You sure about that? It's not for aerodynamic reasons. If its because you are thinking the aircraft will be caught in its own bomb blast there are alternative methods of delivery (bomb toss for instance) that avoid having to overfly the target area.
Super radar detecting US stealth plane
- Thread starter Aegis
- Start date
- Status
No, I am not sure. It's my understanding that a heavier aircraft needs to fly at higher altitude in relation to it's weight. I would think an empty F-16 can fly longer at 50 ft ceiling than a F-16 with four 500lb bomb. Then again I'm not an engineer just an average all thing millitary enthusist.
Ist it me or are there lot more Ozzies in this site?
Last edited:
I'm no pilot or aerodynamacist but if an aircraft is within its design parameters such as Maximum Take Off Weight (MTOW) then the limitations will relate to the ceiling (how high) the aircraft will fly, not how low. Its not uncommon for large airliners on long flights to fly a stepped flight profile, say 29,000 feet first, then climbing to higher altitudes where the plane is more efficient as fuel is burnt off.
If anything flying in ground effect (seriously close to the deck - twice the wingspan or less I think - feel free to correct me any pilots) will increase the load an aircraft will carry due to the trapped air between the wing and the ground.
Yeah, heaps of Aussies - great isn't it?
Yes it can. Will it detect it? 99% of the time, no. Area coverage of such satellites (any satellites, really, save for IR detection of really big sources of heat, far bigger than a b2) is just too small. Situation gets even worse when you need decent resolution for your scanning, which requires relatively short wavelengths with which you cover relatively small areas. User of the satellite has no idea where b2 might go (while user of b2 could actually track satellite's trajectory and purposefully avoid it) and it's just impossible to cover every bit of ground with such satellites. One would need hundreds of such satellites to cover just an area size of France and have every inch of it surveilled 24/7. It is just not doable.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
And what altitude are you at, when you are standing on the beach?
AS to visual acquisition of a fighter 300k's away. I call BS on that. Provide a link to something supporting that claim if you can...
In anycase, being able to VIEW something that far is a LOT different from scanning the sky with an optical device. Try looking through a drinking straw some time.
Can't see much that way can you?
I'd check your sources if I was you.
Low level heavy strike was formal doctrine for a number of airforces during the cold war.
the issue of warload to altitude has more to do with issues such as:
- threat environment
doctrine
thrust weight ratios
platform specifics (eg low level strikers like the F-111 and Bucanneer were designed for heavy low level nuclear strike)
gen mission planning issues
there's no functional relationship aerodynamically per se as you indicate.
JORN works off the ionosphere... it's not a relevant comparison.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Dang another one who didn't read my post.
I wonder why I bother. If people don't want to KNOW the answers, why are they asking the questions?
felixdrake
New Member
"I sense a disturbance in the force" - Darth Vader
But seriously, A jet plane is moving pretty fast. You don't have to 'find' the plane. Just find the 'very fast moving object that is distorting all the radio waves and other random junk we bounce around in our atmosphere'.
From the articles I have seen referenced here, that's exactly what these passive systems do.
It's like black holes. We don't find black holes, we find the fact that things are getting sucked into them and bent around them.
In practical terms, this would mean that if you had a map of transmission points and flew low between them, you could most likely evade detection. (note this is assumption based on my knowledge, not fact)
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
IIRC South Africa was starting work on a system where the radio stations that broadcast where to be mapped, and then locations of RF receivers were to be located in various locations around the country. The idea being that if an emission from a known location was deflected or re-directed, the object which caused that to occur could potentially be detected.
Such a system could potentially be constructed, however there would need to be a good deal of integration to account for the various signals that are broadcast, the distances involved and any Doppler shifting, amongst other requirements.
As I understand it, the OTH radar systems like SECAR, JORN, etc have multiple emissions points and receiving stations, and they are at different physical locations, but otherwise function in a similar manner. Namely monitoring disruptions in known RF emissions.
The other impression I get from systems such as these, that the can be used as a 'tripwire' to detect the presence of LO/VLO aircraft etc but cannot be used to get precise location. Hence, they can indicate if/when an aircraft might need to be directed to an area to scan it, but cannot be used (at present anyway) to provide a missile lock.
The other issue is that such systems are immobile and take a good deal of time configuring. They can be a strategic asset for a defender, but IMV of limited value tactically.
