|
|
Post by lindel on Sept 7, 2012 4:10:18 GMT 9
Build em nasty enough and fast enough, you don't need stealth.
|
|
finnwolf
F-106 Qualified
Currently: Offline
Posts: 18
Location:
Joined: June 2012
|
Post by finnwolf on Sept 14, 2012 2:26:35 GMT 9
Build em nasty enough and fast enough, you don't need stealth. Stealth is cool. A definite improvement not to be seen by a radar. However, neither the F-22 nor F-35 are totally stealth, they are "stealthy", and even that not from all angles. And they do leave an IR trace. You would not use tactical fighters entering a superpower airspace like with strategic bombers. And the Russians and Chinese both are rumored to have multiple-radar systems, which might lit even the B-2 like a chrismas tree. Most modern wars seem to be waged in third wold countries. And as the talk show host Conan O'Brien sneeringly said when they told that U.S had gained air superioty in Afganistan: "You could do that with a kite". No stealth needed. Pure interceptors like the Six did not need stealth, not even camo paint. This might be faulty thinking. Of course it is good to have a technological advantage, and sure stealh is necessary for something. |
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Sept 14, 2012 11:36:27 GMT 9
After I retired from AF, I had the pleasure of working with Dr Phil Roberts. Dr Robert's was Col Phil before he retired from AF from WPAFB where he was Mr Stealth. His PHD was in Stealth techologies. The one thing he used to drill into us was Stealth was a series of technologies. Yes Radar cross section was one of the most important. But we also have heat signature Stealth, to reduce the IR Signature. We also have sound Stealth, to reduce both the engine noise, but also structural noise/sound. We also have air pattern stealth, the results of airmass moving through air. The variations in air movement on Special Purpose Dopplar RADAR shows path of aircraft. We also have stealth visual reductions. The B-2 when comming at you has a very small visual footprint. And of course we have to have dormant internal Radar/comm etc transmissions so add ECM Stealth.
I am probably forgetting a few other stealth technologies, but you get the picture.
And in teh end if it can't get to thetarget it can't destroy it, so thats why his office was also into AAMRAM or standoff weapons delivery so you don't have to fly real close to target.
He also used to give a talk about if we could destroy the enemies ground based Radar/comm and their missile systems before we arrive, then why would we need stealth aircraft? So he liked the idea of EMP Premission applications. He also said even if Stealth doesn't work, it causes the enemies, whoever they are, to spend a ton of money to defeat the technology just in case it all works. That leaves them with less money to spend on updating their aircraft and technologies as well as missle defenses.
He was a very interesting man to work with.
|
|
|
|
Post by dude on Sept 15, 2012 13:42:57 GMT 9
 Good points. A few years back I sat in on an unclassified presentation that showed the detectable signatures of various USAF planes moving through contested airspace over a geographical area populated by the latest versions of SAMs as the air defense net. To put it in context, a B-52 signature looked like a pie plate, an F-15E looked like a saucer, a B-2 looked like a silver dollar and an F-22 looked like a quarter. It was made very apparent that the F-22 would be multi-role, which is why it has been outfitted to carry the small diameter bomb.
|
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Sept 15, 2012 23:02:25 GMT 9
Dude, Back in about 1967 I was running the Radar on a six at Tyndall. I saw an aircraft that looked about 10-12 miles away. I couldn't see it on Radar. So I called tower. They didn't have it on local Radar either. Then a crew flying in the area came on UHF and told us it was a C-5 about 30 -35 miles out. It had an early nick-name of the Aluminum overcast.
|
|
|
|
Post by dude on Sept 16, 2012 5:06:18 GMT 9
I think just about anything big enough to block out the sun got that nickname at one point or another. C-5 would certainly fit. Are you thinking it might have been a Stealth Test Bed?
