will stealth become irrelevant?

Profile picture for user Sanem

Member for

9 years

Posts: 593

I'm thinking stealth might quickly become irrelevant in the near future as sensors become better examples of this are - Python 5, which uses an optical seeker - AESA radars, Boeing is pitching this for the F-18 - L-band radars, seen on the T-50
Original post
Profile picture for user Sanem

Member for

9 years

Posts: 593

and I nearly forgot the best example, the F-35's 360 degree optical suit that allows it to fire AMRAAMs even in a rearward direction it's why I believe the F-35 actually has the advantage over the F-22 (which doesn't even have Helmet Mounted Sights) in a dogfight, if equiped with something like the Python 5 missiles

Member for

7 years 8 months

Posts: 4,165

and I nearly forgot the best example, the F-35's 360 degree optical suit that allows it to fire AMRAAMs even in a rearward direction it's why I believe the F-35 actually has the advantage over the F-22 (which doesn't even have Helmet Mounted Sights) in a dogfight, if equiped with something like the Python 5 missiles
F35 isnt the only plane able to do that. Gripen NG for ex. Or read that http://www.defesanet.com.br/rafale/noticia/10893/Shooting-Down-an-Aggressor-on-My-Six--Vive-la-difference-/ That said be it eodas or whatever, Stealth still has meaning. May be not as much as advertised but it doese have in my humble opinion.

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 5,373

Will camouflage become irrelevant? :very_drunk: Stealth is simply another form of camouflage against detection by sensors. It is a battle between sensor technology and stealth technology. Sensors detect spectral or RF energy generated by/reflected from the target. The technology used by a sensor establishes a detection threshold where the signal from the target exceeds both background noise and noise which is self-generated by the sensor platform (signal to noise ratio, SNR). The move to microprocessors with low self-generated noise helps improve detection, but background noise is not affected and the increase in detection range is modest at best. To think stealth will suddenly "become irrelevant" is fantasy unless a radically different sensor detection technology is found and is put into widespread use. Note that seatlth technologies are not static, but are also improving. The stealth material technologies used by F-35 (an early 2000s design) are already a generation or more obsolete.

Member for

6 years 9 months

Posts: 1,059

The old saying goes -- for every measure, there is a counter measure.

Member for

6 years 10 months

Posts: 343

I'm thinking stealth might quickly become irrelevant in the near future as sensors become better examples of this are - Python 5, which uses an optical seeker - AESA radars, Boeing is pitching this for the F-18 - L-band radars, seen on the T-50
Stealth if used correctly gives the stealthy aircraft a first look first shoot advantage.

Member for

6 years 9 months

Posts: 1,059

Stealth if used correctly gives the stealthy aircraft a first look first shoot advantage.
No not correctly, if it works, which it may not.

Member for

6 years 8 months

Posts: 253

If stealth becomes irrelevant then so does basically every combat aircraft. The lazer weapons are just around the corner and if those can see you then your dead.
Profile picture for user Tu22m

Member for

7 years

Posts: 1,149

Arent lasers supposed to have very high frequencies? The atmospheric absorption levels are fairly high in that spectrum. Perhaps DEWs will kill the dogfight, but BVR will be dominated by missiles even in the future. For instance the YAL-1 used a laser at 10.6 microns wavelength (source APA) putting it in the 30THz range. http://www.mmwconcepts.com/Atmosphere%20Corrected%2019%20May%202009.jpg As we see, simple things like fog (clouds) absorb over 100db per km. And then we have the question of how many Watt the target can take. Conversion: http://www.translatorscafe.com/cafe/EN/units-converter/frequency-wavelength/1-31/hertz-wavelength_in_micrometres/
Profile picture for user j_jza80

Member for

8 years 6 months

Posts: 1,540

But the lasers will be more than capable of destroying a missile in flight, with a very high probability of doing so. I wouldn't go as far say as to say BVR missiles would be obsolete, but they would be seriously outclassed.
Profile picture for user Tu22m

Member for

7 years

Posts: 1,149

But the lasers will be more than capable of destroying a missile in flight, with a very high probability of doing so. I wouldn't go as far say as to say BVR missiles would be obsolete, but they would be seriously outclassed.
How many missiles can you fire at once vs how many missiles can you take down with a DEW?
Profile picture for user j_jza80

Member for

8 years 6 months

Posts: 1,540

As there are none of these systems in service, it's impossible to say. But, I would imagine these systems have the potential to engage multiple targets in a very short time period.

