Is stealth design impratical?

Kilo636 said:

What will happen if new genration of radar cracks or prevail the design and coating of full stealth design aircraft? Which means all the massive time and finance spends on this type of aircraft immediately deem them useless. I mean the new generation of radar is capable of detecting a F-22 raptor as clearly as a F-15 in same range,what will raptor offer of the advantages besides supercruise and TVC? Besides ,full stealth aricraft r usually 3-4 times more ex than a conventional aircraft...It is not feasible to quickly re-engineer the stealth aircraft structure to counter the new generation radar as it will proves too costly. Therefore,shall we concentrate on new radar or concentrate on designing a new concept full stealth aircraft?

Click to expand...

Kilo, the answer is we need to concentrate on both. Just take a second to think before you decide that the stealth design and anti-stealth ra/lidars are practical/impractical. They are two very general terms that include a whole range of technologies.

For example, F-117 proved to be very stealthy when used to attack Lybia, but not so stealthy enough during the Kosovo war. Another example is Isael's Saar 5 FFG. It was a very modern ship with stealth design. Yet it was still hit by a low-tech Iran-made missle because it got too CLOSE to the coast. There is simply no absolute "stealth." There's is only relative stealth. A "stealthy" aicraft will ALWAYS become obsolete in time, and even in its own "time," if you get too close to the enemy radar, you chance of being detected still significantly increases.

On the other hand, better radar technologies can be developed to increase the chance of detecting more stealthy aircrafts. But that doesn't mean that the stealth designs are "defeated" all in one. An advanced radar today might have the ability to detect an F-117 at 30km away, but it probably won't see a F-22 until it's 10km away. But it still has a chance of detecting it, and that chance will continue to increase as better technologies are developed and deployed.

My point is, instead of paper-scissor-rock game, the competition between detector/detectee is an on-going continuous game. There will be continuous research on both camps on how to do their job better. Sure, sometimes the game might be a little unbalanced (one side might require less investment), but it will go on.

If you are still in doubt, consider subs and sonar technology. Ever since the invention of sonar, the two camps have been racing to outdo each other. The two camps eventually help each other: the less noise your own subs make, the less you have to rely on active sonars and the sharper your passive sonar becomes.

Kilo636 said:

What will happen if new genration of radar cracks or prevail the design and coating of full stealth design aircraft?

Click to expand...

Then the aircraft manufacturers produce "Stealth 2.0" to defeat the new radar. The new "Stealth 2.0" will be bigger, better, and cost 5x as much as its predecessor. Military leadership will cry about the "gap" and governments will scramble to allocate funds for hundreds, then engage in multi-year debate and slash the final production number down by 50%.

Then 2 years after Stealth 2.0 enters service, someone invents Radar v3.0 and cracks Stealth 2.0. So aircraft manufactuers scramble to produce Stealth 3.0. Repeat until the other guy is bankrupt and your'e the only superpower left.

If you guys think I'm joking, that was Ronnie Raygun's strategy of crashing the Soviet Union, financially.

Yeh, except the US can't afford to constently pay 130,000,000 per plane for new stealth fighters, (F-22), or 2 billion for a replacement B-2. In such a world, the guy replacing radars would have a big advantage.

I've read that the systems that are most effective against stealth tech are old, low frequency radars, for some reason. Russia and some other former Soviet State, (joined NATO recently, but I can't think of the name), began building new versions of the old systems and were selling them to anyone with the cash...... No idea if this was true or if they could really detect the aircraft.

I'm thinking that the US strategy must be that you can still knock out enough of the enemies radar system to give the F-22 a big advantage, and the plane is, and no one disputes this, very fast and maneuverable.

Mark

Kilo636 said:

The enormous amount of money spent on stealth aircraft is shocking and if the advantage is broken by a cheap solution,wouldn't it looks very impratical?
Develop a new generation of multi-mode radar(IRST,laser radar,nulitmode cross section and satelite imaging) is also another way of technology advancement,right?
Plus with if stealth deem useless by new G of radar,wouldn't we switch to dogfight again and the bulky stealth aircaft will be easily spotted by vision and be disadvantage in close fight!

Click to expand...

Detecting stealth aircraft is not as easy as you make it out to be. If it was, it would have been done already. Don't assume that just because a single F-117 was shot down that stealth technology has been defeated. The F-117 has the best record of any attack aircraft ever with only one shot down after thousands of sorties. Look at how other attack aircraft's record in compariosn.

Having said that, the F-117 is a 1st generation stealth design and is nearing the end of its service life. No other country in the world can even deploy an aircraft with similar capabiliites and the U.S. has considered it obsolete. We are now in the 3rd generation stealth design, where such design does not interfere with the aircraft's flight characteristics (F-117) or employ and already low RCS design (B-2 flying wing).

