F-16.net

Printed from: F-16.net - The Ultimate F-16 Reference [http://www.f-16.net]
Document title: Anti-Stealth? Propaganda or Threat - F-16.net - The Ultimate F-16 Reference
Original URL: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-10383-view-previous-sid-90dd5db45a64f3d5a10b62d5b9fbbb31.html
Printed on: 12 October 2008

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Anti-Stealth? Propaganda or Threat



Search Search  Register Register  Log in to check your private messages Log in to check your private messages
guidelines Forum Guidelines
Post new topic   Reply to topic   1, 2, 3  Next
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Author Message
iJDAM
PostPosted: Jun 26, 2008 - 11:47 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: Jun 26, 2008
Posts: 13

Status: Offline
I have read up on claimed 'anti-stealth' technologies, and I just want your opinions. Is it really feasible that other nations can develop this technology so easily and cheaply w/o ever having produced a stealth aircraft themselves, or is it propaganda. I read on wikipedia about these techniques, and most of them seem unconventional or impractical, but its Wikipedia, so you never know. Just wondering... Question
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Sponsor
New postPosted: Oct 12, 2008 - 10:23 AM Back to top
F-16.net Sponsor






This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.
   
 
ATFS_Crash
PostPosted: Jun 26, 2008 - 10:33 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Senior member
Senior member


Joined: Dec 14, 2006
Posts: 473

As usual I think there is some truth but it is largely exaggerated as propaganda and for sales promotion.

Stealth merely reduces the ability to detect. Still the aircraft can still be detected, however they often go undetected or are not detected until it is too late. Even if you can detect an aircraft, you can’t necessarily track it well enough to get a lock and shoot it down.

I remember before operation Iraqi freedom, that there were claims that the Iraqis had obtained stealth radar technology and that none of our aircraft or missiles would be able to enter Iraq without early detection and being intercepted. Though the claims were laughable but somewhat alarming, in the end the claims seem to be lies, otherwise the technology was an utter failure.

I think anyone that claims to know the total effectiveness of stealth, countermeasures and detection of all countries is full of malarkey. It’s really hard to tell where the truth and propaganda starts and ends, because often technology and other factors are often unknown until they are tested in combat, even then it is often largely unknown.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
SpudmanWP
PostPosted: Jun 26, 2008 - 10:57 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Active Member
Active Member


Joined: Oct 12, 2006
Posts: 206

Status: Offline
Low band radars have a better chance of detecting, but a worse chance of tracking a VLO target.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Obamanite
PostPosted: Jun 27, 2008 - 12:10 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Senior member
Senior member


Joined: May 26, 2008
Posts: 311

Status: Offline
If you go by the wild claims and suppositions of some posters on this board, stealth was obsolete and irrelevant like, last century...
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
sferrin
PostPosted: Jun 27, 2008 - 12:57 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 1011

Status: Offline
Obamanite wrote:
If you go by the wild claims and suppositions of some posters on this board, stealth was obsolete and irrelevant like, last century...


You need to get up to date. Didn't you know an S-400 can shoot down a mosquito from 200 miles? Wink
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
dwightlooi
PostPosted: Jun 27, 2008 - 01:04 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran


Joined: Aug 01, 2006
Posts: 958

Status: Offline
SpudmanWP wrote:
Low band radars have a better chance of detecting, but a worse chance of tracking a VLO target.


You'll have to go really, really LO. And if you do then your resolution and precision goes to hell... If each dot on the radar screen is more like a box 40km by 40 km wide and objects you find can be tens of km off, you are not shooting anything down. You can at best tell your other assets that there may be something somewhere in a general area and have them go check it out. These assets, be it SAM radars, fighters, AWACs or whatever will still face the same problems traditional platforms face when they try to find and engage VLO targets. They can't really find the target until they themselves get shot at first or the target bugs out.

Radars like that used on the S400 batteries for instance are not really "low band". Like anything operating in the L-band, C-band, S-band, X-band or Ku bands, they suck big time with detecting VLO threats. OTH radars like the HF anf VHF units are a different story, but these have the problem described above.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
iJDAM
PostPosted: Jun 27, 2008 - 02:19 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: Jun 26, 2008
Posts: 13

Status: Offline
sferrin wrote:
Obamanite wrote:
If you go by the wild claims and suppositions of some posters on this board, stealth was obsolete and irrelevant like, last century...


You need to get up to date. Didn't you know an S-400 can shoot down a mosquito from 200 miles? Wink


I thought it can tell if a mosquito has west nile from 200 miles? Laughing Wink
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
geogen
PostPosted: Jun 27, 2008 - 06:09 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Senior member
Senior member


Joined: Mar 11, 2008
Posts: 432

Status: Offline
By definition, any program that is being produced, marketed and deployed to counter a hypothetical VLO aircraft, will be designated 'Anti-stealth'.

