will stealth become irrelevant?

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

13 years 3 months

Posts: 311

Vhf-uhf radar complicates the game for sure. IADS ( like Nebo-m with 40r6, etc)all have one huge inherent weakness, even mobile radars take time to set up, move about. Stay in one place and radiate for too long and you become the hunted not the hunter. U.S. studied the issue of vhf radars on stealth in the 1980's. They are still building LO assets. To my knowledge, they never really released any recommendations or findings, I looked. The DRFM countermeasures of new intergated defensive avionics suites are an interesting possibility.
http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFullText/RTO/MP/RTO-MP-SET-080///MP-SET-080-P07.pdf
I would also make a guess that there are still issues with long wavelength radar being susceptible to false returns and jamming as in the past. As I stated before, i dont think simply having a low radar sig is enough. Jamming, decoys, probably UCAVs are going to be critical to penetrating defended airspace.

Mix of different radars inside IADS will complicate it even more like big OTH radar behind, mobile EW radars with different wave lenghts and bistatic radars as Barrier.

New radars like Nebo-SVU, Nebo-M, Gamma-s, etc are highly mobile with quick deployment time, but in modern IADS, they could easily stay longer on the position. They have protecting equipment as Gazetchik MAWS with chaffs and flares complex, ELINT complexes as Avtobaza, Kolchuga, Orion, ... with jammers and at the end they will be protected with Tor-M2, Pantsir-S1 or in future with Morphei SHORADs, to shot down any incoming treat to EW radars or bigger SAMs.

If stealth planes really want to be stealth for modern last generation IADS, then they have to turn off all radars, communications, radio navigation and altimeters, data links, etc, what could IADS ELINT complexes detect and triangulate and they could still be detected through visual observation posts.

Member for

13 years 5 months

Posts: 593

The capability hasnt really been there before. IRIS-T is the first missile that actually might be up to the task. Also, sensors havent been good enough before.
Preferably we will see even smaller smaller and cheaper IR-missiles for self defense. So maybe 10-15 years down the road this may be a reality?

I disagree there
Phalanx has been shooting missile out of the sky for over 30 years
RIM-116 has been in use for over 25 years
and I imagine aircraft sensors are perfectly capable of detecting incoming missiles at a reasonable range, especially active-seeker models, or when equiped with DAS like optical detection systems

so the capability does certainly exist, it's more of a question of putting it onto an aircraft
the fighter community certainly wouldn't like it because it reduces their heroic dogfighting capabilities to trucking missiles

Add systems like Nebo-M into the S-400 equation, and I wouldn't want to be enforcing a no-fly zone in F-35s, F-22s, or T-50s either.

that's the other thing, economics
it doesn't matter how good your offensive capabilities are, the day you get a S-400 style system with good range and passive sensors you'll always fighting uphill, and at $150 million + pilot it'll get difficult
or scuds, Saddam never managed to use them effectively, but when something like the Russian cargo missiles were to get profilerated, you'll have untraceble/undetected SAMs all over the place, and any nation will be firing chemical missiles into major cities as poor man nukes', making any open conflict a political impossibility
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbUU_9bOcnM

Member for

14 years 3 months

Posts: 3,259

@ Sanem, a Phalanx turret weighs over 6 tons alone... add the weight of supporting structure, ammunition, and you get an aircraft that would have to be bigger than a 747 to carry it

Member for

11 years 4 months

Posts: 343


If stealth planes really want to be stealth for modern last generation IADS, then they have to turn off all radars, communications, radio navigation and altimeters, data links, etc, what could IADS ELINT complexes detect and triangulate and they could still be detected through visual observation posts.

This technology could make a fresh come back in a more updated form. The passive acoustic detector. Remember this?

