video on tracking stealth planes

[The_Eric]

Seems like an interesting concept and could be pretty effective for "small groups" if applied on a local level to things like drones and the like, or nations if implemented on larger scale. What would be some limitations or conversely what would be the next counter to something like that? - would like thoughts from those more knowledgeable than me

 

[Astro14]

So, in the daytime, at short range, with no clouds, you can see a stealth fighter.

No surprise.

But it doesn’t work through clouds, at long range, or at night.

There is a very big difference between seeing a target and killing the target.

Tracking a stealth fighter at short range in the daytime. Big deal. Plane spotters do it all the time in Scotland.

It’s very different than being able to “kill“ it, or, as Elon says, “take it down”. If you are tracking it optically, what are you using to guide the weapon that takes it down?

Look, this fails to demonstrate anything beyond a stunt, much less something tactically relevant or significant.

The obvious counter?

Fly at night

 

[The_Eric]

If they have multiple eyes on it, can't they use that for guidance? If you have a running, traceable track, would that be sufficient for weapon guidance?

As for nighttime, aren't things still visible? Be it with "night vision" or using different wavelengths? Obviously barriers (clouds) would put a stop to that as far as pure visibility is concerned.

 

[Astro14]

Without getting too heavy into the details, actual, terminal, guidance of a weapon towards a moving target, like an airplane, requires great precision.

Optical guidance works, but, the weapon has to be able to guide optically.

To guide it remotely, based on sensor track data, is a losing proposition.

So, it’s not enough to see the target, you have to be able to guide on it. It’s a very different thing.

Yes, aircraft have different signatures across different spectra.

One of the problems however, with different wavelengths is just that, the wavelength. With the same size lens, the same size sensor, you go deep into infrared (longer wavelength) and your resolution falls off considerably. It’s basic physics.

While the math is the same as tracking a potential asteroid, using telescopes, and the background, angular displacement, and everything else, you have months to figure out the asteroid is there, but only seconds to determine the airplane is there before you lose the shot.

 

[The_Eric]

Gotcha, thanks for your thoughts

 

[ripcord]

Russia and China have low frequency rader with huge static arrays that may be able to detect some stealth aircraft from a distance, but these types of systems are far from precise enough to be tactically useful in targeting and destroying them. They'd also only be operational for a New York second in a kinetic scenario.

 

[y_p_w]

If they have multiple eyes on it, can't they use that for guidance? If you have a running, traceable track, would that be sufficient for weapon guidance?

As for nighttime, aren't things still visible? Be it with "night vision" or using different wavelengths? Obviously barriers (clouds) would put a stop to that as far as pure visibility is concerned.

Use infrared. Everything looks like an object under infrared. But we've already got infrared tracking systems (infrared search and track) and infrared guidance systems that "see" objects in infrared rather than older style infrared tracking that's looking to lock onto a single hot object like aircraft exhaust.

Imaging systems recognizing objects is not all that trailblazing. You can see that at work with a code scanner on a mobile phone, which can identify a QR code a 2D barcode, or any number of different objects. Faces can be recognized, so the shape of an aircraft can also be recognized.

An AIM-9X shot down a balloon. And there's probably more contrast in IR with a plane traveling at high speeds and creating heat.

 

[Greenbeforeblue]

Everybody has a plan.....until they get punched in the face. The US military is the absolute most deadly thing that has ever walked this earth. Ever. With or without YouTube.

 

[PandaBear]

I'm sure if you want to track something using an array of cell towers sending and receiving reflection of waves, you will eventually be able to "see" things. Maybe today you can use waves bouncing off or not bouncing off Starlink's many satellite signals in the dark even.

However also don't forget that relying only on passive signal reflections can cause you problem if the target try to jam you with active signals that skew your reading, by faking doppler and all sorts of other signals. I would imagine someone would have definitely looked into it if not already trying to prototype or implement it in secret.

 

[y_p_w]

I'm sure if you want to track something using an array of cell towers sending and receiving reflection of waves, you will eventually be able to "see" things. Maybe today you can use waves bouncing off or not bouncing off Starlink's many satellite signals in the dark even.

However also don't forget that relying only on passive signal reflections can cause you problem if the target try to jam you with active signals that skew your reading, by faking doppler and all sorts of other signals. I would imagine someone would have definitely looked into it if not already trying to prototype or implement it in secret.