It's more designation, than anything. And of course, one has to compete with all the VLO hysteria today accordingly. Hence, such terms are a natural reaction.

_________________
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
sferrin
PostPosted: Jun 27, 2008 - 11:57 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 1011

Status: Offline
geogen wrote:
By definition, any program that is being produced, marketed and deployed to counter a hypothetical VLO aircraft, will be designated 'Anti-stealth'.

It's more designation, than anything. And of course, one has to compete with all the VLO hysteria today accordingly. Hence, such terms are a natural reaction.


Except that VLO is proven.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
LowObservable
PostPosted: Jun 27, 2008 - 01:30 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Active Member
Active Member


Joined: Jan 11, 2007
Posts: 134

Status: Offline
In 1978, when Have Blue was being tested, I got the chance to play with an early word processor. It had crude editing functions and was the size of a piano.

Nobody out there is saying that the F-22 or F-35 have better signatures than Have Blue. More robust, yes; better performance in other ways, yes; but no huge differences in dB.

So, given what's happened in technology, and that radar/other detection engineers have had 30 years to think things over, only a complete idiot would assume that the detection gap has not been closed somewhat since then.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
sferrin
PostPosted: Jun 27, 2008 - 03:48 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 1011

Status: Offline
LowObservable wrote:
In 1978, when Have Blue was being tested, I got the chance to play with an early word processor. It had crude editing functions and was the size of a piano.

Nobody out there is saying that the F-22 or F-35 have better signatures than Have Blue. More robust, yes; better performance in other ways, yes; but no huge differences in dB.

So, given what's happened in technology, and that radar/other detection engineers have had 30 years to think things over, only a complete idiot would assume that the detection gap has not been closed somewhat since then.


I don't think anybody is claiming it hasn't, just that stealth isn't ancient history / worthless as some would have you believe. To hear some tell it the F-22 and F-35 should be cancelled and the B-2 immediately scraped because stealth is now obsolete.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
asiatrails
PostPosted: Jun 27, 2008 - 04:22 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran


Joined: Aug 30, 2005
Posts: 707

Status: Offline
sferrin wrote:
Obamanite wrote:
If you go by the wild claims and suppositions of some posters on this board, stealth was obsolete and irrelevant like, last century...


You need to get up to date. Didn't you know an S-400 can shoot down a mosquito from 200 miles? Wink



Even better it can tell male from female. Guiness
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
LowObservable
PostPosted: Jun 27, 2008 - 04:24 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Active Member
Active Member


Joined: Jan 11, 2007
Posts: 134

Status: Offline
I don't think that LO technology has been defeated or negated completely. Is it as good as it was in 1980? No. Where are the weaknesses? Not sure, but I think the best counter-stealth approach would involve networking and low frequencies, and that (in that case) the F-22 and F-35 would be more vulnerable than an all-wing aircraft.
Interestingly, though, while signatures have changed relatively little since 1980 - the work has gone into making stealth aircraft perform better and to reduce maintenance - classic EW has improved a lot, in terms of both performance and reliability.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
LMAggie
PostPosted: Jun 27, 2008 - 04:27 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Senior member
Senior member


Joined: Aug 12, 2007
Posts: 287

Status: Offline
asiatrails wrote:
sferrin wrote:
Obamanite wrote:
If you go by the wild claims and suppositions of some posters on this board, stealth was obsolete and irrelevant like, last century...


You need to get up to date. Didn't you know an S-400 can shoot down a mosquito from 200 miles? Wink



Even better it can tell male from female. Guiness


Next time I'm on Bourbon St. in New Orleans, I'm bringing one of those... Shocked

_________________
“Its not the critic who counts..The credit belongs to the man who does actually strive to do the deeds..”
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
sferrin
PostPosted: Jun 27, 2008 - 04:37 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 1011

Status: Offline
LowObservable wrote:
I don't think that LO technology has been defeated or negated completely. Is it as good as it was in 1980? No. Where are the weaknesses? Not sure, but I think the best counter-stealth approach would involve networking and low frequencies, and that (in that case) the F-22 and F-35 would be more vulnerable than an all-wing aircraft.


And for a strike aircraft I'd totally agree. But an all-wing design isn't likely to do too well in an air-to-air scenario so you still need the more traditional types of airframes around I'd think. An X-47B / F-35 combination (or better yet an X-47B / F-22 comb.) gives you the best of both worlds. You might not want to try to tackle the newer S-300/400 series with an F-35 but you could probably do it with something like an X-47B and use the F-35 for air defense (where longwave detectability is less of an issue) and the 2nd day of the war after those longwave radars have been taken out. Or use VLO standoff weapons on the F-35. Not talking JASSM class (you don't need a stealth aircraft to deliver those) but more like a stealthy SDB or ARM.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:     
Jump to:  
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Copyright © 2008 Lieven Dewitte and Stefaan Vanhastel