Is Stealth history

[David Wooley]

In a recent pre -amble to a forth coming seminar on the subject of EM detection. Could this imply that stealth features on warships are no longer a valid defence against detection :-

The purpose of this work is to examine the feasibility to detect an ocean going vessel by its wake in the presence of wind waves. The wake of a ship and the ambient sea waves generate velocity field of electrically conductive seawater. Consequently a disturbance in the Earth geomagnetic field is induced. A closed-form solution for the magnetic field induced by the wake of a ship moving in a sea of finite depth is obtained, and the corresponding numerical simulations are performed. The results of the simulations are compared with the corresponding magnetic field disturbed by wind waves. Spectral analysis of the magnetic field, induced by the wake of a ship and sampled by an air-borne magnetometer moving steadily along a rectilinear path is performed. Numerical computations indicate that the spectra of the magnetic fields induced by the ambient random waves and by the wake of a moving body have quite different characteristic. Typically, the peaks of the body-induced magnetic field spectra are located in the range of frequencies where the corresponding values of the wind wave's spectra are less significant. It is shown that the feasibility of electromagnetic detection of ships wake depends on their speed and water depth.
:unknown
Dave Wooley

 

[Systems Adict]

While this work is examining the FEASIBILITY of this form of detection, like many things I feel that the technology will be overtaken by either events / new superior technology, or the sheer cost of development in implementation of such a system.

Like most defence technology, it takes time, a whole lot of effort & very often, a highly expensive R&D programme to take just incremental steps in the advancement of most systems.

I appreciate that in specialist areas of technology, (comms / radars / I.T.) because these are smaller, it's easier to implement changes, especially using C.O.T.S. developments. However, once the powers that be get involved, the more people / power (in way of backing from Military / govt) get onboard, the slower it gets & the higher the costs. It's just the nature of the beast !!

Elsewhere in the forums there are many articles which echo my sentiments. The Military power base is a funny old thing. It reports in on it's self, with decisions then being reported into Govt. These two behemoths (Military & Govt) are forever changing / evolving, with promotions / demotions / resignations / changes to policy / complying with rules & regulations. These all play a part in how technology is received / perceived.

So while an idea changes & grows into feasibility & demonstration, all it needs is say a change of Govt or a resignation of high powered Military official & it dies a death. (The TSR 2 Fighter /A12 carrier aircraft are classic examples).

Unfortunately, at present, unless a replacement program is in the offing, or an operational demand (as in the many upgrades that have been rushed thru in Afghanistan / Iraq), new technology is very often shelved, saved for a rainy day, when it just might pay dividends to implement it....

Systems Adict

 

[David Wooley]

While this work is examining the FEASIBILITY of this form of detection, like many things I feel that the technology will be overtaken by either events / new superior technology, or the sheer cost of development in implementation of such a system.

Like most defence technology, it takes time, a whole lot of effort & very often, a highly expensive R&D programme to take just incremental steps in the advancement of most systems.

I appreciate that in specialist areas of technology, (comms / radars / I.T.) because these are smaller, it's easier to implement changes, especially using C.O.T.S. developments. However, once the powers that be get involved, the more people / power (in way of backing from Military / govt) get onboard, the slower it gets & the higher the costs. It's just the nature of the beast !!

Elsewhere in the forums there are many articles which echo my sentiments. The Military power base is a funny old thing. It reports in on it's self, with decisions then being reported into Govt. These two behemoths (Military & Govt) are forever changing / evolving, with promotions / demotions / resignations / changes to policy / complying with rules & regulations. These all play a part in how technology is received / perceived.

So while an idea changes & grows into feasibility & demonstration, all it needs is say a change of Govt or a resignation of high powered Military official & it dies a death. (The TSR 2 Fighter /A12 carrier aircraft are classic examples).

Unfortunately, at present, unless a replacement program is in the offing, or an operational demand (as in the many upgrades that have been rushed thru in Afghanistan / Iraq), new technology is very often shelved, saved for a rainy day, when it just might pay dividends to implement it....

