How long until current 'stealth' techniques are compromised?

Hi, I've been browsing the newsgroup archives for the last month and haven't
found a clear answer to this question. I find alot of the subject topics
here tend to go off on to talks about politics.

It seems alot of importance is put into stealth for aircraft these days,
just wondering who is working on a countering radar system for it?

And if these newer aircraft with their current 'stealth' ability become
compromised, I assume importance would go to who sees who first and how good
long range missile technology has become? If that happens, then which recent
aircraft has the advantage?

And what about companies such as MiG who have been rumoured to be working on
a non-standard stealth system? I don't know any details, but I am wondering
if it designed to reflect radar away from the listener or if it absorbs the
radar itself?

Thankyou for your time.

muskau

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 12:36:38 +1000, "muskau"
wrote:

Hi, I've been browsing the newsgroup archives for the last month and haven't
found a clear answer to this question. I find alot of the subject topics
here tend to go off on to talks about politics.

It seems alot of importance is put into stealth for aircraft these days,
just wondering who is working on a countering radar system for it?

Roke Manor is looking at a system called Celldar, its probally best
if you read their website.

see:- http://www.roke.co.uk/sensors/stealth/celldar.asp

Cheers

And if these newer aircraft with their current 'stealth' ability become
compromised, I assume importance would go to who sees who first and how good
long range missile technology has become? If that happens, then which recent
aircraft has the advantage?

And what about companies such as MiG who have been rumoured to be working on
a non-standard stealth system? I don't know any details, but I am wondering
if it designed to reflect radar away from the listener or if it absorbs the
radar itself?

Thankyou for your time.

muskau



John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

muskau wrote:

: It seems alot of importance is put into stealth for aircraft these days,
: just wondering who is working on a countering radar system for it?

To give a direct answer to the question, stealth is always
compromised... Because designers have to find a compromise
between stealth and aerodynamics, engines, armament, cost,
etc. Stealth is not absolute; designers aim for a small
radar cross-section but they can't reduce it to zero.

For the same reason, "everyone" is working on a countering
radar. A better radar will also by definition more effective
against stealth aircraft. The systems that are marketed as
"anti-stealth" radars are bipolar or multipolar radars that
separate the receive from the transmitter; not a bad idea,
because stealth is designed to reflect radiation away from the
transmitter, but not a very effective solution, because
designers aim to reflect radition in only a few narrow
directions. AFAIK none is capable of more than giving
a general indication that a stealth aircraft is in the area.

The debate is now on where the balance should be. The USAF
appear the believe that it should be heavily towards stealth,
and is willing to accept the penalties for that -- internal
weapons carriage, for example. Outside the USA there is less
emphasis on stealth and more on the 'conventional' combat
aircraft characteristics, in part for cost reasons, in part
because operators believe that stealth will be difficult to
retain 'in the field'. Personally I do think that stealth
has become more fashionable than its tactical importance
will justify. Compare it to the importance attached to
Mach 2+ performance in the 1960s.

: And if these newer aircraft with their current 'stealth' ability become
: compromised, I assume importance would go to who sees who first and how good
: long range missile technology has become? If that happens, then which recent
: aircraft has the advantage?

It hardly depends on the individual aircraft, it depends on
the 'information' environment. In that sense air combat has
not changed since 1940, when radar gave the RAF a vital
advantage. The 'stealth' designs may still have an advantage
in the sense that their designers build them to rely less on
their own radars (which would give their position away) and
provide them with the hard- and software to collect data
from other sources. But less stealthy designs will have those
as well.

--
Emmanuel Gustin

"muskau" wrote in message . au...

And what about companies such as MiG who have been rumoured to be working on
a non-standard stealth system? I don't know any details, but I am wondering
if it designed to reflect radar away from the listener or if it absorbs the
radar itself?

Sounds like "plasma stealth". I don't believe that's been
demonstrated in any shape or fashion past theory level.

Stealth design is part of the overall package. By its lonesome, a
stealthy airframe can be useful just from the reduced signature, sure,
but it's a one-trick pony just flying along, and that one trick is
self-compromising when releasing weapons since a weapon bay door has
to pop open long enough to release. But combine the stealthy airframe
with tactics and operations that take advantage of the reduced
signature at the same time as using various factors against the
adversary, and you've got a force multiplier that will work under a
much wider range of circumstances. The notion of a lone pair of
F-117s coming over the horizon to put iron on a bunker is simplistic.
The reality is much, much more involved.

It seems alot of importance is put into stealth for aircraft these days,
just wondering who is working on a countering radar system for it?