"Prior to World War II and the invention of radar, acoustic mirrors were built as early warning devices around the coasts of Great Britain, with the aim of detecting incoming enemy aircraft by the sound of their engines.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]224980[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]224981[/ATTACH]

Attachments

Member for

13 years 5 months

Posts: 593

@ Sanem, a Phalanx turret weighs over 6 tons alone... add the weight of supporting structure, ammunition, and you get an aircraft that would have to be bigger than a 747 to carry it

I'm not suggesting putting those systems onto fighter, I'm saying it can't be that hard for jet fighters to detect and thus shoot down incoming missiles
most fighters already have a big gun, and the Gripen does in fact have an automatic radar-guided aiming mode. and AESA is more advanced than the one used on the Phalanx
and the missiles used on the RIM-116 are about AIM-9/IRIS-T specs

so in theory it can be done

Member for

11 years 5 months

Posts: 1,149

I'm not suggesting putting those systems onto fighter, I'm saying it can't be that hard for jet fighters to detect and thus shoot down incoming missiles
most fighters already have a big gun, and the Gripen does in fact have an automatic radar-guided aiming mode. and AESA is more advanced than the one used on the Phalanx
and the missiles used on the RIM-116 are about AIM-9/IRIS-T specs

so in theory it can be done


The RIM116 is interesting, but one has to remember that the incoming missile will travel at ca mach 4 (from any direction), RIM116 may be excellent for incoming attack aircraft or cruise missiles. But the mach 4 ones?

Also, the targeting systems havent been good enough in all aspect. For instance, how many fighters have good enough rear visibility to target a missile behind them?

Today with more advanced MAWS (like DAS, PAWS-2 etc) it may be done. Also, the missile will have to be able to perform a 180 degree turn at any speed up to mach 2/3 in a reasonable time (ie, pull many Gs). I think that the IRIS-T is the first to potentially have the capability... and it hasnt been proven yet.

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 3,106

With the developments underway, the need for a anti-missile missile will be redundant on aircraft. Air to Air missiles are physically small, fast, agile. Most likely it would have to be a hit to kill system, very challenging. These offer more promise and are nearly ready for primetime:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130916/DEFREG02/309160010/Northrop-Unveils-F-35-Missile-Protection-System
http://defensetech.org/2013/10/30/contracts-awarded-to-develop-laser-pods-that-shoot-down-missiles/

Member for

11 years 5 months

Posts: 1,149

@FBW: The laser currently has some clear disadvantages and will have for some time. A self defense missile OTOH will have better capability to beat multiple incoming threats and it wont be as sensitive to atmospheric conditions as well as stabilisers.

Using a hit to kill system will make the probability of a hit very small since the target is so tiny and fast, a shape charge will produce a kill cone that is more likely to actually hit the target. Think of the charge as being similar to a claymore.

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 3,106

@FBW: The laser currently has some clear disadvantages and will have for some time. A self defense missile OTOH will have better capability to beat multiple incoming threats and it wont be as sensitive to atmospheric conditions as well as stabilisers.

Using a hit to kill system will make the probability of a hit very small since the target is so tiny and fast, a shape charge will produce a kill cone that is more likely to actually hit the target. Think of the charge as being similar to a claymore.

Yeah proximity fused warheads, I get your thinking. GaA laser fuse millisecond reaction times. There are actually proposals for both (HTK and fuzed weapons)for the U.S. army:http://defense-update.com/20130820_raytheon_ai3_c-ram.html , http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Lockheed_Martins_EAPS_Completes_Successful_Miniature_Hit_To_Kill_Interceptor_Flight_Test_999.html

I specifically said h-t-k for this reason: I was thinking along the lines of the CUDA, not sure if smaller ir missiles like the IRIS-T could be cued on a target and launched in time. Most have a range >10 miles. That would give a reaction time of 12 seconds or less. And that would be best case scenario of picking up the AAM either at launch or when it goes active. This of course applies to radar guided missiles.

Of course, how far away a missile like the AMRAAM goes into terminal mode is likely less than 10 miles and classified. Something along the lines of the Cuda with its longer range and forward control motors might have the agility needed. (really is an interesting weapon concept)
http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2013/.../cuda-update-more-revelations.html

If we are talking short range ir missiles, really only an autonomous system would have the reaction time. The defensive system ThNDR to be fitted to the F-35 is not meant to destroy the missile, just confuse the ir seeker.

