No more stealth planes?

Factual Questions
21

The terms I’ve seen thrown around for modern aircraft are more like “steel marble” or “steel golf ball” (F-22 and F-35), with the B-2 being somewhat worse, due to size and older technology, Even at that, a 0.1-0.01 sq meter RCS is more like a “steel basketball” on the high end, down to a “steel softball” on the smaller end. (roughly a 12" diameter circle down to a 4.5" diameter circle)

Things that small don’t scream “AIRCRAFT!” on radar, especially on older models. They could easily get lost in ground clutter, weather, birds, or just plain old EM noise.

And that’s the point- a B-52’s RCS is a circle 26 FEET in diameter. Even if you can detect both, that 26 foot object is going to be a lot more visible a lot earlier than the one the size of a marble… if you can tease it out of the background and conclusively identify it as an aircraft.

22

It seem logical to think that decoys are a lot simpler to employ at that scale too…

If you can get your opponent to expend SAMs on sacrifical UAVs you are much less likely to have a bad day.

23

Back in the Serbian conflict one of our stealth aircraft was shot down. Modified Russian radar was used to detect the planes when they opened their bomb bay doors. Also reported at the time was they had knowledge of when the plane took off giving them a better idea of where and when the plane would be a target.

I don’t think we ever considered stealth technology to be an invisibility cloak, and now it’s just seen as another defense tactic that will be used in every warplane to some extent.

24

Exactly, and the fact that they had to go to such lengths just to shoot a single plane down kind of bears out how effective it is. And FWIW, modern planes are quite a bit more stealthy than the F-117 was.

25

It wasn’t modified. It was just tuned to low frequencies, which are less susceptible to RAM and other radar countermeasures. The problem is that low frequency radar picks up lots of anomalies and it’s nearly impossible to tell which ones are actual targets.

26

And they’ve had sixteen years since then to work on the problem:

The fundamental problem is that massively expensive programs like the F-35 have to stay in use for 30 years to cover development costs. Maybe they can improve the stealth coatings a little bit over time, but the air frame is fixed. Meanwhile Russia and China can be upgrading radar capabilities every 5 years.

27

coremelt, you don’t know what you are talking about. Please stop.

28

That’s certainly a problem for the F-117 and B-2, which primarily rely on their shape and RAM to avoid detection. It’s not a problem for the F-22 or F-35, as their low observability characteristics are based as much on active avoidance as passive low observability shaping/coating. Beyond that, the USAF and the various nations which will fly the F-35 will certainly change their tactics over time to adapt to improvements in radar.

In any case, we are not talking about some sort of revolution here even if fused radar/IRST systems are developed that can detect stealth aircraft. The US was the dominant superpower long before we were able to build stealthy planes, and the Soviets were selling surface-to-air missiles that could shoot down almost any US aircraft long ago.

29

Hell we’ve modified DC-3’s with stealth exhausts to avoid missiles. I’m sure there are all manner of craft with such technology.

30

Remember that radar is an ‘entrenched’ military technology that still permeates every single nation’s air defense strategy and will continue to do so for decades to come. Third world militaries completely rely on it. If those Russian jets that were shot down by Turkey had been stealth they probably would have escaped undetected.

Also stealth is merely one part of an air attack arsenal. This was proven correct in it’s first real test, the first Gulf War. Stealth aircraft were used to destroy Iraq’s air defenses and command & control infrastructure, after which regular, non-stealth forces had free reign. It’s rumored that the Soviets collectively ‘shit their pants’ when they saw how effective the stealth fighters were against Iraq’s massive air defenses (all of which were Soviet made). Had that been them against NATO in an attack on western Europe they would have been decimated.

31

I just watched a video on stealth. It seems there are two types of radar now being used to track aircraft. The lesser radar is used on mobile platforms and it can see stealth aircraft. The advantage lays in the fact that it sees the stealth aircraft much later than it would otherwise see it, and that’s often enough time to knock out the mobile radar. The mobile radar are typically the kind that target incoming jets, so it’s still a big advantage.

32

So do these sources know what they are talking about?
The Aviation week article I quoted above saying that the combination of currently available VHF radar, sensor fusion and better signal processing techniques is already a threat to stealth.

And the US Navy Chief of Operations Admiral Jonathan Greenert said “Let’s face it, if something moves fast through the air, disrupts molecules, and puts out heat — I don’t care how cool the engine can be, it’s going to be detectable.”

