Propagation of stealth technology and what this means for the US

[trickofthehand]

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.

 

[Feanor]

It's not really "stealth" it's signature management, and it's relative to the enemy's ability to detect said bombers and fighters.

And yes to make it clear, the US has a huge advantage.

 

[PeterCrisp]

I would think creating technologies to detect stealth would be a lot cheaper than creating stealth. I would have thought for instance given that Radar was first developed in Europe we would be fairly good at it by now and while we may not have a 5th Generation Aircraft we would at least be thinking about making a radar capable of tracking it.
What always struck me is that when they say that stealth gives an F-22 a radar signature the size of a pea why not just have the computer controlling the radar look for pea sized objects travelling at a few hundred miles an hour?

 

[Todjaeger]

I would think creating technologies to detect stealth would be a lot cheaper than creating stealth. I would have thought for instance given that Radar was first developed in Europe we would be fairly good at it by now and while we may not have a 5th Generation Aircraft we would at least be thinking about making a radar capable of tracking it.
What always struck me is that when they say that stealth gives an F-22 a radar signature the size of a pea why not just have the computer controlling the radar look for pea sized objects travelling at a few hundred miles an hour?

I will check with a relative who is a retired avionics engineer who has designed some radar systems to confirm, but I suspect that there are some issues.

As I understand it, radars capable of detecting and tracking small targets are already in widespread use in the US and I suspect in much of the developed world as well. The problem is that the type of radar I am posting about is weather radar... The radar gets some returns off clouds/moisture in the air as well as air currents and similar airbourne items. The radar system is then able to form a general picture of what is happening weather-wise over the scanned area as different returns mean different things are in the air. The problem is that there are potentially so many pea or golfball-sized things which can cause a radar return that the systems can just give a general picture, not specifics. I would imagine that attempting to filter out slow moving radar returns would be problematic since track data would be needed to determine the course and speed of an object. This means that the course and speed of all the slow moving objects would also need to be tracked and that volume of data would likely overwhelm a radar system.

A variety of systems and methods have been developed to detect LO aircraft, the issue is that such systems can indicate if there is one flying in the area, such systems (at present at least) provide target quality data. At best they can be used to cue airbourne assets to investigate an area.

As time progresses and radar and computer power increases then methods might start emerging which negate the current LO techniques reliably, but not yet.

-Cheers

 

[wittmanace]

When it comes to the newer stealthy assets, we dont have much info to go on for a discussion. When it comes to older assets (f 117 for example), then it seems that the advantage lies not in the fact that you cant be detected (you can) or that you cant be tracked (you can), but rather the only time these have occurred and the plane has been targeted and taken out was over serbia. If we look at this ample we see that the point is more that to do this, you need to know a certain section of sky to look at, what you are looking for, roughly when, and so forth. This was accomplished by having observers watching the aircraft take off and calling to inform the sam batteries, and the aircraft apparently did not change their routes. Thus stealth is no cloak to make you invisible or invulnerable, but means that the overwhelming majority of the time you go undetected. The enemy will not know the where, when etc typically. The enemy also cannot search the entire sky for stealth assets. That is the real point of stealth. One thing that is not often covered in the discussions of this is the amount of work that has to be diverted into searching for stealth( the given example, intelligence focus, having batteries focus on attempting to get a stealth asset, etc). One wonders what proportion of stealth flights were detected, but lets remember that the serbians had people watching airfields and calling in the info, yet only one f 117 went down...

The shoot down of the stealth had a more propaganda value to it...what if these assets had been dedicated to intercepting non stealth aircraft? any way you look at it other than propaganda or psychological, this would seem to be the more important military option (in terms of bombs prevented from being dropped, serb assets saved, enemy's cost of attacking you, protection of a greater part of ones military infrastructure,etc). I still wonder what the effect would have been if the serbs did not dedicate those efforts to getting down as many aircraft as possible, rather than one high propaganda value plane.

The other side to this is that it might have caused a major rethink in the attackers plans..consider the low intelligence on serb assets lost. nato, i have read, estimated 300 serb tanks destroyed, then after the war adjusted this estimate to 14...including destroyed by a militia.

just my thoughts...