|
|
soc
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 106
Location:
Joined: November 2009
|
Post by soc on Sept 16, 2012 14:17:24 GMT 9
And the Russians and Chinese both are rumored to have multiple-radar systems, which might lit even the B-2 like a chrismas tree. F-22 and F-35 yes, B-2, uh, no. The problem is that the Russians have figured out 3D digital VHF-band AESA radar systems, something they've been pouring money into for a few decades. There are at least 50 of the 55Zh6 TALL RACK serving right now that I've marked in Google Earth, with a few hundred sets of the multiple-band Nebo-M being built. The problem with a VHF-band radar is that it basically ignores all of your shorter-band stealthing (shorter band LO is common, as that's what traditional fire-control radars for aircraft and SAM systems employ). Then it comes down to aircraft size, and only the B-2 is large enough for airframe shaping to have an effect. The F-22 and F-35 fall into Rayleigh scattering regimes in VHF bands due to their airframe size, making them trackable. Plus, you can't just slap RAM onto a fighter for VHF bands. The coatings have to be a lot thicker due to the longer wavelength, and that adds weight. Remember, LO technology doesn't make you invisible, it just reduces your detection range. The advantage of a digital 3D VHF-band AESA is that you can track a fighter-sized LO target and feed midcourse updates to a long-range SAM, guiding it to a point where the seeker can acquire the target. And given that most FSU long-range SAMs use an up-and-over semi-ballistic flight profile, they're going to come in looking down on the upper surface of the F-22 or F-35, an aspect angle mitigating a lot of the designed-in LO characteristics of the airframe. The good news is that only Russia and China seem to be focusing a lot of effort into this technology. The bad news is that we keep embarrassing Soviet-era IADS networks like those of Iraq and Libya; at some point, the bad guys are going to open the checkbooks and learn their lessons. Syria has already started to step its game up, importing some advanced Chinese EW radar systems and Russian Buk-M2E tactical SAM systems. |
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Sept 16, 2012 23:46:13 GMT 9
For every atta-boy there are aw-chits. Sure, you can design VHF and even lower freq Radars to detect VLO (Very Low Observable) flying objects. But the downside is size. As freq increases the wavelength shortens and vise versa. So a typical high freq radar would have small, 2- 5 ft antenna and wave guides would be similiar in size to that on our fighters...1"x 2". So go down in freq to the VHF band and your antenna becomes a 10-15' size (or larget). And waveguides to carry the signal also get larger. Some would say, just use coaxial cable like we used on six. But the power required to get effective returns requires a great amount of power. So you can use the VHF system to detect the F-22 at long range and feed the position to SAM sites. But the F-22 also carries radar homing missiles (long range standoff) to home in and destroy the vhf large footprint radar. Higher freq and smaller radar/sam sites are very mobile and can shoot and move to try and counter sam killing missiles Power up, shoot and move tactics. But the bigger, bulkier VHF takes considerable time to deploy.
Having worked the F-4G Simulator systems APX-38, the tactics we used, both to train and counter crews was rapid targer redeployment scenerios. Thats what Intel...J2 told us the bad guys would use.
So in war for every action, there needs to be an equally effective counter action.
We always work the same type of counter VLO studies and design as any other country. The good thing is these are very expensive to design and build. So they shouldn't show up in every theater of ops.
|
|
|
|
Post by Diamondback on Sept 17, 2012 7:21:58 GMT 9
Was there ever a better fighter bomber than the Navy A-6? No, but there was a higher bidder in handing payola to Dick Cheney--that's part of what got us the Stupor Hornet. Ditto the Tomcat. Yes. Start with the Israeli Sufa model, add on the wing off the XL and stuff an F135 up its bum and you should have a fighter with scary capabilities. Ditto if you repowered the F-15SE "Silent Eagle" with F135's and added the canards and other features of the NF-15B Agile Eagle demonstrator... Between super-Eagle, improved Viper, A-10, F-22 and F-35, we really need more of a "balanced force" for Tac Air, each aircraft complementing the others--you wouldn't hit the golf course with only one club, would you? |
|
soc
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 106
Location:
Joined: November 2009
|
Post by soc on Sept 17, 2012 7:45:19 GMT 9
But the downside is size. That's no joke. The 55Zh6 is not even remotely close to being small! The Nebo-M at least improves the concept by deploying the radar arrays on fully mobile chassis. |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Sept 17, 2012 7:50:03 GMT 9
quoting diamondback:
No, but there was a higher bidder in handing payola to Dick Cheney--that's part of what got us the Stupor Hornet. Ditto the Tomcat.Proof or ass umption?  ?? He was a politician, which, in itself should be sufficient to scorn him, whereas your statement has no documentary proof..... The following puts him in the same catagory as Slick Willie: When Cheney became eligible for the draft, during the Vietnam War, he applied for and received five draft deferments.[16][17] In 1989, The Washington Post writer George C. Wilson interviewed Cheney as the next Secretary of Defense; when asked about his deferments, Cheney reportedly said, "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service."[18] Cheney testified during his confirmation hearings in 1989 that he received deferments to finish a college career that lasted six years rather than four, owing to sub-par academic performance and the need to work to pay for his education. Initially, he was not called up because the Selective Service System was only taking older men. When he became eligible for the draft, he applied for four deferments in sequence. He applied for his fifth exemption on January 19, 1966, when his wife was about 10 weeks pregnant. He was granted 3-A status, the "hardship" exemption, which excluded men with children or dependent parents. In January 1967, Cheney turned 26 and was no longer eligible for the draft
|
|
soc
F-106 Skilled
Currently: Offline
Posts: 106
Location:
Joined: November 2009
|
Post by soc on Sept 17, 2012 9:17:17 GMT 9
Some tinkering and measuring: the radar array of the 55Zh6 is almost 100 feet wide. Definitely not small, and based on the configuration it's not designed for rapid mobility. The Nebo-M, however, is.
|
|
?? He was a politician, which, in itself should be sufficient to scorn him, whereas your statement has no documentary proof..... The following puts him in the same catagory as Slick Willie:
