It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by GregPascal
Stealth is not like money in a carpet.
Originally posted by GregPascal
Stealth is not like money in a carpet.
An aircraft can be made stealthy from some anlges. but not from all angles. Most stealth aircraft are stealthy from the front area and are optimized to be stealthy from the front and below the aircraft since that's where the threat is coming form most of the time (ground-based radar).
Stealth reflects the radar energy away from the aircraft at an angle that does not impinge on the radar that sent the radar energy, so the radar thah is transmitting sees no return that is above the noise level. The return is there, but is directed toward places where there are unlikely to be receiving antennas.
Radar tends to relfect very well from sharp edges and straight lines, especially things like canopy edges and air intake edges. hence, the "sawtooth" canopies and air intakes that have serpentine air paths to smother the radar return.
If, for instance, a stealth aircraft directed a large reflection directly downward, there is usually no antenna pointed straight up, so there is nothing there to receive it since only an overhead aircraft would be seen and no one directs radar antennas straight up on the off chance they see a stealth aircraft fly over. If they DO see it, the stealth aircraft is already probably out of range before a response can be generated.
Most jets have little to fear from behind unless the enemy is locked on and ready to respond, so the plane is essentally gone when the enemy potentially can see the stealth fighter or bomber.
I am not saying stealth aircraft direct energy vertically downward, I am saying they direct it away from likely radar receivers.
Most stealth aircraft CAN bee seen from the rear quarter, but since they are traveling at 500 - 600 mph, it is usually of no use to anyone since they are quickly masked by terrain if flying low and are FAR away by the time they are detected if high. They also have RWR receivers so, if they ARE seen, they KNOW it and can move to a low-altitude or very high-altitude profile to evade.
It creates scintillation in the direction of the lobe. Which is a measure of how the return size differs with the angle. The greater the variation in scintillation and the narrower the lobes the more difficult it is to track.Aircraft like the F 22 have a very small number of lobes that are very narrow and scintillize a lot as well.
Originally posted by Aim64C
The attempt of many stealth aircraft is to force all of these lobes into a few small areas based on the geometry of the aircraft. Some very simple ways of doing this are making leading and trailing edges of an aircraft parallel with as many other surfaces as possible. Reducing the number of surfaces also has an effect on this. Blending the body also helps to reduce this effect to some degree.
This can have very serious reprocussions for stealth aircraft. They must remain filtered out by a radar for as long as possible - these return lobes jeaprodize this, as they create unique areas of strong radar returns that will alert the target to their presence prior to their engagement.
I'm wondering as to where you found this out because Stealth aircraft were designed to take on aophisticated and dense air defense sites and AWACS. It's aboutcreating gaps in the enemy's detection envelope and sipping through those gaps and attack a target deep within his territory and come back out. Supercuise can also be a considerable advanatge when added with stealth since it reduces loiter time over enemy territory.
low observable or not - no aircraft is going to survive very well in an area full of search and tracking radars as well as SAM launchers (and multiple airborne hostiles). They are intended to catch the enemy asleep at their post - unaware - not take on their targets in a battle of attrition.
But the exact determination of stealthy curves is still above me. If any of you guys are highly QUALIFIED on radar then please shout out the correct answer.
Itching to disagree with you but stealth is still pursued by almost everyone.
Originally posted by Aim64C
urmomma, you are correct in that the purpose of stealth is to limit the radar detection thresholds to allow for combat operations inside of enemy borders - however, stealth is no longer a secret and is not difficult to defeat.
And, for the record - the F/A-22 has a very low head-on RCS. The rest of it is a lighthouse, comparitively.
The ADM article then argues that stealth is ”one of the features that discriminates it
[the JSF] from its competitors", neglecting to mention that the principal competitor to
the JSF, the F/A-22A, is actually built for significantly higher stealth capability than
the JSF will have. While the JSF will be much stealthier than evolved third
generation fighters and opposing Sukhois, its stealth shaping has been optimised for
the upper X-band and forward hemisphere, a viable design choice for a battlefield
strike fighter, but not for an air superiority and deep strike fighter. This is a large
departure from the F/A-22A which is built to provide high stealth in all sectors, and
over a wider range of opposing radar wavelengths. The ADM article fails to explain
that export JSFs will have further reductions in stealth performance, relative to the
US baseline, itself that much inferior to the F/A-22A.
lol which is why the Raptor was never stopped by any of the F 15's evena fter flying over their heads and using the altest radars. lol you haven't proven anything or even provided a source.