It's rather hard to jam infrared. A lot of people think it's as simple as movies where flares fool infrared guided missiles. But that's not what the latest missiles see, which is an image in infrared, like someone looking through night vision or how some insects see at night. Or heat vision.

I have heard of dazzlers that put out a lot of random infrared in order to try and overwhelm a guidance system, but that has limits. I equate it to someone looking at a car while someone in the car is shooting off Roman candles. At least human eyes can still home in on the license plate when someone is firing off bright objects to the side. Or it could be tuned to a different wavelength than what the dazzler is putting out, or perhaps tuned to multiple wavelengths where effectively blocking one wavelength doesn't affect other wavelengths.

 

[97prizm]

Seems like an interesting concept and could be pretty effective for "small groups" if applied on a local level to things like drones and the like, or nations if implemented on larger scale. What would be some limitations or conversely what would be the next counter to something like that? - would like thoughts from those more knowledgeable than me

TWZ, sandboxx, and the aviationist all have good articles related to stealth. It's a cat and mouse game. Yes really low frequency radar bands may at times pick up stealth aircraft but are not accurate and can't usually home in. The reason that the F-117A was shot down was two reasons. A) the EA-6B Prowler jamming aircraft didn't go with that due to bad weather. B) Later on The F-117A group had noted that they were leaving Italy at 3pm local time on the dot for their missions. It doesn't take nuclear physicist to figure out that if you plan the same route and time weekly that's not going to surprise the enemy. Third Zoltan whats his name who shot down the F-117A was able to tear down and move a SAM missile site in 90 minutes which is unprecedented. They were tasked with 3 pulses then were supposed to tear down and move. The pilot of the F-117A just dropped two bombs and when the doors opened up the jet is no longer stealthy. An interesting side note is if anyone reads Ben Rich's book Dark Eagles when the F-117A was first flown it was truly invisible. A couple of instances they flew directly over radar equipment and the operators said "Go ahead and fly over" Ben Rich told them they have twice. When it was put on the RCS pole the pole had an rcs several times larger than the F-117A.

 

[97prizm]

Seems like an interesting concept and could be pretty effective for "small groups" if applied on a local level to things like drones and the like, or nations if implemented on larger scale. What would be some limitations or conversely what would be the next counter to something like that? - would like thoughts from those more knowledgeable than me

If you know the low frequencies in theory you could apply the same frequency like noise cancelling headphones from what I've read to nullify radar return. My guess is that engineers are looking for additional/ different materials that encompass all radar bands. The F-117A was "retired" in 2008 and it was said 2-4 airframes per year would be disposed of but only two have that I'm aware of. A private air group is still testing with a 43-year-old airframe. The War Zone or twz has some great articles on this.

 

[97prizm]

Everybody has a plan.....until they get punched in the face. The US military is the absolute most deadly thing that has ever walked this earth. Ever. With or without YouTube.

I still can't believe a Russian mathematician essentially created the formula for Stealth yet the book was shelved for years and nobody in the Russian military gave it much thought. The Dennys Overholser and a couple others stumbled on it, and it was a diamond mine sitting in the open.

 

[ripcord]

I still can't believe a Russian mathematician essentially created the formula for Stealth yet the book was shelved for years and nobody in the Russian military gave it much thought. The Dennys Overholser and a couple others stumbled on it, and it was a diamond mine sitting in the open.

It just goes to show that more often than not, it's not just what you know but who you know. If that Russian guy had a chance to promote his work to the right person, it could be a different world.

 

[y_p_w]

TWZ, sandboxx, and the aviationist all have good articles related to stealth. It's a cat and mouse game. Yes really low frequency radar bands may at times pick up stealth aircraft but are not accurate and can't usually home in. The reason that the F-117A was shot down was two reasons. A) the EA-6B Prowler jamming aircraft didn't go with that due to bad weather. B) Later on The F-117A group had noted that they were leaving Italy at 3pm local time on the dot for their missions. It doesn't take nuclear physicist to figure out that if you plan the same route and time weekly that's not going to surprise the enemy. Third Zoltan whats his name who shot down the F-117A was able to tear down and move a SAM missile site in 90 minutes which is unprecedented. They were tasked with 3 pulses then were supposed to tear down and move. The pilot of the F-117A just dropped two bombs and when the doors opened up the jet is no longer stealthy. An interesting side note is if anyone reads Ben Rich's book Dark Eagles when the F-117A was first flown it was truly invisible. A couple of instances they flew directly over radar equipment and the operators said "Go ahead and fly over" Ben Rich told them they have twice. When it was put on the RCS pole the pole had an rcs several times larger than the F-117A.