Member for

13 years 5 months

Posts: 593

The RIM116 is interesting, but one has to remember that the incoming missile will travel at ca mach 4 (from any direction), RIM116 may be excellent for incoming attack aircraft or cruise missiles. But the mach 4 ones?

good point, but if you realize a Phalanx fires bullets from a moving platform to hit a missile going at extreme speeds above sea level, that is no small feat either

in the same way I don't think hitting a missile going Mach 4 is that much harder for a computer, it's a matter of computing speed and data input

Also, the targeting systems havent been good enough in all aspect. For instance, how many fighters have good enough rear visibility to target a missile behind them?
Today with more advanced MAWS (like DAS, PAWS-2 etc) it may be done. Also, the missile will have to be able to perform a 180 degree turn at any speed up to mach 2/3 in a reasonable time (ie, pull many Gs). I think that the IRIS-T is the first to potentially have the capability... and it hasnt been proven yet.

I figure fighters have had the ability to track incoming missiles for some decades, in a forward arc at least
but yes, with modern day sensors tracking missiles at any angle can certainly be achieved
and then we're talking about passive missiles, active sensor missiles should be much easier to hit

on turning and speed, I'm not sure about that: I imagine most missiles would fly directly at their target, making their path predictable to a computer, and thus relatively easy to hit

@FBW: The laser currently has some clear disadvantages and will have for some time. A self defense missile OTOH will have better capability to beat multiple incoming threats and it wont be as sensitive to atmospheric conditions as well as stabilisers.

I don't know about lasers, especially on a jet they lack range and rate of fire, seriously limiting the number of incoming missiles you can shoot down. missiles give you range and thus time

Using a hit to kill system will make the probability of a hit very small since the target is so tiny and fast, a shape charge will produce a kill cone that is more likely to actually hit the target. Think of the charge as being similar to a claymore.

agreed, I figure a blast should damage any incoming missile enough to knock it out

If we are talking short range ir missiles, really only an autonomous system would have the reaction time. The defensive system ThNDR to be fitted to the F-35 is not meant to destroy the missile, just confuse the ir seeker.

in that regard I'm interested in the active defence systems being introduced to tanks, like this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyiRQsEroSc

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 5,905


in that regard I'm interested in the active defence systems being introduced to tanks, like this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyiRQsEroSc

Trophy works because of it's faster kinetics reaction time that render the speed at which the vehicle moves negligible and the speed of the incoming rocket marginal.

If we are talking about an A2A usage, then the speed of a Mach 2 approaching missile is no more marginal as would be the speed of the carrying platform.

There is no other way than the laser or a high energy beam (in which category the Laser is the easiest answer).

A HTK launched from an egressing plane at, let's say, M1.6 will require a tremendous data linking capability as well as an enormous sensor agility for the launched missile. Think that regarding to a ballistic or a cruise missile missile, an HTK launcher is stationary or nearly stationary. IMOHO the plane fitted with an HTK will lead to a new order of magnitude in problems to be solved. I don't see any interest going that way.

Member for

11 years 5 months

Posts: 1,149

good point, but if you realize a Phalanx fires bullets from a moving platform to hit a missile going at extreme speeds above sea level, that is no small feat either

Now we are talking about bullets from a turret. Fighters, unfortunately, are too small for that.

in the same way I don't think hitting a missile going Mach 4 is that much harder for a computer, it's a matter of computing speed and data input

Its not harder to calculate, it just shortens reacton time and requires higher accuracy in the plotting of the movements.

I figure fighters have had the ability to track incoming missiles for some decades, in a forward arc at least
but yes, with modern day sensors tracking missiles at any angle can certainly be achieved
and then we're talking about passive missiles, active sensor missiles should be much easier to hit

In forward arc is one thing, 360 degree coverage with precision enough to designate targets? Thats prety new. I think SPECTRA is the first suit to actually have that capability.

on turning and speed, I'm not sure about that: I imagine most missiles would fly directly at their target, making their path predictable to a computer, and thus relatively easy to hit

The missiles, facing forward, will still have to turn 180 degrees if the incoming threat comes from behind. Don't they?