Systems Adict

What you say may well ring true but the fact remains that we have surface warships designed and being designed to reduce considerably their radar return then there will follow, as night follows day, a counter measure. Hence the move into the area of EM detection technologies.
DW

 

[gf0012-aust]

What you say may well ring true but the fact remains that we have surface warships designed and being designed to reduce considerably their radar return then there will follow, as night follows day, a counter measure. Hence the move into the area of EM detection technologies.
DW

Stealth is a moving feast though - and I think that part of the problem is public perception about what it actually constitutes.

eg, the first attempt at a stealth aircraft was in 1917. By 1918 there was another iteration of it.

In the early 60's Stealth was defined as being high speed and out of the reach of SAM's and this stayed relevant until the SA-2.

After the arrival of the SA-2 it was regarded as being signature management and went into the extreme opposite. ie, it went to subsonic and terrain following as the then avail missile systems were unable to acquire and engage in sufficient time.

You can see similar evolution with anti-shipping/cruise missiles. The US worked out how to counter supersonics electronically, and to some extent it was the stealth programmes which hilighted that high speed didn't grant success, again the western preference is for subsonics as supersonics are not all they're cracked up to be. Sure they are against unsophisticated enemies, but for a competent navy, supersonics are not the threat that the brochures would have everyone believe.

In a round about way I am trying to hilight that what has occurred with aviation and missile technology applies across a number of fronts (in principle) with warships. (subs being a very good example of changes in tech and detectability even in the last 2 years). Skimmers have similar evolutionary issues.

Stealth at the aviation level has been in play since 1917 (rather than the popularly accepted Cold War trigger), ditto for skimmers.

All that changes are the detection principles, and when they evolve, new ways are developed (pretty quickly in some cases).

I was lucky enough to attend a discussion the other day where it was pointed out that stealth tech developed in the 60's that wasn't viable then was viable now due to advances in materials tech and electronic management systems.

A lot of the work that the US/UK did in the 60's that was regarded as technologically unsuitable is now back on the development boards as new materials and advances in sig management have made them viable.

 

[David Wooley]

Stealth is a moving feast though - and I think that part of the problem is public perception about what it actually constitutes.

eg, the first attempt at a stealth aircraft was in 1917. By 1918 there was another iteration of it.

In the early 60's Stealth was defined as being high speed and out of the reach of SAM's and this stayed relevant until the SA-2.

After the arrival of the SA-2 it was regarded as being signature management and went into the extreme opposite. ie, it went to subsonic and terrain following as the then avail missile systems were unable to acquire and engage in sufficient time.

You can see similar evolution with anti-shipping/cruise missiles. The US worked out how to counter supersonics electronically, and to some extent it was the stealth programmes which hilighted that high speed didn't grant success, again the western preference is for subsonics as supersonics are not all they're cracked up to be. Sure they against unsophisticated enemies, but for a competent navy, supersonics are not the threat that the brochures would have everyone believe.

In a round about way I am trying to hilight that what has occurred with aviation and missile technology applies across a number of fronts (in principle) with warships. (subs being a very good example of changes in tech and detectability even in the last 2 years). Skimmers have similar evolutionary issues.

Stealth at the aviation level has been in play since 1917 (rather than the popularly accepted Cold War trigger), ditto for skimmers.

All that changes are the detection principles, and when they evolve, new ways are developed (pretty quickly in some cases).

I was lucky enough to attend a discussion the other day where it was pointed out that stealth tech developed in the 60's that wasn't viable then was viable now due to advances in materials tech and electronic management systems.

A lot of the work that the US/UK did in the 60's that was regarded as technologically unsuitable is now back on the development boards as new materials and advances in sig management have made them viable.

EM detection is certainly on the agenda of those involved in the design of the next generation of stealth warships. However for the time being it may well prove to be very difficult to reduce the EM disturbance between wave action and forward mostion . Once the technology is out the bottle even the Visby will be illuminated like a beacon.
DW

 

[gf0012-aust]

EM detection is certainly on the agenda of those involved in the design of the next generation of stealth warships. However for the time being it may well prove to be very difficult to reduce the EM disturbance between wave action and forward mostion . Once the technology is out the bottle even the Visby will be illuminated like a beacon.
DW

My point is that stealth or LO management is a moving feast.

