How to counter stealth plane?

[LancerMc]

onslaught

If you read some articles written by the lucky USAF pilots who have flown F-22, many consider them mini-AWACS. The raptor has so many sensors, it has nearly complete battlefield management and it can pass information to nearly eveyone.

One F-22 can fly with its active AESA and then send the radar information to a hiding F-22, that will shoot down the enemy with a missile.

Check out Bill Sweetman's works on the F-22, they have some great info.

 

[ripper]

Just my $0.02 on anti-stealth technology:

The real enemy of stealth aircraft are numerous, but essentially it comes down to computer processing (ultra-low noise electronics) and nifty programming techniques. Nothing, by the laws of physics, is undetectable accept for maybe a "black body".

Also combining IR sensors with laser range finders should show some promiss towards precision tracking of RF LO aircraft. No matter how you slice it, everything in the material word emits an IR signature, so I suspect that most anti-stealth research going on behind closed doors is based on IR.

Being a physicist and an engineer, I can think of quite of a few ways to detect RF LO aircraft. But it comes down to computer processing and software capability.

However, there has been a very recent breakthrough in a technology that can make aircraft invisible to radar: by firing ultra-short pulses of high energy laser light at a metalic surface, the micro-structure of the metal changes in such a way that very very little RF energy is returned to a transmitter. Since this is so very new, it remains to be seen whether the micro-structure of the lased metal is strong enough to be militarized.

Stealth is going to be an ever continuing process but ultimately nothing is undetectable. Its just a matter of seeing the other guy before he sees you, and having the weaponry to actually take him out of the game when you can spot him.

 

[wittmanace]

based on what was just said, about certain facts of physics, it is clear that stealth can be overcome. stealth was created to evade current and projected sysems of detecion (based of course on past patterns). as such, rethinking the process of aerial detection seems to be a rational option, parrallel to increasing current radar det. capabilities.

the stealth sysem works through its lack of presence in detection, and therefore it seems rational to attempt to track it through its conspicuous gap in the sky. as such a basis to work from might be the idea of a complex network, whereby the signals are not received from whence they came, but rather at fixed receivers, the gap through which aircraft would pass. thus the signal wouldnt be sent back to the radar station but would fail to be received by receiver posts. is it possible to use aircraft as emitters and have the ground structures function as receivers in such a complex? is this viable?

i also wonder what the role of satellite could be in the future, when it comes to stealth detection. perhaps tech based on meteorolgy could be used or developed to allow for detection, such as anomalies in air pressure.

for detection, rather than tracking, is it not possible to use increased radar ranges to detect when the aircraft take off, if the take off occurs in a neighbouring country? could satellites trained on airfields not serve as early warning for their deployment?

in terms of strategy, the rel problem with stealth aircraft is that the us uses them. meaning that when they have been present, the enemy has had almost total air denial, and as such their aircraft dont even factor in. perhaps if aircraft could be used at higher altitudes to force the stealth to lower level flights, where they would be more vulnerable, as in 1999(i meanwhere the f117 flew below cloud cover, not that itflew low with enemy aircraft in the skies)?

i dont know much of the workings of modern radar (not really my field at all), but id love to hear the responses from those that do..

 

[powerslavenegi]

Bistatic Radars are the key:

1.If the A/C evades Radar only by means of structural means (F-22 has lot more to it) to make the airframe having oblique angled surfaces then in that case the reflected EM energy can be detected by a Bi/Multi static Radar.

 

[Aussie Digger]

based on what was just said, about certain facts of physics, it is clear that stealth can be overcome. stealth was created to evade current and projected sysems of detecion (based of course on past patterns). as such, rethinking the process of aerial detection seems to be a rational option, parrallel to increasing current radar det. capabilities.

the stealth sysem works through its lack of presence in detection, and therefore it seems rational to attempt to track it through its conspicuous gap in the sky. as such a basis to work from might be the idea of a complex network, whereby the signals are not received from whence they came, but rather at fixed receivers, the gap through which aircraft would pass. thus the signal wouldnt be sent back to the radar station but would fail to be received by receiver posts. is it possible to use aircraft as emitters and have the ground structures function as receivers in such a complex? is this viable?

i also wonder what the role of satellite could be in the future, when it comes to stealth detection. perhaps tech based on meteorolgy could be used or developed to allow for detection, such as anomalies in air pressure.