I don't know about lasers, especially on a jet they lack range and rate of fire, seriously limiting the number of incoming missiles you can shoot down. missiles give you range and thus time

Yes, that is my biggest concern. The rate of fire. A laser may very well take down one missile, but two or three? Only a counter missile has that capability since they can work independently.

Yeah proximity fused warheads, I get your thinking. GaA laser fuse millisecond reaction times. There are actually proposals for both (HTK and fuzed weapons)for the U.S. army:http://defense-update.com/20130820_raytheon_ai3_c-ram.html , http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Lockheed_Martins_EAPS_Completes_Successful_Miniature_Hit_To_Kill_Interceptor_Flight_Test_999.html

I specifically said h-t-k for this reason: I was thinking along the lines of the CUDA, not sure if smaller ir missiles like the IRIS-T could be cued on a target and launched in time. Most have a range >10 miles. That would give a reaction time of 12 seconds or less. And that would be best case scenario of picking up the AAM either at launch or when it goes active. This of course applies to radar guided missiles.

Of course, how far away a missile like the AMRAAM goes into terminal mode is likely less than 10 miles and classified. Something along the lines of the Cuda with its longer range and forward control motors might have the agility needed. (really is an interesting weapon concept)
http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2013/.../cuda-update-more-revelations.html

If we are talking short range ir missiles, really only an autonomous system would have the reaction time. The defensive system ThNDR to be fitted to the F-35 is not meant to destroy the missile, just confuse the ir seeker.


Thats the thing. I could personally create a filter for my cellphone camera that would render any IR/specific wavelength jamming useless.

For instance, if the light passes above a threshold for one part of the spectrum the camera will just ignore that and go for a second frequency. And that's the seekers we see today, going from IR to UV (and the middle ground is visible light). This is made with the most basic statements in coding, the if statement. For instance if (balance > 2) {aperture = aperture - 1}

What that does is to adjust the aperture depending on what the brightness balance is, if the lightness in the image is +2 or more (as it would be in a jammed situation) it will simply adjust the aperture until it hits the limit. This could be adjusted with a limiter or even made more advanced by comparing narrow bands to eachother to get a picture.

That is the simple solution to weak DIRCM, with more power one might have to change wavelength. Again, this is easily made with software upgrades as long as the seeker can chandle it (and I think the IRIS-T seeker can). Multiband QWIP-chips can easily change the wavelength (if software allows it) and thus become immune to DIRCM (as that is narrow band).

Lets say you have a power output of 5KW. That is impressive. But considering that you have 6 distinct visible light areas, 5 distinct IR bands + 9 distinct bands in UV you will end up with 5KW spread over 20 bands giving a jamming capability of 250W or 6 kitchen lights.

Now, if the sensors can adjust aperture accordingly this will make no difference at all. If the sensors in the seeker can discriminate better between specific colors (say double the bands) it will half the performance of the DIRCM and so on. So yes, the idea is great but it's not something to rely upon. Killing the threat physically, at least in my experience, is the only thing you can count on for survival. Blinding it will work untill they use glasses or just filter out your wavelength.

Member for

13 years 5 months

Posts: 593

A HTK launched from an egressing plane at, let's say, M1.6 will require a tremendous data linking capability as well as an enormous sensor agility for the launched missile.

well, isn't the F-35 a tremendous increase in data linking capability over the F-22? and doesn't it have an enormous sensor agility compared to the F-22?

as I said, it's a matter of computing speed, and I wouldn't be surprised if we already are at the level were you can indeed hit multi-Mach targets with multi-Mach bullets

The missiles, facing forward, will still have to turn 180 degrees if the incoming threat comes from behind. Don't they?