Look at aircraft, in real terms, every manned LO aircraft developed by the US since the mid 1950's has used a different LO management process. each iteration has been a generational and conceptual shift over the prev.
eg, look at LO management since 1917. (the first "stealth plane" was in 1917)

Similarly, surface vessel LO management has undergone changes, but is less spectacular. Thats because IMV the advances made in surface vessel LO management have been discretionary changes. (eg, hullform, weapons placement, ew management, propulsion type, wake management, spectrum management, waveguide management etc....) In real terms there has only been one serious stealth skimmer, sure there have been skimmers with LO features, but none to date which encompass all of the "discoveries" made to date because no one vessel on a given mission can use all the current capabilities.

eg look at submarines, you can tell which navies have developed LO management at the hullform level. physics is physics, fluid mechanics is a given, and acoustic management is a baseline article. so it doesn't matter what countries will sit back and talk up their sub design capability, you can see whether they're current by the hullform and shape.

similarly, you see the same argument when discussion of cruise missiles comes up. the reason why the US and west went to subsonics is directly tied into the stealth programs on unmanned systems started in the 60's - and in unmanned terms, the US is in real terms on its 6th if not 7th generation. similarly, the transition to hypersonics is tied into the philosophy of another stealth program.

I'm firmly of the view that as soon as detection systems are developed, then the next iteration will be deployed. the history of LO management with manned and unmanned aircraft shows that pattern. eg look at the US history of black aircraft. (A-12, SR-71, U2, F-117, B2, F-22 (which has a better sig footprint than F-117) HALSOL etc....

Ironically, the advances in materials science mean that some of the US black aircraft of the 60's that were regarded as technologically expensive are now ripe for redesign.

 

[alexsa]

EM detection is certainly on the agenda of those involved in the design of the next generation of stealth warships. However for the time being it may well prove to be very difficult to reduce the EM disturbance between wave action and forward mostion . Once the technology is out the bottle even the Visby will be illuminated like a beacon.
DW

Satellites of the sensitivity to measure variatiosnin the magnetic field in the manner considered would normally be LEO as far as I am aware. this means they only have coverage in a given foot print and during the period their transit. A good example of the sort of coverage you may expect is the old transit GPS, however, I would expect that such survellance satlilles could be tasked to cover certain areas in their transt. While this allows better coverage than a fixed orbit it does reduce the life of the (and increases overall costs) the satillite as consuable are used up each time it is repositioned for retasking. As such this system will be expensive, require regular lauches of new birds if used on an ongoing basis and not provide global coverage (or anywhere near it) wihtout a prodigous number of satillites in orbit.

As such it willnot be a lot of use for targetting purpsoes but will provide useful intelligence but i suspect not many military organisatiosn will have the where withall to launch and maintain such a system. Finally the issue that is not considered when declaring LO characterisitcs (EM and RCS) is that these characterisitcs provide additional benifit when engagement occurs and that is it makes it harder for guided ordinance to 'find' the target' and makes decoys/countermeasures more effective.

 

[TimmyC]

In a recent pre -amble to a forth coming seminar on the subject of EM detection. Could this imply that stealth features on warships are no longer a valid defence against detection :-

The purpose of this work is to examine the feasibility to detect an ocean going vessel by its wake in the presence of wind waves. The wake of a ship and the ambient sea waves generate velocity field of electrically conductive seawater. Consequently a disturbance in the Earth geomagnetic field is induced. A closed-form solution for the magnetic field induced by the wake of a ship moving in a sea of finite depth is obtained, and the corresponding numerical simulations are performed. The results of the simulations are compared with the corresponding magnetic field disturbed by wind waves. Spectral analysis of the magnetic field, induced by the wake of a ship and sampled by an air-borne magnetometer moving steadily along a rectilinear path is performed. Numerical computations indicate that the spectra of the magnetic fields induced by the ambient random waves and by the wake of a moving body have quite different characteristic. Typically, the peaks of the body-induced magnetic field spectra are located in the range of frequencies where the corresponding values of the wind wave's spectra are less significant. It is shown that the feasibility of electromagnetic detection of ships wake depends on their speed and water depth.
:unknown
Dave Wooley

My god, didn't understand a word of that. My brain needs more exercise.

So while an idea changes & grows into feasibility & demonstration, all it needs is say a change of Govt or a resignation of high powered Military official & it dies a death. (The TSR 2 Fighter /A12 carrier aircraft are classic examples).