for detection, rather than tracking, is it not possible to use increased radar ranges to detect when the aircraft take off, if the take off occurs in a neighbouring country? could satellites trained on airfields not serve as early warning for their deployment?

in terms of strategy, the rel problem with stealth aircraft is that the us uses them. meaning that when they have been present, the enemy has had almost total air denial, and as such their aircraft dont even factor in. perhaps if aircraft could be used at higher altitudes to force the stealth to lower level flights, where they would be more vulnerable, as in 1999(i meanwhere the f117 flew below cloud cover, not that itflew low with enemy aircraft in the skies)?

i dont know much of the workings of modern radar (not really my field at all), but id love to hear the responses from those that do..

Stealth was not created to make the aircraft "invisible". What the measures on the B-2, F-117, F-22 and F-35 are intended to do, is to decrease the range at which the aircraft CAN be detected by radar, and IR detection systems. The purpose then is to ALLOW the "stealth" aircraft to get close enough to it's target to employ it's weapons, before "opposing" weapons are fired at it.

Nothing more. The idea of invisible planes scooting around is ridiculous (at present) and demonstrates nothing more than ignorance.

ANY radar of sufficient power should be capable of detecting a "stealth" aircraft at tactically useful ranges. It's just that the level of RCS and IR reduction present in current generation stealth aircraft is greater than the power available to defensive ISR and targetting systems.

Another problem is targetting. Detecting an aircraft is one thing. Maintaining a "lock" on an aircraft for sufficient time to launch a weapon is a separate issue. Once again "stealth" measures are obviously very useful in this area.

Australia's Jindalee "over the horizon" radar for example has reportedly detected "stealth" aircraft at extended ranges (over 2000k's reportedly) yet it lacks the precision required to guide a weapon at ANY range.

As you can probably see from this simple discussion, it is a complex issue. The US aircraft designers are NOT fools. If there was no advantage to be gained. It wouldn't be done. Pure and simple.

 

[wittmanace]

thanks for the informative post aussie digger. as you can see, and i said, i have very very limited knowledge of radar systems and stealth technology.i appreciate your explaining these points.

if stealth can be detected, but it being a matter of range at which it is detected, does this mean that the real flaw in countering stealth is the range? if so, how does stealth overcome dense radar networks that could guide aircraft on to the aircraft? i understand targetting as a problem, but if it can be possibly tracked on radar, why cant aircraft be guided on to the stealth? i understand getting a lock with weapons would then be an issue still, but can aircraft be guided on to the stealth aircraft? with the problem of acquiring a lock, how was the neva-m able to shoot down the f117 in 1999 if it couldnt get the lock on it?

again, your answers would be greatly appreciated..

 

[Aussie Digger]

thanks for the informative post aussie digger. as you can see, and i said, i have very very limited knowledge of radar systems and stealth technology.i appreciate your explaining these points.

if stealth can be detected, but it being a matter of range at which it is detected, does this mean that the real flaw in countering stealth is the range? if so, how does stealth overcome dense radar networks that could guide aircraft on to the aircraft? i understand targetting as a problem, but if it can be possibly tracked on radar, why cant aircraft be guided on to the stealth? i understand getting a lock with weapons would then be an issue still, but can aircraft be guided on to the stealth aircraft? with the problem of acquiring a lock, how was the neva-m able to shoot down the f117 in 1999 if it couldnt get the lock on it?

again, your answers would be greatly appreciated..

The radars that are powerful enough to allegedly detect "stealth" aircraft at extended ranges (such as Australia's JORN), to the best of my knowledge are not "precise". The best JORN can reportedly do is indicate that "something" is present within a roughly 400k x 400k "box".

That's an AWFUL lot of room for a strike aircraft to maneuvre in, it's up to other assets then to attempt to perform an interception on this "threat".

In relation to the F-117, a lot of controversy surrounds this incident, but one thing that did NOT happen, was that this aircraft was shot down by a radar/IR guided SAM after the aircraft was detected by radar.