 

[trickofthehand]

wittmanace your post was very enlightening. I had no idea of the effort the serbians had taken in bringing down the F117. Like most people I had simply assumed "uh oh our stealth isn't as good as we'd thought".

Given a major theatre conflict, how do you think two countries would react to attempt to minimize or eliminate each other's stealth assets? The obvious answer ofcourse is to target airfields, but I was looking for other insights as well.

 

[Spetsznaz]

It's not really "stealth" it's signature management, and it's relative to the enemy's ability to detect said bombers and fighters.

And yes to make it clear, the US has a huge advantage.

You want to be careful making assumptions like that. You never know when stealth technology information can be leaked, or perhaps a country with full stealth capable aircraft may decide to release Stealth secrets or sell them to other country's

US does have an advantage, but there not the only ones

 

[Feanor]

The efforts on the Serbian part were really not that great. It involved knowing where and when the planes would be (which is not a feat of Serbian intelligence, but a feat of American arrogance), and messing around with the radar so it could detect it.

More importantly, at closer ranges even an LO aircraft will get detected, tracked, and even targetted. What LO does is shrink the effective engagement envelope of the hostile IADS. If the IADS is dense enough, then it will still be impossible to sneak through it.

For example the strategic utility of the F-117 over Eastern Europe in say 1989 is questionable, granted the sheer density of GBAD.

 

[Spetsznaz]

Another misconception is that if the aircraft is a stealth craft it will not be detected 100% sure when in fact its more like 60%

 

[Bonza]

Another misconception is that if the aircraft is a stealth craft it will not be detected 100% sure when in fact its more like 60%

You can't put a number like 60% on it, any more than others would say 100%. It's not a static number and not dependent only on the signature management of the platform itself. You have to take into account the context under which it's operating, like opposition, supporting assets (this is a big one), mission priorities, environment etc.

For example, an F-35 flying a strike mission in a warzone might have an RCS of "xx" but that number doesn't determine its LO. If it's supported with jamming packages, with destruction of static radar sites within the strike corridor, with AWACS (increasing its own situational awareness), all of these things will contribute to ensuring the platform itself isn't detected. In war, platforms don't operate in a vacuum, important point to remember.

 

[Spetsznaz]

Sorry bad choice of words, its just that people often think stealth is a 100% and no radar can spot it

 

[exported_kiwi]

It's not really "stealth" it's signature management, and it's relative to the enemy's ability to detect said bombers and fighters.

And yes to make it clear, the US has a huge advantage.

Agreed, but my question would be, how long can the US afford to maintain it's current lead in this vital area considering its current economic problems. I shudder to think of the possibility that China can develop/steal the current technology as they could viably, and economically, outbuild the US now as China has a centralized economy and they could also, viably improve on current technology given the budget to do so.

 

[trickofthehand]

It's my understanding that it's not just the US, but the entire world that is having serious economic problems. My fiance would be a far better person to argue this department (econ major) but the economy comes in cycles. I haven't seen any signs that point to an imminent collapse of the US or any other world power from this depression, no matter how badly the media might make you believe. The whole world will eventually weather this storm like it has many others.

In fact this might be a positive force, fostering a recovery based on green technologies. The US has finally gotten serious about ending it's dependance on foreign imports of strategic resources. In my opinion, the US's ability to remain a superpower, or any country's ascendance to superpowerdom, in the next 100 years will be largely based on their ability to properly manage their country's natural resources. Lack of fresh water and arable land poses a greater security threat to the US than any country's development of stealth technology.

Regarding China specifically, I think it's desertification problems are far more severe and threatening than the US's current economic downturn.

 

[Bonza]

What always struck me is that when they say that stealth gives an F-22 a radar signature the size of a pea why not just have the computer controlling the radar look for pea sized objects travelling at a few hundred miles an hour?

Sorting a pea sized object out of all the clutter would be extremely difficult I imagine. Remember also that the radar return isn't going to be consistent with an LO platform moving in relation to a static radar. And it's not just a matter of getting sporadic returns, you need to track the object to properly cue a response to it.

