-117 and may not have relayed timely indications of enemy SAM activity to the appropriate C2 authorities. Lending credence to that interpretation, Gen Richard Hawley, commander of Air Combat Command at the time, commented that “when you have a lot of unlocated threats, you are at risk even in a stealth airplane.”

Although the Air Force has remained understandably silent about the confluence of events it believes occasioned the F-117’s downing, according to press reports, Air Force assessors concluded, after conducting a formal postmortem, that a lucky combination of low-technology tactics, rapid learning, and astute improvisation had converged in one fleeting instant to enable an SA-3 not operating in its normal, radar-guided mode to down the aircraft. Undoubtedly, enemy spotters in Italy reported the aircraft’s takeoff from Aviano, and IADS operators in Serbia, as well as those in Bosnia and along the Montenegrin coast, could have assembled enough glimpses of its position en route to its target from scattered radars to cue a SAM battery near Belgrade to fire at the appropriate moment. The aircraft had already dropped one laser-guided bomb (LGB) near Belgrade, offering the now-alerted air defenders yet another clue. (The Air Force is said to have ruled out theories hinging on a stuck weapons-bay door, a descent to below 15,000 feet, or a hit by AAA.)17

Allegedly, at least three procedural errors contributed to the downing.18 First, ELINT collectors reportedly could not track the changing location of the three or four offending SAM batteries. Three low-frequency Serb radars that could have detected the F-117’s presence, at least theoretically, were not neutralized because US strike aircraft had earlier bombed the wrong aiming points within the radar complexes. Also, F-16CJs carrying HARMs and operating in adjacent airspace could have deterred the SA-3 battery from emitting, but those aircraft had been recalled before the F-117 shootdown.

The second alleged procedural error entailed an EA-6B support jammer that was operating too far away from the F-117 (80 to 100 miles) to offer much protection. Furthermore, it was out of proper alignment with the offending threat radars, resulting in inefficient jamming.

Last, F-117s operating out of Aviano had previously flown along more or less the same transit routes for four nights in a row (because of SACEUR’s ban on overflight of Bosnia) to avoid jeopardizing the Dayton Accords. That would have made their approach pattern into Yugoslav airspace predictable. Knowing the direction the F-117s would take, Serb air defenders could have employed low-frequency radars for the best chance of getting a snap look at the aircraft. Former F-117 pilots and several industry experts acknowledged that the aircraft is detectable by such radars when viewed from the side or directly below. US officials also suggested that the Serbs may have gotten brief, nightly radar hits while the aircraft’s weapons bay doors opened fleetingly.

www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...


[edit on 5/30/2007 by Zaphod58]



posted on May, 30 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by h3akalee
...turned out to be a F117. They were even able to track it with the sytem now i heard that the guys tracking it got in a great deal of trouble.


Depends on what ranges we are talking about here, also if the F-117 is flying in country chances are it is more visible than it would be in combat (beacons, radar reflectors etc...)



posted on May, 31 2007 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
You mean when he said that someone was passing information to the Serbs about missions including the stealth tasking orders that included routes, times, altitudes, targets, call signs, etc?


Who is claiming that btw as that is not mentioned in the article i provided. You seem to be suggesting that someone with inside information were helping the Serbs when the commander of the Serb battery never claimed as much.


As for reasons for being detected there are probably a good dozen or two for why.


Or possibly the fact that they could track the F-117 on radar were good enough? The reason they needed to see it coming and where it might be was not for tracking but simply because they did not have enough batteries to cover the entire border as the Russians are almost able to do. They did not use the spotters or or intelligence for firing solutions but simply to get their battery close enough to track the F-117 and then fire at it. With a blast radius of that warhead at 11 meters your not going to shoot anything down by 'guessing' based on visual observation.


They include antennas/lights being extended, bomb bays/wheel well doors not completely sealed, doors open, aircraft flew through rain (for the F-117), skin oil on RAM (F-117), etc.