The stealth measures worked fine, but the USAF repeatedly flew the same flight path at the same time of day (or night) with these aircraft, and a French officer provided this data to Serbian military contacts. They then targetted the aircraft optically (as I said they are NOT invisible) and the aircraft was "shot down" or crashed as a result of an attempt to out maneuvre the SAM system. (Witneses who saw the aircraft crash stated that they saw the landing gear of the aircraft deployed, something unusual for a supposed "shot down" aircraft...)

Wreckage of the F-117 aircraft on the ground also showed that it had been struck by AAA fire with at least 12 bullet holes observed in a wing of the aircraft.

A lengthy variant of the story can be read here:

http://www.f-117a.com/Vega31/Vega31-1.html

 

[Khairul Alam]

How about sensors on the ground that pick up variations in the magnetic field up in the sky as a result of a large metallic object (say, an F-117) flying past? The main principle sure works to detect submarines underwater.

 

[Grand Danois]

How about sensors on the ground that pick up variations in the magnetic field up in the sky as a result of a large metallic object (say, an F-117) flying past? The main principle sure works to detect submarines underwater.

SSN/SSBN - thousands of tons of metal vs fighter which is tens of tons. But subs are degaussed (or whatitsname). Can probably do the same to a fighter.

Anyhow, the metal used in fighters are non-ferrous ie aluminium/titanium. Not that magnetic at all.

But most importantly. Using a MAD, the submarine is between you and the magnetic field ie you can more easily the anomalies. In the above given example you are measuring on an almost undisrupted magnetic field. IOW in principle you could sense it, you're just in a poor position to do so, as the anomaly is less attenuated.

0.02 €

 

[dioditto]

As the title suggest,can anyone of u give an idea how to How to counter stealth plane?I have my own idea but let see others idea first.

The stealth is ofcourse, not totally invisible to the Radar. From what I have gather, it is only tune to certain range of wave length - meaning if you use other range, you could in theory (and possibly practice) detect stealth. One example is Australia's Jindalee Operational Radar Network (JORN) which is supposely able to detect stealth planes using long wave.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jindalee_over-the-horizon_radar


And second of all, stealth planes are designed to be only stealth from the direction they are travel in. All of the radar waves are designed to be bounce towards the back, or the sides, away from the originating radar. So, that's why the theotical radar network method can detect stealth plane, as the radar's energy are not 100% absorb by the material, but bounced to the back and sides, which can be detected by other networked radars, or hidden passive sensors. (From the back of the plane)


Thirdly, a fish cannot live without the water it is in. Any plane, (including the stealth planes) travels at sub-sonic/super sonic speed create air turbulence. That in theory can also be detected using highly sensitive radars. (eg. JORN/SAR) And no matter how aircraft is designed, it cannot mask the air turbulence it created. And I think that's the most viable area to explore for anti-stealth technique; to increase the resolution and sensitivity of the air turbulence. (as air turbulence of the plane is quite unique)

 

[Transient]

And second of all, stealth planes are designed to be only stealth from the direction they are travel in.

Not true.

All of the radar waves are designed to be bounce towards the back, or the sides, away from the originating radar.

RAM/RAS absorb some of the radar energy.

So, that's why the theotical radar network method can detect stealth plane, as the radar's energy are not 100% absorb by the material, but bounced to the back and sides, which can be detected by other networked radars, or hidden passive sensors. (From the back of the plane)

Radar energy that are not absorbed are reflected, but they are concentrated at only a few apecific angles. So unless the radar is always at those specific angles (very unlikely since the aircraft is moving), the stealth aircraft cannot be tracked, even if detected.

Thirdly, a fish cannot live without the water it is in. Any plane, (including the stealth planes) travels at sub-sonic/super sonic speed create air turbulence. That in theory can also be detected using highly sensitive radars. (eg. JORN/SAR) And no matter how aircraft is designed, it cannot mask the air turbulence it created. And I think that's the most viable area to explore for anti-stealth technique; to increase the resolution and sensitivity of the air turbulence. (as air turbulence of the plane is quite unique)

Nice and good. Whether it is a practical idea remains to be seen.

 

[dioditto]

Not true.

What I mean, is that, the stealth planes are designed to be emphasized on the frontal RCS reduction, and while the energy from radars are absorb by the RAM paint, some are bounce towards the back. That means, the Radar that the plane pass over can in theory, receive the bounced signal.

Radar energy that are not absorbed are reflected, but they are concentrated at only a few apecific angles. So unless the radar is always at those specific angles (very unlikely since the aircraft is moving), the stealth aircraft cannot be tracked, even if detected.