Systems Adict

Very true, how can anyone seriously commit to 15-25 years defence procurement policies while having 4-5 year general elections. How do you go about finishing a long distance steeplechase with the constant periodic threat of falling at each short term hurdle? Is the trade off between short term goals and long term commitments sufficiently working?

(subs being a very good example of changes in tech and detectability even in the last 2 years)..

Please could you enlighten me as to how you believe this has occurred. Thanks.

EM detection is certainly on the agenda of those involved in the design of the next generation of stealth warships. However for the time being it may well prove to be very difficult to reduce the EM disturbance between wave action and forward mostion . Once the technology is out the bottle even the Visby will be illuminated like a beacon.
DW

I understand when designing capable projects you seek the ability to perform to a sufficient standard that enables the task to be completed. So in a worst case scenario you would hope your navy was able to compete against the best that's out there. Short of WWIII( which I imagine is very much included in the planning of future warships) how capable do the next generation of warships need to be? As a priority is a basic long-life hull that acts as a platform to enable various upgradable weapon / surveillance systems the main attraction? As the RN's 'Future Surface Combatant' title goes, true too for aircraft just being weapon platform enablers, how important are these physical platforms in a high tech conflict compared to what can be achieved from space or under the waves?

My point is that stealth or LO management is a moving feast.

Look at aircraft, in real terms, every manned LO aircraft developed by the US since the mid 1950's has used a different LO management process. each iteration has been a generational and conceptual shift over the prev.
eg, look at LO management since 1917. (the first "stealth plane" was in 1917)

Similarly, surface vessel LO management has undergone changes, but is less spectacular. Thats because IMV the advances made in surface vessel LO management have been discretionary changes. (eg, hullform, weapons placement, ew management, propulsion type, wake management, spectrum management, waveguide management etc....) In real terms there has only been one serious stealth skimmer, sure there have been skimmers with LO features, but none to date which encompass all of the "discoveries" made to date because no one vessel on a given mission can use all the current capabilities.

eg look at submarines, you can tell which navies have developed LO management at the hullform level. physics is physics, fluid mechanics is a given, and acoustic management is a baseline article. so it doesn't matter what countries will sit back and talk up their sub design capability, you can see whether they're current by the hullform and shape.

similarly, you see the same argument when discussion of cruise missiles comes up. the reason why the US and west went to subsonics is directly tied into the stealth programs on unmanned systems started in the 60's - and in unmanned terms, the US is in real terms on its 6th if not 7th generation. similarly, the transition to hypersonics is tied into the philosophy of another stealth program.

I'm firmly of the view that as soon as detection systems are developed, then the next iteration will be deployed. the history of LO management with manned and unmanned aircraft shows that pattern. eg look at the US history of black aircraft. (A-12, SR-71, U2, F-117, B2, F-22 (which has a better sig footprint than F-117) HALSOL etc....

Ironically, the advances in materials science mean that some of the US black aircraft of the 60's that were regarded as technologically expensive are now ripe for redesign.

Some interesting points you've raised. Most above the top of my head! Will refrain from asking a myriad of questions at this time, perhaps when I have more time.

Satellites of the sensitivity to measure variatiosnin the magnetic field in the manner considered would normally be LEO as far as I am aware. this means they only have coverage in a given foot print and during the period their transit. A good example of the sort of coverage you may expect is the old transit GPS, however, I would expect that such survellance satlilles could be tasked to cover certain areas in their transt. While this allows better coverage than a fixed orbit it does reduce the life of the (and increases overall costs) the satillite as consuable are used up each time it is repositioned for retasking. As such this system will be expensive, require regular lauches of new birds if used on an ongoing basis and not provide global coverage (or anywhere near it) wihtout a prodigous number of satillites in orbit.

As such it willnot be a lot of use for targetting purpsoes but will provide useful intelligence but i suspect not many military organisatiosn will have the where withall to launch and maintain such a system. Finally the issue that is not considered when declaring LO characterisitcs (EM and RCS) is that these characterisitcs provide additional benifit when engagement occurs and that is it makes it harder for guided ordinance to 'find' the target' and makes decoys/countermeasures more effective.

Which countries have known access to these types of systems? Any from South America or SE Asia(ASEAN)?