Now there are a lot of words that are flying around. Words such as detecting, tracking, etc. Say at 10 km away, you can detect the F-22. For that to happen the F-22 has to be at a certain point is space, where it reflects enough radar energy for you receptors to pick up. Now what happens when it moves? You lose it. Therefore you can't track it. The difference between random blips and actual tracking is enormous.

RCS of stealth fighters are so small that you need to increase your radar signal to have a slight chance of detecting it but not at useful ranges. Strong radars are very easy to pick up and pick off by Harm missiles. At which stage, all US aircraft become stealth.

marktel said:

Yeh, except the US can't afford to constently pay 130,000,000 per plane for new stealth fighters, (F-22), or 2 billion for a replacement B-2. In such a world, the guy replacing radars would have a big advantage.

I've read that the systems that are most effective against stealth tech are old, low frequency radars, for some reason. Russia and some other former Soviet State, (joined NATO recently, but I can't think of the name), began building new versions of the old systems and were selling them to anyone with the cash...... No idea if this was true or if they could really detect the aircraft.

I'm thinking that the US strategy must be that you can still knock out enough of the enemies radar system to give the F-22 a big advantage, and the plane is, and no one disputes this, very fast and maneuverable.

Mark

Click to expand...

I'd say the US is the only country that can afford to splurge $130 million/fighter and $2 billion/bomber.

As for anti-stealth radar, there was an incident during 1996 Farnborough air show, where BAe (British Aerospace) was showcashing their Rapier SAM system. During a B-2 fly-by, BAe techs used the Rapier SAM's (Blindfire Rapier system?) new radar and IR tracker to show that it can detect, track, and lock-on to stealth aircraft.

The Czechs also make the VERA passive radar system and Tamara passive sensor system, which has been claimed to be able to detect and track stealth aircraft. It's interesting to note that immediately following the fall of Soviet Union, the US paid Czech government a bucket of money to import both systems. When the PRC attempted to purchase 6 VERA-E systems, the US pressured the Czech government not to sell, prolly paying them off with another bucket of money.

adeptitus said:

As for anti-stealth radar, there was an incident during 1996 Farnborough air show, where BAe (British Aerospace) was showcashing their Rapier SAM system. During a B-2 fly-by, BAe techs used the Rapier SAM's (Blindfire Rapier system?) new radar and IR tracker to show that it can detect, track, and lock-on to stealth aircraft.

Click to expand...

A fly by is done at about 1,000ft from the ground. That is probably how close you have to be to actually detect, track, and lock on to a B-2. Not very useful in combat. It also helps if you know where to point (bearing) your radar at the exact moment the B-2 is at its closest.

B-2 use "radar reflectors" around friendlies in order to avoid mid air collision. One example of this use is during mid air refueling. In all likelyhood, this "Radar Reflectors" were on during this airshow.

adeptitus said:

....The Czechs also make the VERA passive radar system and Tamara passive sensor system, which has been claimed to be able to detect and track stealth aircraft. It's interesting to note that immediately following the fall of Soviet Union, the US paid Czech government a bucket of money to import both systems. When the PRC attempted to purchase 6 VERA-E systems, the US pressured the Czech government not to sell, prolly paying them off with another bucket of money.

Click to expand...

Nevertheless, China built her own VERA system.:coffee:

Stealth technology gives an aircraft,its' pilot and commanders more options. The F-117 flew in combat for the first time in 1989 in a mission were poor planning meant it was not used correctly as a tool. In 1991, we saw how correctly used, it was a deadly tool. The F-117 soldiers on for now, but it's days are numbered. Some in the electronic warfare community continue to question the shootdown of the F-117 in 1999 over Serbia. I have a ver opinions and questions on that myself.

As for the EF200, it does not have many if any radar reduction technology. I have some friends who like it's performance but no one I know can agree with the cost. In fact, the Typhoon started flying when I was little! So many cost overruns ballooned up the price. If I was a general or admiral with a big check, I would look to buy the Rafale. That is a beautiful machine. Like the EF200 it dealt with teething troubles forever, but I like a lot of the capabilities of the aircraft. Carrier capability adds to the price but also means it's a tough bird.

The F-22 was one of the programs I was concerned about but seeing it fly and talking to people who were in the program, who have flown it, fought against it and so on really didnt ease my questions of the cost. But now I feel it is a great machine and has awesome capabilities. As far as fighters go I tend to favor navalized aircraft. But the advantage of lower radar cross section means it will have an easier time surviving. So far, the stealthy B1s,B2s and F-117s have done extremely well. I think it was the Aussies in 96 or 97 who were the first to figure out how to fine 117s on radar. I heard a few methods, not sure it they were accurate or not. But I think it is a great investment for strike aircraft.

The new F-35 I think is a different matter. Long range strike is a mission that would be helped if stealth was available. But Close Air Support is something I dont see as realistic. A10s have to fight at low levels, in day time as do other CAS aircraft. I dont see the F35 with the cost of its' stealthiness being used to strafe troops or kill tanks in the day time. That seems to be a wasteful idea.