Propagation of stealth technology and what this means for the US

[Spetsznaz]

The MiG-31 Could intercept the SR-71, just not at the same altitude

 

[Bonza]

You misunderstood me. Here is a link to a Russian Documentary. Which claims that when the MiG-31 was produced the Blackbirds were IMMEDIATELY removed from Soviet Airspace. There were of course no interceptions, but the MiGs-31 Speed often was able to reach the SR-71, and read it out on radar.

How did the Migs affect an intercept on something at that speed/altitude? I'm just curious because from what I understand of the Mig-31 it wasn't exactly something you'd have loitering around your airspace, because the fuel consumption was extremely high. If they had to scramble, take off and then reach altitude, that's a hell of a lot of distance travelled by the SR-71 in the meantime... so obviously they'd have to detect the SR-71 at long range. It was my impression that doing so was extremely difficult.

 

[Spetsznaz]

How did the Migs affect an intercept on something at that speed/altitude? I'm just curious because from what I understand of the Mig-31 it wasn't exactly something you'd have loitering around your airspace, because the fuel consumption was extremely high. If they had to scramble, take off and then reach altitude, that's a hell of a lot of distance travelled by the SR-71 in the meantime... so obviously they'd have to detect the SR-71 at long range. It was my impression that doing so was extremely difficult.

What happened was that with the help of air and ground radar the MiG-31's were able to point out the SR-71 on the MiG's radar. Often times the SR-71 had to slow down or make turns when it was vulnerable, and the MiG-31 could get close to the SR-71 and really push on its speed, however there is damage to the engine

 

[Marc 1]

I think people may have the wrong bull by the horns here. The SR-71 whilst having some stealth characteristics did not rely on 'stealth' to evade detection (hell the fact it was flying at over Mach 3 and had a massive thermal signature is proof of that) - rather it relied on speed and altiitude - the altitude component being important as the aircraft could use sensors that could see further 'inside' another country without needing to even penetrate their airspace.

Spetznaz may have a point about the Mig 25 providing some sort of deterent - the US was humiliated by the Gary Powers/U2 shootdown, so I'd say regular overflights by the SR-71 were not made or only made on odd occassions (although we probably won't know till these documents are declassified if ever) as the US didn't want to have another diplomatic embarrassment.

Putting the SR-71 into this discussion is a little pointless.

 

[Bonza]

I think people may have the wrong bull by the horns here. The SR-71 whilst having some stealth characteristics did not rely on 'stealth' to evade detection (hell the fact it was flying at over Mach 3 and had a massive thermal signature is proof of that) - rather it relied on speed and altiitude - the altitude component being important as the aircraft could use sensors that could see further 'inside' another country without needing to even penetrate their airspace.

Putting the SR-71 into this discussion is a little pointless.

That's the impression I had, too. This is from a brief LO history that gf0012-aust posted on here some time ago, re the SR-71:

The follow on to the A-12 was the RS/SR-71 Blackbird. What's significant about the RS/SR-71 was that it was the bigger cousin to the A-12. What's even more significant was that it was a much harder beast to see and intercept. The fundamental reason was that not only was it finished in signature managing technologies, but when they discovered the impact of chine’s around the nose cone area, they were able to reduce its frontal aspect radar emitting footprint by 90%. The LO management was high speed, high altitude, onboard Elint and shape management.

Regarding a possible Mig-31 intercept, detecting the SR-71 isn't the part I'm having trouble with, it's getting an interceptor up to that speed and altitude in time to do anything about it.

 

[Bonza]

The SR-71 did not always fan out its mach 3...

Just a tip mate, the mods round these parts aren't really fond of one-liner posts, and generally expect people to give a bit more body to their posts. I notice you're new so it's just friendly advice to not post lots of one-liners.

 

[Spetsznaz]

Just a tip mate, the mods round these parts aren't really fond of one-liner posts, and generally expect people to give a bit more body to their posts. I notice you're new so it's just friendly advice to not post lots of one-liners.

Don't get me wrong Bonza.

moving on

The Problem with 'Stealth' is that it presents a sens of undetectability to the GENERAL PUBLIC, people hear 'Stealth' and they image super weapons that will destroy the human race.