 

[gf0012-aust]

EM detection is certainly on the agenda of those involved in the design of the next generation of stealth warships. However for the time being it may well prove to be very difficult to reduce the EM disturbance between wave action and forward mostion . Once the technology is out the bottle even the Visby will be illuminated like a beacon.
DW

asset detection via the symbiosis of a "relationship" between electrical disturbance and wake motion has been around in various iterations for a while. The russians tried it with particle and residue sniffers, as did the USN at one stage (as well as wave spectrum analysis via satellite IIRC. It was not seen as terribly viable as it was a bit of a wobbly black art more than a repeatable science.

I'd argue that even today it would not be regarded as useful unless it was in a contained spot and used for specialised roles and in compartmentalised traffic areas (eg in a high traffic narrow strait for instance)

I'd also argue that there are easier ways to detect a skimmer than via wave motion and EM discharge analysis.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Please could you enlighten me as to how you believe this has occurred. Thanks.

Various technologies developed in Aust, UK and the US, and various co-operative projects are yielding results in detection which weren't there a few years back.

Unable to go into specifics.

 

[Todjaeger]

Regarding stealth being "dead"... Stealth/LO and for that matter detection is a combination of changing technology and processes/techniques. Neither is a fixed item. Hence claims that stealth is "dead" is somewhat misleading. A detection process or technology might very well be developed to defeat/detect a stealth/LO technology or process, which would then be countered by a future stealth/LO process or technology. This would in turn be countered by a followup detection process or technological development which would the countered by another stealth/LO development... Generally speaking, whoever can maintain the edge in processes and technology will win.

-Cheers

 

[Systems Adict]

I understand when designing capable projects you seek the ability to perform to a sufficient standard that enables the task to be completed.

So in a worst case scenario you would hope your navy was able to compete against the best that's out there. Short of WWIII( which I imagine is very much included in the planning of future warships) how capable do the next generation of warships need to be?

As a priority is a basic long-life hull that acts as a platform to enable various upgradeable weapon / surveillance systems the main attraction?

As the RN's 'Future Surface Combatant' title goes, true too for aircraft just being weapon platform enablers, how important are these physical platforms in a high tech conflict compared to what can be achieved from space or under the waves?

In all of this one thing is Key....

"Getting More Bang for your Buck !"

If you design a ship/aircraft that can outperform current equipment / go faster/further for the same costs as present day & last 25 - 35 years, then that is better than the technology that's currently being operated.

It would be better to trade off say a ship that could be updated/maintained for 35 years, than blowing the cost of this equipment every 15 years to replace it, to try & keep up / get ahead of the competition.

I'm a firm believer of the old adage "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"

The US has to date utilised this ethos in it's naval fleet, by maintaining some lesser equipments / systems that have been in operation since the 50's !

After all, is there a need to replace say every light fitting/switch, when you refit a ship??

If you're at sea & one breaks. If you don't have any spares on board, you can goto your friendly NATO stores & pick up a replacement at your next port of call.

Costs of replacing all these stores, as well as all the equipment during the refit across each vessel in a batch/type, can make costs go thru the roof, even cost as much as a replacement vessel !!

The RN has decided to go down the SMART procurement route, where they have opted to SELL all there stores & buy only what they need, when they need it !

So far it's worked, due to the fact that they have started a rolling replacement of equipment across the fleet, while reducing total numbers (about they only way they could make it viable, IMHO!)

But could the imagine say the USN doing that across the Aegis class?? It could cost them the equivalent of a CVN or 2 !!

Technology is fickle !

Something that cost £X million today, could cost 1/5 of that in 5 years, as it's considered out of date !

So hence the reason that the Military machine has a tendency to make everything overcomplicated & SLOW>>>>>>!


...Anyways, rant over...

Systems Adict :flame

 

[David Wooley]

Regarding warships built with major upgrading taken as part of the deal . Certainly the Meko' designs have taken this requirement to a high degree. The new Meko "D" frigate and the advanced Meko "X" program are but two examples using retractable power pods and a CODLAG drive system married to a high degree of stealth. The design parameters allow for major up grading to meet future requirements with out incurring massive expenditure . However, how this will translate into the area of developing EM defence is probably classified.
DW