Essentially if one party has access to LO technology and the other does not, the "haves" will compress the time and information available to the "have-nots" for response and decision-making by keeping themselves in a position of superior situational awareness. So even if an opponent can detect LO systems, if they have to work that much harder to do so it increases the time and effort that must be sustained in order to respond, thus effectively placing limitations on the response.

 

[Feanor]

It depends on the scale, the tempo of operations, and the density of platforms, or rather ISR nodes, within the IADS. Sufficient densities will mean that even an LO platform can't escape being targetted, and making a corridor might require literally disassembling the IADS in almost the same manner as a non-LO platform. For example of a squadron of F-22s were trying to fly an air raid on Moscow, it could get messy.

The point I'm trying to make is that negating the LO advantage isn't only a matter of technology but also of application, and of the nature of the conflict. There are situations where LO will matter more, and others where it will matter less.

 

[Spetsznaz]

There is no such things as 100% stealth

Lets look at the SR-71 Blackbird, Russia found out about them in just a few months, after producing the MiG-31 the Blackbirds had to leave the building. Stealth can only go so far.

When people here stealth the imagine a force that cannot be stopped and that is not true

 

[Cadredave]

There is no such things as 100% stealth

Lets look at the SR-71 Blackbird, Russia found out about them in just a few months, after producing the MiG-31 the Blackbirds had to leave the building. Stealth can only go so far.

When people here stealth the imagine a force that cannot be stopped and that is not true

Lets have a look at what you are saying

Mig 31 specs

General characteristics

Crew: Two (pilot and weapons system officer)
Length: 22.69 m (74 ft 5 in)
Wingspan: 13.46 m (44 ft 2 in)
Height: 6.15 m (20 ft 2 in)
Wing area: 61.6 m² (663 ft²)
Empty weight: 21,820 kg (48,100 lb)
Loaded weight: 41,000 kg (90,400 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 46,200 kg (101,900 lb)
Powerplant: 2× Soloviev D-30F6 afterburning turbofans
Dry thrust: 93 kN (20,900 lbf) each
Thrust with afterburner: 152 kN (34,172 lbf) each
Performance

Maximum speed:

High altitude: Mach 2.83 (3,000 km/h, 1,860 mph)
Low altitude: Mach 1.2 (1,500 km/h, 930 mph)
Combat radius: 720 km (450 mi) at Mach 2.35
Ferry range: 3,300 km (2,050 mi)
Service ceiling: 20,600 m (67,600 ft)
Rate of climb: 208 m/s (41,000 ft/min)
Wing loading: 665 kg/m² (136 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 0.85
Maximum g-load: 5 g

Armament
1× GSh-6-23 23 mm cannon with 260 rounds.
Fuselage recesses for 4× R-33 (AA-9 'Amos') or (for MiG-31M/BM only) ×6 R-37 (AA-X-13 'Arrow') long-range air-to-air missiles.
Four underwing pylons for a combination of:
two R-40TD1 (AA-6 'Acrid') medium-range missiles, and
4× R-60 (AA-8 'Aphid') or
4× R-73 (AA-11 'Archer') short-range IR missiles, or
4× R-77 (AA-12 'Adder') long-range missiles.
Some aircraft are equipped to launch the Kh-31P (AS-17 'Krypton') and Kh-58 (AS-11 'Kilter') anti-radiation missiles in the suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) role

Given the MiG-31's role as Mach 2.8+ interceptor and the sustained afterburning this requires, its fuel consumption is higher when compared to other aircraft serving in different roles, such as the Su-27. As a result, the aircraft's fuel fraction has been increased to more than 0.40 — 16,350 kg (36,050 lb) of high-density T-6 jet fuel. The outer wing pylons are also plumbed for drop tanks, allowing an extra 5,000 l (1,320 US gal) of external fuel. Late-production aircraft have aerial refueling probes.

Despite the stronger airframe, the Foxhound is limited to a maximum of 5 g at supersonic speeds. At combat weight, its wing loading is marginal and its thrust to weight ratio is favorable. However, it is not designed for close combat or rapid turning.