The US Navy (which you love telling us is the second largest air force in the world) has hedged its bets on stealth from the beginning.

33

You’ve read a few articles but you clearly don’t have any expertise in this subject. For example, you can’t put the former CNO’s comments in context because I’m certain you don’t recognize the doctrinal differences between the Navy and the Air Force, so you can’t clearly represent his statements in a factual manner.

For the love of God, this is a forum for factual answers, not regurgitating snippets of articles people have recently googled.

In any case, back to the OP’s actual question.

Since the 1980s, US missile warning satellites have been able to detect aircraft, typically when they use afterburners. If one googles “Slow Walker” you can find a few articles about this capability.

It has limitations. First, it requires quite advanced sensors to be put in space. The latest generation of US satellites for this mission, known as SBIRS, is a tremendously expensive program, and has had extreme technical challenges to the point that the often derided F-35 literally looks like a model program in comparison.

There are reports that the Russian counterpart satellites are dead as of this year, forcing them to rely on terrestrial radar to learn of a strategic nuclear missile attack. Suffice it to say that if Russia can’t count on this capability, we need not worry about other adversaries, like North Korea or Iran, from investing in a similar capability. Even still, these sorts of capabilities aren’t the sort of thing that would provide a game-changing defense against stealthy aircraft. A country still has to rely on radar-based defensive systems to attack targets, and therein lies the advantage of having very low observable aircraft.

It’s worth noting that in spite of bold predictions by armchair generals that stealth is useless - as evidenced in this thread - there are a growing number of countries signing up for fifth generation stealthy fighters. For example, Israel has options on roughy 100 F-35s, which are being acquired primarily because 4th and 4.5 generation fighters, like F-15s and F-16s, don’t stand a chance against modernizing Iranian air defenses. Israel seems to be opting again for a high-low mix of stealthy F-35s on the high end, and larger F-15s on the low end.

34

And I notice you completely ignored the Aviation Week article on VHF radar, sensor fusion and new signal processing techniques. Why is that? Here is is again:
http://aviationweek.com/technology/n...tection-claims

35

Because my issue is with your conclusion, which is not part of Bill Sweetman’s quality journalism. It’s like reading an article about how major league catchers are getting much better at throwing out runner trying to steal bases, and concluding that teams shouldn’t draft fast runners because it’s a useless skill.

36

I’m not saying Stealth is useless, there is a role for stealth planes. But the assumption they will remain undetectable and unable to be targetted with advanced SAMs by near-peer states until the end of the F35 program is very debatable.

It then gets into a debate about whether the cost / benefit of an all stealth Air Force (For fighters and multi-role strike craft) is worth it or you’d be better off with a hi/lo mix of stealth and non-stealth. As you point out this is exactly what Israel is doing.

37

Nobody has ever claimed stealth aircraft are undetectable.

38

Nobody’s ever said they’re undetectable. Low-visibility is a better way to put it. Imagine it this way… you’re a cop sitting on the side of the road at dusk (before headlights are on) radaring people as they drive by.

Something like a semi-truck (B-52) is really easy to see coming and pop with your radar gun. A shiny four-door sedan is a little bit harder to spot and a little bit harder to see coming, but still not hard. (say… MIG-21)

Now imagine that a very small sports car comes along, and it’s designed in such a way that any big reflections from your radar gun are reflected off in different directions, and not back at your gun, although if you hit it right, you get a good return. That’s F-117 style stealth.

Another one comes along- it’s even harder to see- let’s say it’s painted flat battleship gray and is lower to the ground. And it’s even harder to actually pop with the radar gun due to its shape and the fact that it’s made of carbon fiber and not sheet steel. That’s modern-style stealth.

I think one of the things you’re misunderstanding is that most modern stealth isn’t a trade-off any longer, like it was in the F-117 days. Fighters like the F-22 are extremely low observability, as well as extremely high performance. Same goes for the F-35; the design incorporates a lot of passive stealth features and materials meant to absorb radar. It’s not like NOT including those features would somehow make the plane’s performance jump up and be drastically better. It would just mean that it would present a greater target to radar.

A final thing to keep in mind- most AA system radars aren’t just turned on and searching/illuminating targets constantly. That opens them up to all the various anti-radiation missiles and Wild Weasels who will certainly be coming along with or ahead of an airstrike. So they intermittently turn the emitters on and off. The upshot of that is that the smaller the RCS, the harder the plane is to find, and probably the longer you have to leave the radars emitting to be sure you found it, making them bigger targets in their own right.