Member for

9 years 8 months

Posts: 2,163

Perhaps DEWs will kill the dogfight, but BVR will be dominated by missiles even in the future.
Actually, in the medium term, I'd have thought the reverse could become true. Your DEW would be powerful enough to take out a missile, but not powerful enough to take out a (suitably shielded) aircraft. Which means your back to using the good ol gun. Then longer term, we're into: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7b/X-wing.jpg

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 11,742

No not correctly, if it works, which it may not.
It works always. The questions are left only, to what degree under what circumstances?!

Member for

6 years 8 months

Posts: 253

Remember the laser doesn't have to be on another plane it can be ground based. The result is the same a dead aircraft. Ground abased systems wont have same trouble with power systems as airborne ones will. Laser are very real things while force fields are still just science fiction even it we would all like to have them both.

Member for

9 years 8 months

Posts: 2,163

Remember the laser doesn't have to be on another plane it can be ground based. The result is the same a dead aircraft. Ground abased systems wont have same trouble with power systems as airborne ones will.
There was concepts of ground based lasers using dirigible mounted mirrors to both target and to chain-gang multiple lasers onto targets.
Laser are very real things while force fields are still just science fiction even it we would all like to have them both.
I meant more direct laser vs. laser combat

Member for

9 years 9 months

Posts: 3,259

a ground based laser still has a few problems.. even if powerful enough to reach a range of, say, 20-30km, it can only shoot at targets above the horizon and you can't use on a large scale (unless you put these everywhere on the battlefield, including enemy territory)... as a result, you still need weapons to be carried (airborne) over the battlefield. Providing progress is made in power generation allowing most aircraft to have an active anti-missile laser suite, you might render missiles pretty much completely inefficient, except maybe the largest ground-based ones that may have enough mass to carry sufficient shielding to last until the impact, but then, such missiles can't turn that much, allowing the aircraft, if they're agile enough, to outmaneuver them. Stealth, as such, as of today, allows to get closer, but, again, as signal treatment progresses, detectors may be developed to use lower frequencies (as the noise that makes them too imprecise today may become manageable with more computing power), which mean longer wavelength than an aircraft skin can absorb (someone talked about L-band radars?), and therefore the stealth aircraft of today would again stand out against the background in the eyes of the operators of these detectors. As for the use of gun in a dogfight, if you have lasers able to destroy multiple missiles launched at you from various directions, who knows? maybe that once you get close, they'd be able to destroy or seriously damage you opponents aircraft as well (providing you get really close and maintain close distance for long enough)?

Member for

6 years 9 months

Posts: 1,059

It works always. The questions are left only, to what degree under what circumstances?!
If they can detect you, it ain't working, period. Now generals could rationalize how close is good enough, which they probably would.

Member for

6 years 9 months

Posts: 1,059

Remember the laser doesn't have to be on another plane it can be ground based. The result is the same a dead aircraft. Ground abased systems wont have same trouble with power systems as airborne ones will. Laser are very real things while force fields are still just science fiction even it we would all like to have them both.
Lasers doing what is being spoken of here is just as much science fiction as force fields.
Profile picture for user Tu22m

Member for

7 years

Posts: 1,149

Actually, in the medium term, I'd have thought the reverse could become true. Your DEW would be powerful enough to take out a missile, but not powerful enough to take out a (suitably shielded) aircraft. Which means your back to using the good ol gun.
The logic behind my reasoning is simple. In BVR you can fire a salvo of 2-3 missiles. That will likely be more than the DEW can handle while in a dogfight the laser has 1 target. Another way of development is the usage of short range self defense missiles like IRIS-T as a hard kill countermeasure. IR missiles typically cost about 1/3rd of BVR missiles. sry for messed up post, I only have my cell currently.