SR71 Black bird

The first flight of an SR-71 took place on 22 December 1964, at Air Force Plant 42 in Palmdale, California.[40] The first SR-71 to enter service was delivered to the 4200th (later, 9th) Strategic Reconnaissance Wing at Beale Air Force Base, California, in January 1966.[41] The United States Air Force Strategic Air Command had SR-71 Blackbirds in service from 1966 through 1991.

On 21 March 1968, Major (later General) Jerome F. O'Malley and Major Edward D. Payne flew the first operational SR-71 sortie in SR-71 serial number 61-7976 from Kadena AB, Okinawa.[42] During its career, this aircraft (976) accumulated 2,981 flying hours and flew 942 total sorties (more than any other SR-71), including 257 operational missions, from Beale AFB; Palmdale, California; Kadena Air Base, Okinawa, Japan; and RAF Mildenhall, England. The aircraft was flown to the National Museum of the United States Air Force near Dayton, Ohio in March 1990.

From the beginning of the Blackbird's reconnaissance missions over enemy territory (North Vietnam, Laos, etc.) in 1968, the SR-71s averaged approximately one sortie a week for nearly two years. By 1970, the SR-71s were averaging two sorties per week, and by 1972, they were flying nearly one sortie every day.

While deployed in Okinawa, the SR-71s and their aircrew members gained the nickname Habu (as did the A-12s preceding them) after a pit viper indigenous to Japan, which the Okinawans thought the plane resembled.[1]

Operational highlights for the entire Blackbird family (YF-12, A-12, and SR-71) as of about 1990 included:[43]

3,551 Mission Sorties Flown
17,300 Total Sorties Flown
11,008 Mission Flight Hours
53,490 Total Flight Hours
2,752 hours Mach 3 Time (Missions)
11,675 hours Mach 3 Time (Total)

General characteristics

Crew: 2
Payload: 3,500 lb (1,600 kg) of sensors
Length: 107 ft 5 in (32.74 m)
Wingspan: 55 ft 7 in (16.94 m)
Height: 18 ft 6 in (5.64 m)
Wing area: 1,800 ft2 (170 m2)
Empty weight: 67,500 lb (30,600 kg)
Loaded weight: 170,000 lb (77,000 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 172,000 lb (78,000 kg)
Powerplant: 2× Pratt & Whitney J58-1 continuous-bleed afterburning turbojets, 32,500 lbf (145 kN) each
Wheel track: 16 ft 8 in (5.08 m)
Wheel base: 37 ft 10 in (11.53 m)
Aspect ratio: 1.7
Performance

Maximum speed: Mach 3.2+ (2,200+ mph, 3,530+ km/h, 1,900+ knots) at 80,000 ft (24,000 m)
Range: 2,900 nmi (5,400 km)
Ferry range: 3,200 nmi (5,925 km)
Service ceiling: 85,000 ft (25,900 m)
Rate of climb: 11,810 ft/min (60 m/s)
Wing loading: 94 lb/ft² (460 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.382

If you look thru wiki you will see that it was politics & budget worries that forced the retiremnet of the SR71 & not the Mig 31, how many SR71 were ever intercepted by the Mig 31 my guess would be none. As you can see the Blackbird outlived the USSR the Mig 31 is a nice jet but not that useful compared to models such as the Mig 29 or SU 27/35.

 

[Feanor]

The MiG-31 has a very specific role. At that role it's superior to the Flanker or Fulcrum series. At other roles it's largely inferior. And because it's a specialist, it hasn't found a post-Cold War niche.

 

[Spetsznaz]

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.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxdpkRtKG-o"]YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]

 

[Haavarla]

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.

YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.

Using the Mig-31 as an analog to your exsample.. well i've would say that when the U2 was operating over Soviet the CIA and aviation manufactors was claiming the Soviet wouldn't be able to plott it with their ground radar stations, but Soviet did!

Same with the SR-71, the Soviet did manage to plott the SR-71 over their airspace.
So much for the Stealth propaganda..
Wether or not the Mig-31 had a realistic chance to intercept and down the SR-71, i don't think so. The speed & range made it impossible for any G2A batteries or Mig-31 to get any fire solution.
Nevertheless the threath was always looming inside the head the SR-71 pilots.


Thanks