The end of stealth aircraft era?

Skybird · 09-14-12, 10:26 AM

If this is real, then yes.

http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/t...-a-855711.html

This video was recorded at the ILA in Berlin this year. It shows radar tracking of a Zeppelin via passive radar - no active radar beams, only radio transmissions from civilian infratructure around.

The article claims the demonstration of socalled passive radar shows that it has reached a technical developement state that now it is able to track stealth aircraft without even sending own radar beams.

Passive radar uses the reflections of radio waves and comparable electromagnetic emissions and thus does not give its presence and activity away to the enemy. Since these signals come from a myriad of different directions and just any source and origin, the special geometry of stealth aircraft does not offer protection anymore.

The Cassidian system is expected to be ready for production in 2015. Demonstration and evaluation systems already have been delivered to the Bundeswehr. The equipment, depending heavily on latest algorithms and super brute force calculation power, has just recently become affordable for mass production and is not more than what can be packed onto a pickup van or a small transporter.

The article also refers to an essay by a marine corps Ltn-Col, Arend Westra, written in 2009. He wanred that the progress made in passoive radars threatens to erode Americxa'S superiority in stealth tchnology, and that one should not rely to conduct military operaiton in the fguture under cover of stealöth-basded air siperiroity. He recommended back then that instead of pumping giant ammounts of money into new stealth platforms, the focus should shift towards research to understand passive radar better, becasue the next egneratiuon of Russian and Chinese stealth aircraft easily could be of American standards of today and then it would be good to have a passiove radar system oneself. For offensive operations, his advise was: "Let's prepare to conduct ground combat operations without cover provided by air superiority."

In the light of all this, the already hilariously expensive stealth fighters like F-22 and F-35, appear to be even more a giant waste of money.

Kloef · 09-14-12, 10:47 AM

Stealth was doomed from the beginning, it's much easier to build better detection systems than design a new aircraft with the latest stealth technology, when the aircraft is finished 15 years after it was designed it's not up to the latest anti-air technology.

What boggles the mind is that the designers never recogized that, maybe they were afraid to lose their job.

In war quantity beats quality, build alot of bombers and fighters so your enemy has too much targets to shoot at, a proven concept.

To design something stealthy is not a bad choice, the more stealth the harder it is to track you or for a missile to track you, but you should not concede too much so you end up with a flying platform that is incapable of even entering a dogfight, like the JSF.

At least the Russians get it, a little stealth, a good airframe at half the costs of what anybody else builds ( T-50), and a backbone of good aircraft like the SU-35, quantity wins..

Skybird · 09-14-12, 11:14 AM

One could start to love the Eurofighter in comparison, seen this way.

Kloef · 09-14-12, 04:36 PM

I've allways loved it, even though the design is old.

My choice however would be the F-18E/F, but i'm afraid we are neck deep in the JSF program..

Skybird · 09-14-12, 04:41 PM

In the early 80s we had a comic series over here, "Major Cooper", about an Air Force major and his adventures. In there I first saw a Hornet and thought: "terrible tail, lovely nose".

A solid platform, no doubt.

Platapus · 09-14-12, 04:55 PM

It depends on what you mean by stealth.

If by stealth you mean an aircraft completely invisible to radar, then stealth never existed. There is simply no way to make an aircraft with an RCS of zero.

This is why the cognoscenti use the term "low observable" for that is actually what stealth does. It makes what an aircraft would normally look like... well .. not look like that. Specifically to make the RCS of the stealth aircraft not look like the RCS of a non-stealth aircraft. This is usually done by reducing the RCS of the aircraft, but it can't be eliminated.

What this article was probably referring to is Bi-Static Radars. In this case, where the emitter is a commercial emitter. There is nothing new about bi-static radars and their effects on LO technology is well understood.