sure, but at what point?
in F-35 video's you see missiles being fired forwards and than having to turn 180 degrees
but why not mount the missiles in a swivel pod?
or make the missile spin as it is released, allowing it to point in the right direction before igniting its rocket engine

another solution is to carry some missiles rearward facing
for example if you carry 70 mm pods for this role, you could carry one pod forward facing and one pod rearward facing

edit:

to compare the Hydra 70/APKWS to the AIM-9 (the RIM-116 is very similar to the AIM-9) in the role of anti-missile missile

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydra_70#Precision_guided_Hydra_70
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Precision_Kill_Weapon_System
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sidewinder

I would suggest using a Hydra 70/APKWS variant in the anti-missile role

first of all you'd have change the seeker
the APKWS has an expensive laser guided seeker, I think it would be no more expensive to give it a data-link and a proximity fuse instead, maybe give it a wide blast explosive
the missile would rely heavily on this data link to get it within target range, but seeing how modern fighters all have excellent sensors and data links and these will ony increase in quality in the coming years and decades, this should not be a problem

on cost/weight, an APKWS costs $28,000 (we'll use that price as a reference) compared to $664,933 for a Sidewinder, and weighs less than 10 kg compared to 85 kg
so you can bring between 8 and 20 APKWS for the cost/weight of one AIM-9

the APKWS only has a 10 km range compared to 30+ km for the Sidewinder, but in a defensive role I figure this is enough: a Hydra 70 flies at 2000 km/h, so if the enemy missile comes in from further away you can calculate when it'll arrive in the 10 km range and fire the Hydra 70 accordingly
10 km at 4900 km/h (AMRAAM speed, although the AIM-9 only does Mach 2.5) is about 7 seconds, so if you can hit the enemy missile at maximum range and you still see it coming you'll have at least 5 seconds to fire another missile

such a light anti-missile missile would also be useful in dogfights, especially if they're in a swivel pod or some are rearwards facing, as it allows you to fire a spread of them at a target at most angles
they'll lack the speed and range of an AMRAAM or the seeker independance and manouverability of a Sidewinder, but if you fire a spread at a nearby target it's chances of escape drop greatly because no matter were it flies it'll run into a missile

Member for

18 years 9 months

Posts: 13,432

...
Thats the thing. I could personally create a filter for my cellphone camera that would render any IR/specific wavelength jamming useless.

For instance, if the light passes above a threshold for one part of the spectrum the camera will just ignore that and go for a second frequency. And that's the seekers we see today, going from IR to UV (and the middle ground is visible light).


I recall hearing about a demonstration of IR homing MANPADS (Igla?) in Malaysia where flares were released - & completely ignored by the missile. There was a lot of shouting about the missile not working, but in reality, it was recognising the IR signatures as flares, & deliberately ignoring them. It's normal, what IR missiles have been doing for a long time. And that was a small, relatively cheap, missile.

DIRCM has to be rather sophisticated to confuse AAM or SAM (except the most basic) seekers.

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 203

It is rather sophisticated compared to earlier IR "jammers" like the ALQ-144. DIRCM really is the only sort of countermeasure with a high chance of confusing the latest and greatest IR guided missiles out there. Of course you will see new missiles designed to counter this and new DIRCM systems designed to counter those, but that is how it always works. Eventually you get to the point where you're dealing with physically damaging and thus blinding the seeker.

I'm am guessing there are probably reasons that make some IR and UV bands less than ideal for use in a missile.

Member for

17 years 11 months

Posts: 1,010

Here's another question: How will current and future derivatives of active radar guided missiles perform versus current and future LO planes? Basically, how will meteors, aim120d, rvv-sd, pl-15 etc perform against f-22, f-35, j-20 etc.

A decade or two ago publications were usually saying how tracking VLO planes with small wavelengths would be terribly inefficient and how even if VLO planes would be detected, they wouldnt be tracked and they surely wouldnt be able to be fired upon as there'd be no way to target them.

