Does Stealth Still Work?
Discussion
A reasonable question I think - the F117 shootdown a few years back was by an SA-2, a decidely vintage missile, and was achieved by the users changing the wavelength of their radar. Unless radar absorbing composites have come a long long way since then I would imagine a clever bit of software in conjunction with the right radar could scan on multiple wavelengths that stealth aircraft might prove vulnerable to and if something looked like a track on one of them highlight it to an operator.
odyssey2200 said:
IIRC the Stealth planes were never completely invisible to radar but greatly reduced the distance at which radar could see them.
This effectively created gaps in enemy's radar defences which the stealth plane could fly through in order to reach it's target
At last! Somebody who understands what stealth technology is and it's uses on the battlefield. Why go head to head with the missles when you can sneak in through the gaps and take out the control side of things?This effectively created gaps in enemy's radar defences which the stealth plane could fly through in order to reach it's target
The other thing that people forget is that stealth is not just about reducing the RCS of an aircraft. Ben Rich wrote that stealth is applied in different ways according to the mission. A submarine is stealthy almost purely in the accoustic and totally in the visual regimes.
In an aircraft you lean further towards radar followed by the infra-red. Another important thing to consider is the aircrafts own radar emmisions. Not alot of point in being invisible to the radar if your own search/track radar can be detected! This is why some aircraft lean more towards their IR system as a primary sensor instead of radar or data link from satellites etc.
It was a bit more simple that that rumour.
The Serbs used a series of batteries of SA-3 Goa missiles (not SA-2 Guideline) to shoot down the Nighthawk. The Americans were either tactically inept or, more likely, arrogant in their belief about the capabilities of stealth in that they had (unbelievably) been using the same ingress track several times over the previous few days and the Serbs became aware of this (presumably from a/c noise and the fact that the stealth signature was momentarily degraded as soon as the bomb doors were cycled). On the night in question they were aware there was an inbound and fired a raft of missiles blind, one of which found its target.
There were rumours that the F117 pilot had left his transponder on Mode 3 but this is unlikely since AWACS would have been aware of this and acted accordingly. Similarly there were rumours that the Serbs were listening to the Allied comms. Again, this is unlikely (despite what the Serbs later claimed) owing to the fact that tactical transmissions were made in (frequency hopping) Secure Mode or via Data Link.
The Serbs used a series of batteries of SA-3 Goa missiles (not SA-2 Guideline) to shoot down the Nighthawk. The Americans were either tactically inept or, more likely, arrogant in their belief about the capabilities of stealth in that they had (unbelievably) been using the same ingress track several times over the previous few days and the Serbs became aware of this (presumably from a/c noise and the fact that the stealth signature was momentarily degraded as soon as the bomb doors were cycled). On the night in question they were aware there was an inbound and fired a raft of missiles blind, one of which found its target.
There were rumours that the F117 pilot had left his transponder on Mode 3 but this is unlikely since AWACS would have been aware of this and acted accordingly. Similarly there were rumours that the Serbs were listening to the Allied comms. Again, this is unlikely (despite what the Serbs later claimed) owing to the fact that tactical transmissions were made in (frequency hopping) Secure Mode or via Data Link.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
The Serbs used a series of batteries of SA-3 Goa missiles (not SA-2 Guideline) to shoot down the Nighthawk. The Americans were either tactically inept or, more likely, arrogant in their belief about the capabilities of stealth in that they had (unbelievably) been using the same ingress track several times over the previous few days and the Serbs became aware of this (presumably from a/c noise and the fact that the stealth signature was momentarily degraded as soon as the bomb doors were cycled). On the night in question they were aware there was an inbound and fired a raft of missiles blind, one of which found its target.
That pretty much matches up with the versions I've heard. I also remember my physics teacher who had been in the RAF claiming to have been involved with an exercise when the fired a dummy missile at one of the stealth aircraft and hit it...he wasn't prone to much B/S but that was as much as he ever told us on detail.AnotherClarkey said:
I was just wondering since things like the F117 and B2b have been around some time now. Are they still as effective as they once seemed to be or have effective countermeasures now been developed?
What is "stealth"** and how do you quantify it? 
- actually a rhetorical question, my apologises, but it's meant to get you thinking how you can spend so much on something that has and never will be proven unless it fails
Edited by Mojocvh on Thursday 22 July 18:28
Yes, stealth still works, but if you have an expensive radar, then it probably doesn't work as well as it used to! Stealthy aircraft only tend to present a very small radar cross section (RCS) when they are flying straight towards a radar. At other aspect angles they can present huge RCS.
For example, a non-stealthy 747 can give an RCS of 10m^2 nose on, but if there is glint from the wings (eg the radar "sees" a good view of the wings) then the RCS can be 1000m^2 or more.
If you put some stealth technology into the 747 then you might get the nose-on RCS down to say 1m^2. You therefore significantly reduce the detectability of the aircraft, meaning a radar will first detect it at a much shorter range - if the aircraft is lucky it has longer range missiles than the radar detection range You aren't ever going to make it "invisible" to all radars.
For example, a non-stealthy 747 can give an RCS of 10m^2 nose on, but if there is glint from the wings (eg the radar "sees" a good view of the wings) then the RCS can be 1000m^2 or more.
If you put some stealth technology into the 747 then you might get the nose-on RCS down to say 1m^2. You therefore significantly reduce the detectability of the aircraft, meaning a radar will first detect it at a much shorter range - if the aircraft is lucky it has longer range missiles than the radar detection range
You aren't ever going to make it "invisible" to all radars. The nose on RCS of a 747 will never be small no matter what you do to the airframe, because the gigantic fans on the engines act as superb radar reflectors. The is why stealth aircraft are designed with the engines buried in the fuselage, so that there is never a clear view of the front of the engine through the intake.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff