Recently it has been reported that US intelligence was able to see a heat flash which indicated a bomb in the Russian airliner which crashed in Egypt. Now it has been reported that the US determined that the Russian plane shot down by Turkey was over Syrian territory based upon “detection of the heat signature of the jet”.
That is impressive technology. Apparently it is possible to track airplanes from space by detecting the heat from their engines. Such data can be then sent in real time to defense forces which will not have to rely on radar to detect stealth planes. Is this a Billy Mitchell moment for stealth technology until engineers can design engines which emit a cold exhaust?
The B-2 already has “stealthed” engine exhaust. I don’t know who sensitive our satellites are, but I’d be willing to bet they can’t track a B-2 by infra-red quite yet. Besides, we’re still more than a few generations of software away from “knowing a plane is there” and “locking on a missile and shooting one down.” When downtown Baghdad blew up, Saddam knew stealth bombers were over the city. Didn’t do them much good.
I’m not sure they mean just the regular heat signature of the jet in flight, but rather the heat signature when it exploded. The super-sensitive satellites that can sense such heat blooms have been around since the 70s and were originally developed to (and are still used to) detect the heat signature of an ICBM launch (i.e. a nuclear first strike). Also, given the present Syrian situation it’s my guess that some extra spying resources are currently tasked with watching that area more closely. IOW we don’t have an all-seeing satellite network that can track every jet aircraft 24/7 around the globe via just its heat signature. Yet.
Also in regards to US stealth aircraft, I believe that they have built-in radar ‘emitters’ that are used to light up ATC radar when they’re not on an actual mission…
Advanced Russian and Chinese radars / targetting systems may well be able to track and lock onto Stealth planes using a combination of techniques (using massive parallel CPU power to crunch anomalous radar signals in real time being one of the most promising). But they’re not saying nor selling their most advanced systems to their allies so we can only guess.
Personally I’d rather not know the answer to this, since in any war where F-22’s and B-2’s are striking Russian or Chinese targets no-one is likely to be around long enough to appreciate the answer.
The US has both the most advanced stealth capabilities and detection capabilities in the world. It may be that we have the capability to detect other nations’ planes, and it may be that they have the capability to detect ours, but the former does not imply the latter. Further, there’s the matter of ease of detection: If it’s possible but really hard to detect a plane, that might still be a big advantage.
The US has the most advanced stealth planes in the world. But there is no evidence to know one way or the other if the US has the most advanced detection capabilities. Just like the US has been plowing money into stealth, Russia has been instead spending massive amounts on advanced surface to air missile and radar systems.
I doubt there is anyone on the planet with the detailed knowledge of both Russian and US detection capabilities to be able to say with certainty which one is better.
Stealth aircraft are and will continue to be the way of the future. As others have noted, “stealth” is not like a ‘Star Trek’ cloaking device. Invisibility would be nice, but in the meantime the goal is to reduce detection.
Recall the F-117 that got shot down in the Serbia air campaign? Did that one failure out of hundreds of successful missions mean the end of low-observability aircraft?
Thats a Trillion dollar bet with no certainty behind it. There is no reason to think that stealth advances will always stay ahead of detection technology advances. As has been pointed out, stealth planes are not invisible they just have a lower radar return. In theory its possible to use software signal processing techniques to distinguish that return from background noise, birds or whatever else.
That’s kind of an idiotic statement- you’re implying that it’s an all-or-nothing game. Yes, adversaries may be able to better detect stealth aircraft than before, but that doesn’t mean that it somehow totally negates the advantages of stealth technology.
Even if it becomes easier to spot a B-2, it doesn’t somehow mean that the B-2 is suddenly less effective than a B-52, which has the radar cross section of a flying stadium.
It’s like saying that say… composite and reactive armor make anti tank missiles obsolete, or that shaped charges made tanks obsolete. Neither of which is or was ever actually true- the pendulum had just swung in that direction at that time.
And that’s all this is- the pendulum swinging back away from stealth a little bit.
With Stealth it pretty much is all or nothing. If your B2 can be reliably targeted from 100km away with a SAM lock then it is just as effective as a B-52, just 100 times the cost. The B-52 can carry all the same ECM systems as a B-2, it has no advantage there.
For a forum that deals with factual issues, this is truly an ignorant statement.
Both the US and Russia have many means at their disposal to determine each others’ radar capabilities and electronic order of battle. For example, the one purpose of existence of the RC-135 Combat Sent aircraft is to fly near adversary airspace and collect electronic intelligence on oppositing radars. You can bet for damn certain that we know what their radars are capable of, and we can compare them very precisely with what our radars can do.
But nobody with knowledge of these matters is going to be telling an Internet message board any substantive details about how opposing radars can detect our aircraft, that’s for sure.
I say this with a great deal of certainty because the US is investing vast sums of money in a fleet of stealth aircraft that is intended to be the mainstay of our fleet until the 2080’s. The trend of military science for the past century-plus has tended towards fielding weapon systems that are smaller and less detectable. The idea that we would suddenly just give up and start rolling out flying bricks again is kind of absurd.
Bump has it right. A stealth aircraft will always be more desirable than an aircraft without stealth characteristics, even if that “stealth” is imperfect. Any amount of low-observability features make the aircraft more desirable and effective than one that has no stealth features at all.
By this same logic: There exist weapons that can defeat our body armor, so we might as well just strip naked and walk around with our dorks hanging out. This is clearly absurd. Just because something exists that can defeat the protection doesn’t mean we give up on it entirely.
I suppose one day we might, hypothetically, invent a new detection method that renders all attempts at stealth completely futile. However, I suspect that people will just start trying to figure out a way to beat the new technology.
To explain my answer: The B2’s RCS is estimated at 0.1 to 0.01 square meters, while the B52 RCS is 40-50 square meters. Now, math isn’t my strong suit, but that tells me that the B52 appears as an object 400 times bigger than a B2. This doesn’t just mean that the B52 is easier to spot, but that it can be spotted at a much greater distance… Which gives the enemy more time to scramble assets to counter it, which in turn necessitates greater air support from fighters and EA assets. Nobody ever guaranteed that the stealth would be perfect. The B2 is still more survivable than the B52, and I know which one I would rather be flying in.
Also, the total number of SAMs fired at B2s in all of human history is, last I checked, zero.
Thats why I specified a radar range. If advanced signal processing on VHF radar can reliably get a lock onto a B2 from 100kms away, then it may as well be a flying brick. In that situation a B52 with cruise missiles could do a better job.
Another article:
Assuming that the F-35’s stealth will still be effective until 2080 seems absurdly optimistic to me.
One way I saw stealth described was showing the radar system coverage, basically big overlapping circles similar to cell towers coverage. Normal planes all had those circles overlap creating no place where they could fly undetected. However with stealth those circles became very small, they could only detect the stealth plane if they were very close to the radar, leaving most of the sky open for them to fly undetected.
The better the stealth the smaller the area of radar’s effective coverage, but as long as your stealth is good enough to give you a corridor to fly undetected that’s a advantage.
In Craig Thomas’ novel Firefox and the 1982 movie made from it, the Russians are able to track the eponymous MiG-31 by the heat of its exhaust, even though the MiG is a stealth plane and virtually invisible to radar.
That’s pretty impressive for a thriller novel. At the time, virtually no one in the public knew about stealth technology, which was a closely held secret. Thomas correctly stated that the plane’s radar invisibility was not the result of any sort of active electronic device, but a passive capability built into the structure of the plane. And he correctly identified heat from the exhaust giving an infrared signal that could be tracked (if not as accurately as radar). I don’t know if he was pumping an inside source, or did careful research and made some shrewd deductions.