I guess nobody working on it now as many developed countries for example US,UK
and Germany have already very capable counter LO multi-statics available.
(West) Germany was the first nation that started with the development of
counter LO systems in post WWII,in 70s german magazine "Stern" published a
small article about (German) government pork and among many others called a
project sponsored by German ministry of Research&Technology a gov't pork as the
energy efficiency of this form of radar was much lower than conventional
radars.
Of course the "stern"authors did know anything about about stealth platforms
when they published this article and critized this radar development as a n
unneccesary development..
More than 30 years after they developed first dedicated counter LO
radar,Germans still have the most capable counter LO system as newest
generation of German counter LO system is capable of extracting target data
from polarisation data.
US and UK systems are also very capable,US system is even capable to produce an
image of target for ATR purposes but their computing power requirements are
much higher than German system and also they could be more easily jammed.

And what about companies such as MiG who have been rumoured to be working on
a non-standard stealth system? I don't know any details, but I am wondering
if it designed to reflect radar away from the listener or if it absorbs the
radar itself?

In the era of HPM weapons,trying to absorb incoming electromagnetic energy
would be suicidal,you must try to reject as much electromagnetic energy as
possible,if you only could of course!.

(Denyav) wrote in message ...
It seems alot of importance is put into stealth for aircraft these days,
just wondering who is working on a countering radar system for it?

Germany has its own version of the '90s Czech anti-stealth radar
(which they purchased)as well as EADs developing an anti-stealth
missile that uses multiple seekers to hunt stealth aircraft. One of
the seekers is a plume detector which goes back to WW2 and the
Feuerball weapon (aka Foo Fighter).
Europe has a range of cellular radars and France even has an
Ionospherical radar.
Of course, aircraft like the F-117 aren't really invisible. They can
be detected visually, acoustically, with various LO radars, and as
soon as the bomb bay doors are open.
In the first Gulf War one F-117 was targeted and narrowly avoided
being hit by 2 SAMs while one was actually downed in the Kosovo
conflict. I'm sure we would lose a few more if we ever overflew China
or the FSU with them. The strange thing is that our "friends" are
putting more money into anti-stealth than our "enemies"...

Rob

Keep in mind that radar transmitters can be detected much farther out
than they themselves can detect a target. Iraqis found that out.
Walt BJ

John Cook wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 12:36:38 +1000, "muskau"
wrote:

Hi, I've been browsing the newsgroup archives for the last month and haven't
found a clear answer to this question. I find alot of the subject topics
here tend to go off on to talks about politics.

It seems alot of importance is put into stealth for aircraft these days,
just wondering who is working on a countering radar system for it?

Roke Manor is looking at a system called Celldar, its probally best
if you read their website.

see:- http://www.roke.co.uk/sensors/stealth/celldar.asp



I doubt the effectiveness of the Celldar system in the future as
Cell phone energies are getting smaller and smaller as designers try
to increase battery life. Already, digital cell phones using CDMA
technology transmit with energies less than the noise level of the RF
spectrum. This means that any given cell phone is useless for
detection. As the number of cell towers increase, they will also
probably drop in power to avoid any backlash from the EM radiation
they put out. This means with time, Celldar will probably lose
effectiveness.

In article ,
(robert arndt) wrote:

The strange thing is that our "friends" are
putting more money into anti-stealth than our "enemies"...

You might note that most of Europe still worries about Russia, which has
worked on stealth aircraft in the past.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
In article ,
(robert arndt) wrote:

The strange thing is that our "friends" are
putting more money into anti-stealth than our "enemies"...

You might note that most of Europe still worries about Russia, which has
worked on stealth aircraft in the past.


LOL!

Sure....That must be it....

The [often duplicitous] Europeans are pouring significant amounts of money
into anti-stealth radar and weapon systems to counter a hopelessly bankrupt
Russia which cannot even afford fuel for it's current aircraft; and even at
the height of it's power didn't come close to fielding a stealth aircraft.
Not to mention the fact that Russia has sided with 'Old Europe' far more
often than not lately, and that these Europeans have taken seemingly every
step possible to attempt to thwart any American geopolitical and military
advancement in the last three years. But I'm sure these systems are to
counter all the imaginary Russian stealth aircraft that will never be built.

Think about it... what is the REAL market for anti-stealth systems? Third
world dictatorships and despots who would like to carry an ace in the hole
against the American forces, and are willing to pay highly to get it (but
cannot develop it on their own). Period.

Not that the Europeans will freely sell these systems on the open market
right away (well, maybe the French), but the mere existance of a proven,
effective anti-stealth system will be an extremely powerful political tool
for the European powers to carry when trying to 'reign in' the USA (and
believe me, that is their only, ultimate, objective). Simply the threat of
providing (or maybe 'leaking') this system to a foreign unfriendly power
may, theoretically, give the US military pause in considering an action, and
give the EU a bigger say in matters the USA chooses to take up (as their
current say is somewhere around zero right now).

Frankly, it has become obvious that while Europe may not (yet) be an all-out
enemy, they are certainly an often hostile adversary, and definiately not an
ally.