09-14-12, 10:26 AM	#1
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,602 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	The end of stealth aircraft era? If this is real, then yes. http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/t...-a-855711.html This video was recorded at the ILA in Berlin this year. It shows radar tracking of a Zeppelin via passive radar - no active radar beams, only radio transmissions from civilian infratructure around. The article claims the demonstration of socalled passive radar shows that it has reached a technical developement state that now it is able to track stealth aircraft without even sending own radar beams. Passive radar uses the reflections of radio waves and comparable electromagnetic emissions and thus does not give its presence and activity away to the enemy. Since these signals come from a myriad of different directions and just any source and origin, the special geometry of stealth aircraft does not offer protection anymore. The Cassidian system is expected to be ready for production in 2015. Demonstration and evaluation systems already have been delivered to the Bundeswehr. The equipment, depending heavily on latest algorithms and super brute force calculation power, has just recently become affordable for mass production and is not more than what can be packed onto a pickup van or a small transporter. The article also refers to an essay by a marine corps Ltn-Col, Arend Westra, written in 2009. He wanred that the progress made in passoive radars threatens to erode Americxa'S superiority in stealth tchnology, and that one should not rely to conduct military operaiton in the fguture under cover of stealöth-basded air siperiroity. He recommended back then that instead of pumping giant ammounts of money into new stealth platforms, the focus should shift towards research to understand passive radar better, becasue the next egneratiuon of Russian and Chinese stealth aircraft easily could be of American standards of today and then it would be good to have a passiove radar system oneself. For offensive operations, his advise was: "Let's prepare to conduct ground combat operations without cover provided by air superiority." In the light of all this, the already hilariously expensive stealth fighters like F-22 and F-35, appear to be even more a giant waste of money. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 09-14-12 at 10:47 AM.

09-14-12, 10:47 AM	#2
Kloef Weps Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Netherlands Posts: 360 Downloads: 30 Uploads: 0	Stealth was doomed from the beginning, it's much easier to build better detection systems than design a new aircraft with the latest stealth technology, when the aircraft is finished 15 years after it was designed it's not up to the latest anti-air technology. What boggles the mind is that the designers never recogized that, maybe they were afraid to lose their job. In war quantity beats quality, build alot of bombers and fighters so your enemy has too much targets to shoot at, a proven concept. To design something stealthy is not a bad choice, the more stealth the harder it is to track you or for a missile to track you, but you should not concede too much so you end up with a flying platform that is incapable of even entering a dogfight, like the JSF. At least the Russians get it, a little stealth, a good airframe at half the costs of what anybody else builds ( T-50), and a backbone of good aircraft like the SU-35, quantity wins.. __________________ http://www.dutchsubmarines.com/

09-14-12, 11:14 AM	#3
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,602 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	One could start to love the Eurofighter in comparison, seen this way. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

09-14-12, 04:36 PM	#4
Kloef Weps Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Netherlands Posts: 360 Downloads: 30 Uploads: 0	I've allways loved it, even though the design is old. My choice however would be the F-18E/F, but i'm afraid we are neck deep in the JSF program.. __________________ http://www.dutchsubmarines.com/

09-14-12, 04:41 PM	#5
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,602 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	In the early 80s we had a comic series over here, "Major Cooper", about an Air Force major and his adventures. In there I first saw a Hornet and thought: "terrible tail, lovely nose". A solid platform, no doubt. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

09-14-12, 04:55 PM	#6
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,360 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	It depends on what you mean by stealth. If by stealth you mean an aircraft completely invisible to radar, then stealth never existed. There is simply no way to make an aircraft with an RCS of zero. This is why the cognoscenti use the term "low observable" for that is actually what stealth does. It makes what an aircraft would normally look like... well .. not look like that. Specifically to make the RCS of the stealth aircraft not look like the RCS of a non-stealth aircraft. This is usually done by reducing the RCS of the aircraft, but it can't be eliminated. What this article was probably referring to is Bi-Static Radars. In this case, where the emitter is a commercial emitter. There is nothing new about bi-static radars and their effects on LO technology is well understood. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.