 

[Bonza]

Don't get me wrong Bonza.

moving on

The Problem with 'Stealth' is that it presents a sens of undetectability to the GENERAL PUBLIC, people hear 'Stealth' and they image super weapons that will destroy the human race.

Yeah, you've made that point a couple of times now... I get that the general public don't understand how LO works, but why are you bringing it up again? I don't really understand the point you're making.

 

[Spetsznaz]

I've discovered several articles on random journals claiming that there are numerous countries developing their own stealth fighters and bombers. What I would like to know more specifically is what realistic threat would these 'first generation' aircraft pose to US forces? Furthermore, how sophisticated would one expect an opposing country's stealth technology to be, relative to the US's current tech? A final question, would the US's experience in stealthy aviation give it an advantage in countering opposing stealth aircraft?

Thank you in advance for your replies.

I dont think there will be any "realistic threat" Just as there are many ways of creating stealth aircraft, there just as many ways to detect it. If any country has stealth aircraft, there are other nations working to being able to uncover it with radar ect.:flame

 

[gf0012-aust]

Just a tip mate,

Nonsense. Over 90% of the Habu flight time was above Mach 3 - more than any other manned asset ever built - literally thousands of hours were spent at Mach3+.

Please also note that one liner posts are unacceptable, and I strongly suggest that you read the Forum Rules before posting anymore responses.

Some of your posts have been reported by members already and some have also been deleted accordingly.

As such, it is critical for you to understand whats expected of members before you post any more responses.

 

[Todjaeger]

I dont think there will be any "realistic threat" Just as there are many ways of creating stealth aircraft, there just as many ways to detect it. If any country has stealth aircraft, there are other nations working to being able to uncover it with radar ect.:flame

One thing here on DT, we generally do not really like to use the term, 'stealth' as it often gives people entirely the wrong impression. As Feanor mentioned in his post here, 'stealth' is really about signal management, with the objective being to sufficiently manage ones radar/thermal/visual/whatever signature so that an opposing force is unable to act/react to ones own actions.

In the example given on the A-12/SR-71 Blackbird, work was done to reduce the aircraft's RCS, which meant that a radar would not detect the aircraft until it was closer to the dish that if the RCS reduction had not been done. However, given the aircraft's blindingly fast speed, there would have been little time for the assets then available to act because by the time they had gotten into position, the SR-71 would no longer be there and would likely be outside of detection range again.

In terms of sig management technology, the US definately has the advantage over the rest of the world. The US currently has a third-gen (or is it fourth?) manned LO platform in service, with another set to enter service in the next few years, while other nations have yet to achieve operational status with LO aircraft. This gives the US advantages in the development of doctrine to both make use of, and consider ways to counter LO aircraft. Additionally, the US has advanced materials science, radars, E/O systems, networking and computing power, all of the both advance the degree of sig management possible, as well as providing avenues by which to counter signature reduction others achieve.

Something else to consider about 'stealth', is that it is very much a case of who builds the better mousetrap. If a side makes a breakthrough in LO, the other side then works to counter the breakthrough by developing a detection capability which negates it, which the side which just lost their advantage attempts to regain by achieving another breakthrough. This then causes the second side to again attempt to negate and so on...

This to is currently a US advantage due both to the experience available as well as the level and degree of funding for research and development. IIRC the US spends close to, if not more than all the other countries in the world combined, on defence. Something like 13% of that amount is spent on R&D. An amount like that should be sufficient to keep creating new toys...

-Cheers

 

[Xeon_Laura]

RADAR sends signal and this signal on impact with any material gets reflected.This reflected signal is received by the RADAR.any plane made up of metal will definitely reflect some amount of this signal.
The RADAR will pick up the signal along with the noise.The system will have a noise threshold value[NTV](ie.any signal above this NTV will be taken as signal and below as noise).This is were Stealth technology comes into place.signal reflection from stealth planes wil be well below these NTVs.But RADAR with superior technology and these are usually bigger(ISRAEL has one for sure)
can detect these stealth planes but they cant lockdown(ie.They can detect these planes as beeps in irregular intervals not continous but cant guide a RADAR guided missile at these planes)