Which is all mistakes that would have further compromised the F-117 but were never required to track the F-117( not just one but all ) to start with.


Stellar



posted on May, 31 2007 @ 08:12 AM
link   
Bottom line is can stealth be beaten well on the F117 yes it can.

Regard's
Lee




posted on May, 31 2007 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Yes, with invisibility of course hehe



posted on May, 31 2007 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
stelth can be beaten by advance sofisticated radars, 2 radiowaves from different directions are sent out on a intersect course, if the 2 radiowaves fail to intersect then the stealth plane is blocking them and stealth is detected.
Recently this has been done not with 2 radar stations but with many to ensure if one station is taken out the others will still operate and of course for eficency.
Radiostations are placed in a circle formation with great distances betwen them, one could be in one location like north and another south of the country, any blocking of 1 single radiowave will prevent it from crossing it with the others, of course 1 plane can not block an entrire radar wave so they are built in a way so that they know the procentage of radio signal that failed to cross with the other waves and of course the location that the transmission lost it's intensity.
This tehnology is russian.


[edit on 29-5-2007 by pepsi78]


there is an anti-stealth radar system called 'Tamara' developed in Czech Republic:

www.aeronautics.ru...



[edit on 31-5-2007 by untilted]



posted on May, 31 2007 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by untilted

Originally posted by pepsi78
stelth can be beaten by advance sofisticated radars, 2 radiowaves from different directions are sent out on a intersect course, if the 2 radiowaves fail to intersect then the stealth plane is blocking them and stealth is detected.
Recently this has been done not with 2 radar stations but with many to ensure if one station is taken out the others will still operate and of course for eficency.
Radiostations are placed in a circle formation with great distances betwen them, one could be in one location like north and another south of the country, any blocking of 1 single radiowave will prevent it from crossing it with the others, of course 1 plane can not block an entrire radar wave so they are built in a way so that they know the procentage of radio signal that failed to cross with the other waves and of course the location that the transmission lost it's intensity.
This tehnology is russian.


[edit on 29-5-2007 by pepsi78]


there is an anti-stealth radar system called 'Tamara' developed in Czech Republic:

www.aeronautics.ru...



[edit on 31-5-2007 by untilted]


precise, and in Twente/Netherlands we have Thales Smart-L Radar wich could detect the smallest birds in the air[filtered out of the radar by velocity differences] and so stealth aircraft..The Dutch, Italian and German navy has fregattes equipped with this radar..




[edit on 31-5-2007 by Foppezao]



posted on May, 31 2007 @ 09:44 AM
link   

A Scottish newspaper is reporting that a spy within NATO's command structure informed Russia about the attack routes of U.S. stealth fighters during the bombing campaign against Yugoslavia, but senior U.S. officials told CNN the report is inaccurate.

The Scotsman, a daily newspaper published in Edinburgh, reports that an unidentified NATO officer leaked the flight routes and planned targets of F-117A stealth fighters to Moscow. The Russians then passed the information on to the Serbs, according to the report, on the condition that Belgrade allowed Russians to be present when the planes were attacked.

The article, written by defense analyst Paul Beaver, quotes NATO sources who said the officer was based in Brussels and had access to highly sensitive documents. The article says a NATO officer remains in custody.

However, a source on the staff of NATO's supreme commander for Europe, Wesley Clark, told CNN that while "we are aware that information was getting to the Serbs," there is "no information indicating that it was a spy or (coming from) anyone within NATO."

www.cnn.com...

They KNEW that someone was passing information on to the Russians and Serbs about attack orders, it was just a question of who and where, although at least one person said they had them in custody. Clark knew it was happening, just not who was doing it.



posted on Jun, 1 2007 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
They KNEW that someone was passing information on to the Russians and Serbs about attack orders, it was just a question of who and where, although at least one person said they had them in custody. Clark knew it was happening, just not who was doing it.


I did not know this to be the fact it now seems to be so thanks for updating me. I was aware that NATO had to present static/strategic targets to the security council for consideration and i am now wondering how much mission data might have been disclosed/compromised on occasion.