The question isn't necessarily whether or not an aircraft can be detected. It makes a lot of noise and produces a lot of heat. But the question about radar is whether or not that's going to be good enough to get a weapons system to home in on it.

My understanding about the F-117 shot down in the Balkans was a lot of that stuff you mentioned. I heard the bomb bay doors opening was long enough to get a good position on it even if they closed quickly after releasing the bombs. From what I've heard, they didn't actually get a good radar lock on it. But at that point it was a math exercise where they aimed the missiles to a 3D position where they anticipated the F-117 might be at a specific time. Once one of the missiles got close enough, the proximity fuze still worked.

 

[97prizm]

It just goes to show that more often than not, it's not just what you know but who you know. If that Russian guy had a chance to promote his work to the right person, it could be a different world.

I think like Frank Whittle the Russian collective didn't see it as interesting or feasible. Boeing actually designed an early stealth aircraft project for the US Army called quiet bird (check it out) very few pictures or info exists. This was a decade before the have blue project. The Army wanted an aircraft that could loiter over a battlefield (So the A-10)? The British government actually looked at Frank Whittles jet engine and said no way. The Germans took it and ran. Sure metallurgy has come along way. The turbine engines on the ME262 were good for what 100 hours between rebuilds if that. Sometimes people aren't convinced.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Everybody has a plan.....until they get punched in the face. The US military is the absolute most deadly thing that has ever walked this earth. Ever. With or without YouTube.

The Chinese have satellites which can detect the magnetic "signature" generated by submerged submarines.

 

[97prizm]

The question isn't necessarily whether or not an aircraft can be detected. It makes a lot of noise and produces a lot of heat. But the question about radar is whether or not that's going to be good enough to get a weapons system to home in on it.

My understanding about the F-117 shot down in the Balkans was a lot of that stuff you mentioned. I heard the bomb bay doors opening was long enough to get a good position on it even if they closed quickly after releasing the bombs. From what I've heard, they didn't actually get a good radar lock on it. But at that point it was a math exercise where they aimed the missiles to a 3D position where they anticipated the F-117 might be at a specific time. Once one of the missiles got close enough, the proximity fuze still worked.

The first missile was so close it shook the aircraft. The second hit. It wasn't until a few years ago that information surfaced that a second F-117A was hit but returned to base.
Second black jet hit
Apparently it was a fluke as they were preparing to pack up the sam missile site and made one more radar pulse. Keep in mind from reading the F-117A is (I'd have to dig) .3 sqm rcs so 1 sq ft. The F-22 is supposed to be.025 I think.and the F-35 even smaller. I've read as small as a bumblebee which would make it blend into background noise.

 

[Albin]

TWZ, sandboxx, and the aviationist all have good articles related to stealth. It's a cat and mouse game. Yes really low frequency radar bands may at times pick up stealth aircraft but are not accurate and can't usually home in. The reason that the F-117A was shot down was two reasons. A) the EA-6B Prowler jamming aircraft didn't go with that due to bad weather. B) Later on The F-117A group had noted that they were leaving Italy at 3pm local time on the dot for their missions. It doesn't take nuclear physicist to figure out that if you plan the same route and time weekly that's not going to surprise the enemy. Third Zoltan whats his name who shot down the F-117A was able to tear down and move a SAM missile site in 90 minutes which is unprecedented. They were tasked with 3 pulses then were supposed to tear down and move. The pilot of the F-117A just dropped two bombs and when the doors opened up the jet is no longer stealthy. An interesting side note is if anyone reads Ben Rich's book Dark Eagles when the F-117A was first flown it was truly invisible. A couple of instances they flew directly over radar equipment and the operators said "Go ahead and fly over" Ben Rich told them they have twice. When it was put on the RCS pole the pole had an rcs several times larger than the F-117A.

Yep. During the Have Blue program (dev program for the F-117 prototypes), Lockheed had to redesign their RCS pole at their Antelope Valley RCS range and the USAF had to redesign their pole at their RCS range NW of Area-51.

 

[PandaBear]

It just goes to show that more often than not, it's not just what you know but who you know. If that Russian guy had a chance to promote his work to the right person, it could be a different world.

I personally think that a lot of the working theory were not practical until computer becomes affordable and small in size. Many of today's technology had been discovered but finally implemented when chips are cheaper than the value of problems they try to solve.