-Cheers
felixdrake
New Member
So just enough to be able to say oh shiiiii.... before the bombs come screaming in ... hmmm... I would imagine that would be an issue. I don't, however, think these systems are meant to get a missile lock, just things like figuring out a general direction to be on alert to fire flak, scramble fighters, fire large numbers of AKs into the air, or other such things. It sounds like a 'first step'
When you are blind, a stick is more of a strategic asset than no stick.
It's a big sky... being able to say the aircraft is roughly here is enough to make that big sky a LOT smaller. As the rest of the thread has been mentioning, there are optical systems that can scan a smaller area and pinpoint an exact location. If you can scan for disturbances in RF, or any other disturbances caused by the plane's passing, I would imagine you could, to grossly simplify things "figure out where to start waving around the laser pointer"
Immobile and takes a good deal of time configuring. These seem daunting, yet scalable obstacles, particularly if you start with a copy of all commercial transmissions to help you map how they are being distorted as they bounce off the ionosphere. This does not entirely resolve the syncing issues, but would go a long ways towards it.
Stealth technology is at it's very core, a system designed to make it living hell to detect unless you already know where to look and a real pain even then.
If you can get a system using the plane's affect on the environment to tell it roughly where to look, backed up by high grade optical systems, it is NOT a cheap or simple mechanism, but it turns a no risk stealth operation into a significant risk operation, and that is precisely what the US government is concerned about, and they are certainly taking the value of it seriously as regards China.
Hide and seek has gone this way back and forth since world war 2 and before, particularly as regards sonar and depth charges. As far as a Canadian fishing boat with radar and depth charges was concerned, it could not get a 'lock' with a complex weapon on a sub. It found it's rough location with sonar and started rolling barrels of ordinance in the form of depth charges.
The balance of power has been in favor of 'hide' for aircraft for some 30 years. Now it is shifting slowly towards 'seek'. That said, a UAV is harder to detect than a full fledged jet plane, being smaller. Perhaps this will simply mean our delivery systems will need to get smaller for a smaller footprint and carry smaller, more concentrated, more precision ordinance that will be deployed in larger quantities.
For example, if one large UAV could deliver a guided payload that delivered a thermate payload (or other incendiary if there is better) to 'soften up' an impact target, followed by a series of heat seeking directed armor penetrating ordinance. The incendiary payload should both paint and weaken the target.
These smaller craft would either need stealth properties, or would need to be created to mimic the footprint of normal wildlife (or a mix of the two). (again with the speculation on possible tech directions)
Haavarla
Active Member
I can't say i reconize this Russian Radar system 58-N-6 complex..
Do anyone have any info on this?
http://en.rian.ru/video/20081215/118870181.html
Do anyone have any info on this?
http://en.rian.ru/video/20081215/118870181.html
One of the most modern UAV's - Israel ones - apparently were no problem to be detected and shot by ancient Ossetians Admin. Text Deleted. Lets keep the veiled geopolitical DNA comments out of this, (it's irrelevant to this discussion) SAM's and fighters. This rise a good question if UAV's and stealth generally are REALLY that hard to detect and shot as some peoples like to claim...
Last edited by a moderator:
We don't know how many flights those UAVs made. We don't know how many were actually shot down. We don't know how many attempts were made to shoot down before they were actuall downed. Finally lets at least place some of the blame on the operators. What does that leave us with? It leaves us with guesstimates. I don't think we can make an effective judgement call based on that once instance. How about UAV losses over Iraq? Or Serbia?
EDIT: For your information Chrom the UAV incidents last spring happened over Abkhazia not Ossetia.
Last edited by a moderator:
None of the Israeli UAV's are LO - it's hardly a test of LO/VLO UAV survivability.
A LO UAV would be the '47 or Neuron - not a Hermes etc....
Exactly. All we can say is that at least one drone, looking like a non-LO Hermes was shot down by a russian fighter plane, most likely a MIG.
Given that one can make a capable UAV with great utility for a specific set of tasks rather small compared to manned aircraft we might to see soon some of VLO design setting off for the sky.
Haavarla
Active Member
Yeah, this one:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfRHMbz2nuU"]YouTube - Russian Jet shoots Georgian UAV[/ame]
I heard on others forum that it was an Mig-29SMT?
Wasn't there a second AUV downed too?
- Status