Stealth Tech basically depend on the 1)Angle of incidence on the plane(look at F-117 stealth plane crazy aeroframe),2)Painting material used on the plane(Material must absorb these RADAR signals than reflecting them) and 3)RADAR scramblers.
the US uses 1 and 2 passively and can use the 3rd one at wish(but they dont need it @ current geography).

in 90's one SR-71 was flying over arab-europe territory.No Country picked up the SR-71 until it went for Mid air refuelling(US plane which had got permission).when the refuelling was taking place due to the close proximity between the 2 planes SR-71 also started to appear in the Ground RADAR Screen as beeps.The below guys started asking the Fuel plane pilot about the Second plane.He simply replied there was no plane near him and kept denying. The ground guys warned the neighbouring country about this and the next country 2 wards which SR-71 was flying used the latest(at that time) russian RADAR. Which was able to detect the plane but could not lockdown. So these guys simply started firing Missiles at the SR-71 path.
The pilots just went to the upper MACH speed of the plane and they could see missiles going up around them at distances but nothing hit them.

 

[F35Owns]

To the poster who brought up the retirement of the SR-71. The plane was retired not because of politics or cost, but because of Satelites. Even back then, 80's, a U.S. spy satellite could take a clear picture of me flipping it off. Also, their have been rumors, can't confirm, that the SR-71 was retired because of the Aurora aircaft (offical aircraft name?)...Flying at Mach 5+.

Forget the F-22/35 and PAK-FA. If you wan't unmatchable stealth, go with an UCAV's package. Stealthier, Loiter longer, Doesn't get tired, pull
s higher G's, .ect. My bet is the X-45/47. Jesus, I would love to know what they are flying now, in the Southwest U.S.

 

[gf0012-aust]

RADAR sends signal and this signal on impact with any material gets reflected.This reflected signal is received by the RADAR.any plane made up of metal will definitely reflect some amount of this signal.[/quote

not all signals will reflect

The RADAR will pick up the signal along with the noise.The system will have a noise threshold value[NTV](ie.any signal above this NTV will be taken as signal and below as noise).

Not so, in an unmanaged signal capacity that will be so, but the US has been involved in signal management for all its principle combat aircraft since late 4th gen assets were fielded.

This is were Stealth technology comes into place.signal reflection from stealth planes wil be well below these NTVs.But RADAR with superior technology and these are usually bigger(ISRAEL has one for sure) can detect these stealth planes but they cant lockdown(ie.They can detect these planes as beeps in irregular intervals not continous but cant guide a RADAR guided missile at these planes)

again, not true. there are numerous recorded combat events where LO platforms were not electronically detected until much too late for effective "red" response. Some of these have been well within WVR and at Mk1 eyeball level when eventually detected. This has been against quite sophisticated ADS/Sensor blocks

Stealth Tech basically depend on the 1)Angle of incidence on the plane(look at F-117 stealth plane crazy aeroframe),2)Painting material used on the plane(Material must absorb these RADAR signals than reflecting them) and 3)RADAR scramblers.

1) Every fielded US LO manned and unmanned asset has used different development solutions. People seem to not understand that not only is the US on its 4th iteration of production LO manned combat aircraft - but each iteration has been fielded using different concepts. The F-117 had faceted features due to the inherent LO design philosophy at the time - and that was driven by computational issues as well.

2) RAM is NOT painted. again, RAM does not necessarily absorb a signal, but can also be used as a form of conformal redirection

3) They aren't scramblers. Scramblers are used to receive and decombobulate a signal before spoofing it back.

the US uses 1 and 2 passively and can use the 3rd one at wish(but they dont need it @ current geography).

1 is not always passive
2 its benign so it has ton be passive, but its a complimentary management feature - in isolation its almost a meaningless feature
3 incorrect. the US uses a systems response. fighters do not enter the battle without theatre support. hence why compass, rivet assets handle the electronic battlespace, AWACs etc...

in 90's one SR-71 was flying over arab-europe territory.No Country picked up the SR-71 until it went for Mid air refuelling(US plane which had got permission).when the refuelling was taking place due to the close proximity between the 2 planes SR-71 also started to appear in the Ground RADAR Screen as beeps.The below guys started asking the Fuel plane pilot about the Second plane.He simply replied there was no plane near him and kept denying. The ground guys warned the neighbouring country about this and the next country 2 wards which SR-71 was flying used the latest(at that time) russian RADAR. Which was able to detect the plane but could not lockdown. So these guys simply started firing Missiles at the SR-71 path.
The pilots just went to the upper MACH speed of the plane and they could see missiles going up around them at distances but nothing hit them.