It is really an inferior RCS demonstrator. Lockheed dropped the ball with their repackaged F-15. It is more than detectable at other angles - which is the key to defeating stealth technology.
tell this to the iraqi's who nevr even shot down an F 117 in the middile of baghdad.
The fact of the matter is that Stealth aircraft are not intended to go 'into the fray' of radar rays. Most stealth aircraft take advantage of a certain angle of approach that minimises their RCS relative to their target (which will be air defense systems). They are intended to 'get the jump' on such systems and neutralize them to create the necessary tears in the 'mesh' to then 'jump into the fray'.
that is if you can even ocate the target first or identify it.
Remember - when an aircraft is hit up by multiple radars, its chance of being detected increases exponentially. Even if one radar cannot get a solid lock on its own - two or more radars can coordinate to illuminate the target for a passive missile.
it's all about losing as little pices as possible. Out of so many air raids no F117 was lost or even detected.
It's a game. How many pieces do you want to lose? By placing the radars strategically and using topological advantages and paradoxes (age old placing mock-ups where the real thing would be expected to be tricks), one could effectively create a network with Soviet-era equipment that would be capable of engaging and destroying a number of stealth aircraft, unsupported by air forces.
wonder how you got anywhere close to 25%.next you'll tell me the YF 23 was more maeuverable......oh wait you did
The goal would be not to completely eliminate the first strike (reserving forces for later) - but giving a sort of bloody nose that would cause America to step back and re-evaluate the situation for a moment - cause them to lose enogh aircraft that they reconsider their plans of attack - and behave more cautiously.
I'm not deluded - it's very very unlikely that any existing country with soviet-era technology would be capable of warding off a full-scale U.S. military operation for long - but they could sure exploit fatal flaws in our technology.
The only redeeming factor is that the pilots flying these aircraft have been taught the weak points of their aircraft's radar evading features.
I can assure you, though - it is very possible to destroy 25+% of an F-22 strike force along with the supporting AWACS aircraft using soviet era technology. In fact - one of the biggest weaknesses of the status of current soviet era weaponry would be what exposes the largest weakness of the Raptor. But we'll save that for another lesson in strategy.
Oh - and I'm using soviet era weaponry because that is what we face in most countries that we would be expected to conduct military operations in. Of course - if I were to take into account some form of civil war - I could guarantee complete immunity from all U.S. air forces using U.S. technology.
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was a first step in the stealth reformation. Planners are considering abandoning the radar blocker in the exhaust with the idea that the 5-deg. cone of vulnerability out the aircraft's tail was an acceptable risk given the altitude at which it would fly (a margin of safety provided by the use of precision weapons). Its overall radar signature, for example, is about -30 dBsm. (the radar reflection of a golf ball) in most directions compared with -40 dBsm. (a marble) for the F/A-22.
The objective of lobing is to concentrate this unavoidable radar return into specific directions so as to minimise frontal/aft/beam aspect return and maximise scintillation in the direction of the lobe. Scintillation is a measure of how rapidly the size of the return varies with angle, the greater this variation, the more difficult a target is to track. The lower the number of lobes and the narrower the lobes, the lower the probability of detecting any return.
Originally posted by phsyco
nice tim you got to tell me more about this practicaly new here so you could help me right?
The B-2 Spirit is a multi-role bomber capable of delivering both conventional and nuclear munitions.
Along with the B-52 and B-1B, the B-2 provides the penetrating flexibility and effectiveness inherent in manned bombers. Its low-observable, or "stealth," characteristics give it the unique ability to penetrate an enemy's most sophisticated defenses and threaten its most valued, and heavily defended, targets. Its capability to penetrate air defenses and threaten effective retaliation provide an effective deterrent and combat force well into the 21st century.
The blending of low-observable technologies with high aerodynamic efficiency and large payload gives the B-2 important advantages over existing bombers. Its low-observability provides it greater freedom of action at high altitudes, thus increasing its range and a better field of view for the aircraft's sensors. Its unrefueled range is approximately 6,000 nautical miles (9,600 kilometers).
The B-2's low observability is derived from a combination of reduced infrared, acoustic, electromagnetic, visual and radar signatures. These signatures make it difficult for the sophisticated defensive systems to detect, track and engage the B-2. Many aspects of the low-observability process remain classified; however, the B-2's composite materials, special coatings and flying-wing design all contribute to its "stealthiness."