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.

 

a different idea for the new bomber

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   
aimpoints.hq.af.mil...

this article suggests that even the f-22 and f-35 might not get through all enemy air defenses, so i was thinking, if the bombers are going to need jammers, why not intergrate the jamemr into the bomber.

I was thinking that the bomber should be something fairly stealthy (somewhere near the b2 or maybe slightly less stealthy) and fastish maybe mach 1 or so, but then have a massively powerful jammer on board. This would mean it could get in and out fairly quick, it would be stealthy so it could get to its target undetected (im guessing that you can detect if you are being jammed (is this true?)) and then when it got to the target, it would have the advantage of suprise, it would be impossible to pick up due to the jamming and even if they managed to counter the jamming it would be extremely stealthy and therefore hard to pick up anyway. Particularly with its high speed and modern weapons time over target would be minimal so enemy air defences would have no time to un jam themselves if that was possible and to find the bomber on radar and shoot it down.

anybody got any ideas? in particular i was wondering if such a powerful jammer was possible and if it could fit into a plane without taking up to much power.

justin




posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Hey justin its a good concept/idea. It makes sence to build jammers into a plane. In fact the one thing about the whole F-18 growler idea seemed like a step backwards to me. Having another plane just for a jamming role seems like a waste when it seems like the system could be built right into the plane. Now maybe its the cost of an idea like this that keeps it from happening like the added cost of making each plane jammer capable. Makes me thing about the B-2 and the fact thaqt maybe it has some built in jamming capablity which helped its ablity to penatrate defenses and raised the cost as well? just some question running through my mind as well.



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 05:58 AM
link   
Well, the Idea of stealth not being invisible was explained in the thread:
Stealth Technology Explained.

As for the Idea of using Jammers to support Stealth Aircraft, that is a common sense idea. One of the limits of Jamming that few people are aware of is called "Burn Through Range. Burn Through Range is the point at which the plane's Radar Signature become too large to hide behind a jammer of a given strength and the aircraft can once again be tracked on radar. The lower the RCS of the aircraft is, the shorter the Burn Through Range.

Burn Through Range

The reason this occures is because the tranmitter of a ground-bases radar in inherently stronger than the transmitter of the airborn jammer. Jammers work by creating lots of "noise" so that the computer can't distinguish between the actual radar target and the random signals that are being sent back. However, this only works as long as the false echos are close to the strength of what they are hiding. This is also the reason you can fool Radar with chaff (metal foil used to decieve radar). What Jamming is really doing is giving the Radar so many targets of identical size that the computer doesn't have a way keep track of any individual target.

To Use an Analogy: Imagine watching a heard of Hundreds of Zebra sampeeding. You are trying to keep a eye on One Spacific zebra in the heard. Now, as the animals race along and move around withing the group itself, you will loose track of the individual you are trying to watch.

The same concept is how jamming works. If the radar can't pick out and track an individual target, it's can't come up with a fireing solution for its SAM's or Anti-Aircraft guns.

Now, this only works if all of the targets appeare to be about the same size. As an aircaft gets closer to the Radar, it relects more radar, which in turn makes it look bigger. At a certine point, the Radar signature from the airplane becomes larger then the false echos created by the Jammer. At this point, the aircraft can no longer hide in all of the false echos. It like a basket ball player standing amoung a room full of children. At 7 feet tall, he is still easy to see, even though there might be as many as 100 other people in the room.

Tim



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 06:07 AM
link   
I hope future F-22 blocks have improved SEAD/DEAD/EW capabilties, that would be an impressive airframe. It makes no sense to have an non VLO perform those missions when you wan to remain undetected.



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 06:27 AM
link   
If the stealth plane *itself* was carrying a strong jammer couldn't the jammer be locked onto using triangulation? There is no need get a return bounce from a plane that is making loads of noise. Just focus on the noise and fire.
I think that is why our strategic nuclear bombers use(used?) decoy drones.

Jon



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Voxel
If the stealth plane *itself* was carrying a strong jammer couldn't the jammer be locked onto using triangulation?


True! the other thing is Jamming radar has to be done from the air, so the act of Jamming reviels the presence of an aircraft, but not it's exact location!

Tim



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Voxel
If the stealth plane *itself* was carrying a strong jammer couldn't the jammer be locked onto using triangulation?


then surely a plane dedicated purely to jamming can also be locked onto and shot down and they msut find a way round it so i assume the same can be done for a bomber.


Originally posted by Ghost01
True! the other thing is Jamming radar has to be done from the air, so the act of Jamming reviels the presence of an aircraft, but not it's exact location!
Tim


thats why the bomber should also be fast and stealthy, so it can get there and back using speed and stealth and only use jamming when there over the target when the effects are pretty obvious anyway.

justin



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 10:17 AM
link   
For a stealth aircraft, the only real vonerability over the target is the brief window of time when the bomb bay is open. For that brief period of time, the plane can be seen on radar.

Tim



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost01
For that brief period of time, the plane can be seen on radar.


It's not enough to lock on and track though, Raptor bays remain open for less than a secon. Worst that can happen if the radar is scanning your sector at that time is that it will give your general area away, but with a 15+ mile a minute airframe that's not so damaging.



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
It's not enough to lock on and track though, Raptor bays remain open for less than a secon.


True! My point was that you might just barely get enough of a signal for the ground based radar operator to get a breif "Flash" on his radar scope (if that). that breif flash isn't enought to be useful.

Tim



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Sorry, double post! See Above.

[edit on 19-11-2006 by Ghost01]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join