The US records show that over 3000 attempts were made to shoot down Habus. That included anticipated shots based on "where to then" estimates. Not one was ever successful, even with anticipated shots using Foxbat family aircraft (who couldn't sustain Mach 3 for long duration like the Habu. The Migs would ruin their engines trying to maintain the capture.

 

[trickofthehand]

I feel the SR71 was a bit on a tangent, since the SR71 was most defenatively NOT a stealth aircraft. To indulge that tangent though, wasn't the SR71 pulled off service because of it's costs?

As I understand it, overflights of the USSR and other countires for recon purposes were terminated due to the great improvements in sattelite production and their delivery methods. Improved equipment aboard sattelites as well as greatly improved computer processing technology made the use of aircraft for recon expensive and obsolete.

Though the threat to US aircraft was defenatively a concern, I don't think that any particular soviet aircraft was the actual cause of the termination of recon overflights. Instead it was the ineventuality of technology advances that made sattelites the safest and cheapest way to conduct recon.

Back on track, I would like to thank contributors to this post. I am more of a ground pounder myself but you have very thoroughly demystified stealth technology for me.

 

[Bonza]

I feel the SR71 was a bit on a tangent, since the SR71 was most defenatively NOT a stealth aircraft.

The SR-71 was a low-observable aircraft. "Low observable" (or signature managed) is a more accurate definition of the requirements of such a capability rather than "stealth". As gf0012 has said, each generation of US LO platforms has achieved its capability using different solutions.

If by "stealth" you only mean low RCS and IR signatures, well the SR-71 was RCS managed to some extent (other more well informed posters could tell you how much and to what degree), but it also achieved LO through extremely high speeds and altitudes, along with (if I recall correctly), onboard electronics systems.

So you see that what people commonly regard as "stealth" (RCS reduction) is actually only one technique of several for achieving low observability.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I feel the SR71 was a bit on a tangent, since the SR71 was most defenatively NOT a stealth aircraft.

Not so. it was not deliberately designed as a LO asset, however, its last major design feature has been carried over to every deliberately designed LO platform (manned and unmanned) ever since. In fact that design element also appears on the Flankers. In the case of the SR-71, that one single design change resulted in a whopping 90% reduction in its RCS. It went from high speed recce to LO enhanced by one major design change. It is in effect, the grand daddy of all major design elements for sig management that is still in use today.

To indulge that tangent though, wasn't the SR71 pulled off service because of it's costs?

No, it was pulled off doing ferrets into the Soviet Union because they became more proficient with SAMs and the US was not willing to risk another Gary Powers incident. The Soviet counter to high speed ferrets was to go asymetrical with high altitude SAM development. The Habus were shifted east of the urals etc..., they didn't finally get pulled until the late 80's on ferrets.

 

[exported_kiwi]

I read a completely non fiction book once about warplanes invented with both "chameleon skins" and also LO tech built into them. I wonder if this actually workable in the real world. If so, now there's not only true stealth but also a virtually invulnerable warplane. What do other members think of this concept and does anyone know if it's actually becoming a reality.

 

[Feanor]

Not so. it was not deliberately designed as a LO asset, however, its last major design feature has been carried over to every deliberately designed LO platform (manned and unmanned) ever since. In fact that design element also appears on the Flankers. In the case of the SR-71, that one single design change resulted in a whopping 90% reduction in its RCS. It went from high speed recce to LO enhanced by one major design change. It is in effect, the grand daddy of all major design elements for sig management that is still in use today.

Enlighten us please (no sarcasm). What feature are you referring to? I believe you referred to this same thing earlier (without naming it) in the PAK-FA thread.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Enlighten us please (no sarcasm). What feature are you referring to? I believe you referred to this same thing earlier (without naming it) in the PAK-FA thread.

Chines. The original 1958 YF-12 had a nose that was almost identical to what the Su Berkut FSW had, Rich converted it to a chined shape and automatically reduced the extant RCS by 90+%.

The chines have also led to development of and the transitioning of blended wing type designs.