I still believe this is separate issues from the 'fact' ( in my knowledge) that Clark and others acknowledge that the Sa-3 could in fact track F-117's using certain modes of operation and that those Sa-3's were not in fact as unguided as some Stealth advocates would like to believe.

Stellar

[edit on 1-6-2007 by StellarX]



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Its called slope detection. Most stealth aircraft such as the F-117 only have a -45 db loss to there radar cross section at X-band, lower numbers as the wave length of the radar signal increase. Most pulse amplitude radar sets of the 1950's era have over +180 db of gain at X-band. This still leaves a gain of over 130db for detection. There for stealth only reduces the range that the aircraft can be detected at. For air-born sets this can be a problem due to there small antenna size usually less than 2 feet, less gain. Because they have AM video detectors they can not detect weak radar return signals from the background noise. There for you have to use a pulse doppler radar set in order to detect the doppler shift of the moving aircraft. Older radar sets such as the SA-3 missile system did not have this capability they were AM sets only. The Serbs simply modified there AM radar sets by converting the last IF video detector stage into a slope detector. This simple mod turned there 1950's radar set into a poor mans pulse doppler set that could detect an F-117 at 40+ miles and shoot it down. Slope detectors produce a +20 db gain for an aircraft traveling at 600 MPH. This cancels half of the -45db loss produced by the stealth coating on the F-117. Slope detectors also give amplitude and frequency shift at the same time. FM detectors only give velocity. The same mode done to an APG-66 radar set as used on the F-16/18 aircraft will detect an F-22 at 40+ miles.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Figher Master FIN
 


how can one beat stealth? you can't BEAT the 'concept' of stealth...
,...absolute stealth would need ABSOLUTE technological/physics knowledge of all the uni/multiverse's physical laws... in order to go unobserved by ANY intelligence out there (any intelligence who wasn't ALSO holding all the absolute technological knowledge possible.)

but currently? as in being stealthy from other humans?

i'd think any tech that can sense mass displacement signatures in the environment could identify a craft that is using light or radar stealth... ie stealth fighter/bomber... and those cool LED cloaks that proect the video from the opposite side of the obect...

but to beat that you'd have to somehow phase out of our currently known 'reality' and into another here your mass is not interacting with our reality's mass index.

i've heard reports of UFO craft 'phasing' in and out of 'reality' .. or 'space-time' continuum'

but i really don't know what the hell i'm talking about. - just a wild guess...

but i suggest you broaden your concept of stealth past what you currently see in the military.. or MIT/DARPA development..

surely there are black ops projects decades beyond what you're allowed to know about.



edit on 1/24/2011 by prevenge because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by prevenge
reply to post by Figher Master FIN
 


how can one beat stealth? you can't BEAT the 'concept' of stealth...
,...absolute stealth would need ABSOLUTE technological/physics knowledge of all the uni/multiverse's physical laws... in order to go unobserved by ANY intelligence out there (any intelligence who wasn't ALSO holding all the absolute technological knowledge possible.)

but currently? as in being stealthy from other humans?

i'd think any tech that can sense mass displacement signatures in the environment could identify a craft that is using light or radar stealth... ie stealth fighter/bomber... and those cool LED cloaks that proect the video from the opposite side of the obect...

but to beat that you'd have to somehow phase out of our currently known 'reality' and into another here your mass is not interacting with our reality's mass index.

i've heard reports of UFO craft 'phasing' in and out of 'reality' .. or 'space-time' continuum'

but i really don't know what the hell i'm talking about. - just a wild guess...

but i suggest you broaden your concept of stealth past what you currently see in the military.. or MIT/DARPA development..

surely there are black ops projects decades beyond what you're allowed to know about.



edit on 1/24/2011 by prevenge because: (no reason given)


Time to leave ATS for good I think...



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by RichardPrice
 


aw C'mon.. You have to be steadfast even in the face of extreme stupidity




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join