No, it can. The underside of the plane is a flat surface, it is design to bounce it away from the originating radar. It's like if you throw a ball towards a wall and have another catcher. The radar that the plane pass behind, can technically receive the bounced signal from the radar that's still in front of the plane.

 

[dioditto]

in an air to air combat situation (say an F-22 against some other plane), the F-22 would need to rely on an AWACS to find the other planes

if the F-22 turned on its radar, it would give away its position (and this goes for all planes whether they are stealth or not)

if a plane could down the AWACS, it would make it that much easier to shoot down the F-22

there's always the option of heat-seeking missiles if you manage to find any sort of stealth plane

If that's the case, then the anti-steath strategy would be to concentrate on the AWAC, Long-Range AA Missiles would then come into play to take out the AWACS. By taking out the "eyes", the F-22 would then need to open his own "eyes" since it can't just fly blind. By turning on it's own LPI AESA radar, it increase its chance of detection and interception, at the same time, without the AWAC's high power search radar, and relying on the lower power LPI radar, it would mean the the F-22 suddenly becomes less aware, (like a person without his glasses) and have far shorter range of detection than having an AWAC around.

This is simply an unavoidable dilemma, to search for enemy at longer range, you need to power up your radar far above ambient noise level, and in doing so, you expose yourself to the enemy.

 

[gf0012-aust]

What I mean, is that, the stealth planes are designed to be emphasized on the frontal RCS reduction, and while the energy from radars are absorb by the RAM paint, some are bounce towards the back. That means, the Radar that the plane pass over can in theory, receive the bounced signal.

The first generation stealth probably were less focussed on a rear management aspect. However, if you look at a B2 its also designed to scatter signals at the rear.

Every publicly operational generation of manned stealth aircraft deployed by the americans has used different signature management techniques. You can't extrapolate how each successive generation is because they're all very very different - and each successive generation has been all aspect designed.

No, it can. The underside of the plane is a flat surface, it is design to bounce it away from the originating radar. It's like if you throw a ball towards a wall and have another catcher. The radar that the plane pass behind, can technically receive the bounced signal from the radar that's still in front of the plane.

see above. they're not a flat surface - and fundamentally all late 4th gen aircraft (certainly US and French) have enabled radar scattering and absorption designs into the underside. Again, look at the sawtooth panels of a modern US fighter and you can see that sig management is being built into the design.

Its relevant for older aircraft - it certainly isn't so for new-gen builds. In addition, the scattering diffuses the signals sufficiently to destroy some opportunity for coherence. An incoherent signal would need to elicit some kind of familiarity to register as a threat.

It also should be pointed out that all stealth missions made public since 1991 made a point of emphasising that they waypointed around known radar sites. It was very rare for any telegraphing to occur where an enemy SAM site was decapitated prior to F117 entry as that would have triggered alerts in their own right.

 

[steve33]

The radars that are powerful enough to allegedly detect "stealth" aircraft at extended ranges (such as Australia's JORN), to the best of my knowledge are not "precise". The best JORN can reportedly do is indicate that "something" is present within a roughly 400k x 400k "box".

That's an AWFUL lot of room for a strike aircraft to maneuvre in, it's up to other assets then to attempt to perform an interception on this "threat".

In relation to the F-117, a lot of controversy surrounds this incident, but one thing that did NOT happen, was that this aircraft was shot down by a radar/IR guided SAM after the aircraft was detected by radar.

The stealth measures worked fine, but the USAF repeatedly flew the same flight path at the same time of day (or night) with these aircraft, and a French officer provided this data to Serbian military contacts. They then targetted the aircraft optically (as I said they are NOT invisible) and the aircraft was "shot down" or crashed as a result of an attempt to out maneuvre the SAM system. (Witneses who saw the aircraft crash stated that they saw the landing gear of the aircraft deployed, something unusual for a supposed "shot down" aircraft...)

Wreckage of the F-117 aircraft on the ground also showed that it had been struck by AAA fire with at least 12 bullet holes observed in a wing of the aircraft.

A lengthy variant of the story can be read here:

http://www.f-117a.com/Vega31/Vega31-1.html

Did anything ever happen to the French officer who supplied the information.?