Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

http://www.baesystems.com/Businesses/La ... /index.htm

How would this new active IR stealth system effect a jet's ability to kill a ground vehicle equipped with it? The video doesn't show the full capabilities of the tech, but I doubt it will be as effective enough to stop cluster munitions from ripping battalions of tanks apart day or night after being found through AESA radar and the EOTS. Thoughts?

F-16.net Sponsor

don't know about aesa, but at night a pod would have serious trouble finding the little bastards if it works. I wonder what the power source is? can it continuosly run? etc...

firstimpulse wrote:

http://www.baesystems.com/Businesses/LandArmaments/Divisions/GlobalCombatSystems/Vehicles/ProductsPlatforms/Adaptiv/Adaptiv_video/index.htm

How would this new active IR stealth system effect a jet's ability to kill a ground vehicle equipped with it? The video doesn't show the full capabilities of the tech, but I doubt it will be as effective enough to stop cluster munitions from ripping battalions of tanks apart day or night after being found through AESA radar and the EOTS. Thoughts?

I have little reason to believe that SAR mode of the APG-81 wouldn't be able to successfully detect a ground vehicle like this. JAGM can then have its inertial autopilot programmed with the range and bearing data and then missiles away.

MMW/SAR would eat that for lunch.

Still interesting tech though.

There is also the issue of what are you hiding from and where does the waste heat go. Those refrigerated tiles have to dump the heat somewhere and while they looked fine at hiding from a ground spotter (while standing still), how would it look from above (or while moving)?

SpudmanWP wrote:

MMW/SAR would eat that for lunch.

Still interesting tech though.

Yes very interesting.
The video had a poor joke where they showed those plates covering a helo.
They looked to be about 1.5 inches thick each and probably had some heft to them. Add the control and power systems and good luck getting that thing off the ground (find a solid bunker with thick viewing panel to watch!).

The shipborn system looked like a more likely match provided those little panels loved the taste of the open sea.

Note that the "invisible" vehicle is not moving. If it moved the panels would have to adapt as it passed rocks, trees, puddles etc.

Instead of writing this technology off, as many people here seem to be doing "It has to adapt to the background" or "power demand is too high" or "SAR can deal with this" I view the adaptiv technology as the next wave in the detection / counter detection game. IR has been increasing in power and capability over the past 10 years and it is inevitable that a company will try to develop technology to reduce a vehicle's IR signature.

I think that this technology will adversely impact any IR carrying sensor system and if widely used could reset the sensor / target game. Having an effective way of reducing IR signature is a great way of undoing much sensor investment.

First, even if the adaptiv technology is less than perfect, which is inevitable, its mere existence will reduce the effective range of IR systems. Partial obscuring of the target's IR signature will force the sensor to move in closer to the target to get a clear lock.

Second, if the sensor is forced to resort to using SAR, the sensor has ceded one of the biggest advantages of IR, passive detection. SAR use will reveal the presence of the sensor system, thus hindering the sensor from launching a surprise attack. Yes, you can develop LPI SAR systems, but then the enemy will develop systems to detect LPI radar emissions. Adaptiv forces the attacker to either use a more 'visible' sensor system or accept reduces capability.

Finally, combining adaptiv and IR smoke gives the defender a powerful tool against IR missiles. Here, the adaptive can be turned off initially. When the tank detects a missile shot, the tank can fire off IR smoke, turn on the adaptiv system, and have a much better chance of evading the missile.

This sort of technology is inevitable, and it will reduce the F-35's effectiveness. But at the same time, it will reduce everyone's effectiveness. There's nothing special about the F-35 in this regard.

How well does it work if it gets dirty? You know like the real world.

Good replies! Thanks!
I did a bit more digging and found this:
http://defensetech.org/2011/09/06/bae-d ... ng-device/

In a nutshell:
"Current work focuses mainly on the infra-red spectrum, as this is most important to the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV), which funds part of the work. However, BAE Systems engineers have combined the pixels with other technologies, which provide camouflage in other parts of the electro-magnetic spectrum at the same time to provide all-round stealth, which will be developed further over the next few years.
Project manager, Peder Sjölund explains: “Earlier attempts at similar cloaking devices have hit problems because of cost, excessive power requirements or because they were insufficiently robust. Our panels can be made so strong that they provide useful armour protection and consume relatively low levels of electricity, especially when the vehicle is at rest in ‘stealth recce’ mode and generator output is low.”

So, it seems they're also going for EM stealth as well, and perhaps an "active camo"-type stealth system later on to throw off visual identification.

Now THAT is interesting indeed. They might even be able to spoof mmW seekers if this technology is good enough. Let's just hope it can camouflage well enough when the seeker is activated at the relatively close ranges it's designed to activated at.

Forum: F-35 versus XYZ

F-35 vs Adaptiv