But since then we've actually seen not a decline but a proliferation of active radar guidance on missiles. now it's not just pure bvr class missiles getting ARH, but also shorter ranged, smaller missiles. Also for SAMs, where before command guidance or IR guidance was the main choice, now we have the likes of CAMM, VL mica or VL Iris-T SL, all with ARH guidance.

Would all that point to a certain portions of VLO planes that are very hard to hide in that sub X band spectrum? Stuff like tiny antennas and gaps between control surfaces, doors etc? Stuff that is usually considered too tiny to be picked up by tracking radars in fighters/awacs/land based SAMs (and at the same time too hard to change in shape or coat with RAM due to their design and mission), but is actually just of right size to be picked up by even smaller wavelengths used in missile radars?

Logic would suggest that we would not see such a proliferation of ARH seekers if such method would be useless against VLO planes.

Member for

11 years 9 months

Posts: 346

Here's another question: How will current and future derivatives of active radar guided missiles perform versus current and future LO planes? Basically, how will meteors, aim120d, rvv-sd, pl-15 etc perform against f-22, f-35, j-20 etc.

A decade or two ago publications were usually saying how tracking VLO planes with small wavelengths would be terribly inefficient and how even if VLO planes would be detected, they wouldnt be tracked and they surely wouldnt be able to be fired upon as there'd be no way to target them.

But since then we've actually seen not a decline but a proliferation of active radar guidance on missiles. now it's not just pure bvr class missiles getting ARH, but also shorter ranged, smaller missiles. Also for SAMs, where before command guidance or IR guidance was the main choice, now we have the likes of CAMM, VL mica or VL Iris-T SL, all with ARH guidance.

Would all that point to a certain portions of VLO planes that are very hard to hide in that sub X band spectrum? Stuff like tiny antennas and gaps between control surfaces, doors etc? Stuff that is usually considered too tiny to be picked up by tracking radars in fighters/awacs/land based SAMs (and at the same time too hard to change in shape or coat with RAM due to their design and mission), but is actually just of right size to be picked up by even smaller wavelengths used in missile radars?

Logic would suggest that we would not see such a proliferation of ARH seekers if such method would be useless against VLO planes.

1.Multi sensor data fusion, 2-way datalink, more powerfull AR seeker - maybe AESA with GaN modules will for sure increase capabilities of future FOX-3 class missiles.
2.Future threat will have small RCS, advanced EW, and very good missile warning system.
3.Future BVRAAM is design to fight against 5th gen fighter from the start.
4.Everything indicates that future BVR fight will became lethal within missiles NEZ, because 4++/5 gen fighter will be alerted by MAWS/RWR/EO/IRST sensor fusion about any BVRAAM shoot, then turn away and dive to shorten the missiles NEZ as much as possible. It is well known fighter tactics today (AFM 1/2011 page 76).
5.Another way is IR BVRAAM like R-27T/ET (still on Su-35S armament list) with quite good range, and MICA IR (maybe MICA NG IR in the future with better range).
6.Current missile max. NEZ (AIM-120C, SD-10, R-77) is close to 35 km (~ 20NM) in high alt. high speed condition against F-16 type target (example SD-10 - I can't find link - it was some report on our forum about chinese fox-3 AAM range).
F-22/PAK-FA/EF-2000 decrease above range even further, thanks to better kinematics than F-16.
R-77SD, AIM-120D will have a little better NEZ (for example RVV-SD will have 110 km max range vs 80 km for orginal RVV-AE, so NEZ should also improved, but not so much).
http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/503/567/
MBDA Meteor and RVV-BD should have at least 2-3 times NEZ of current FOX-3 ( around 80km ).
http://babriet.tripod.com/articles/art_fightertactics.htm
7.Remember that all future fighter will also rely on WVRAAM+HMD combo, and I would not expect AAM(BVR+WVR) Pk higher than 50% within NEZ (for example Polish Air Force F-16 pilot think that Pk ~ 50% for AIM-120C + AIM-9X combo is in his opinnion possible against current threat - sources "Lotnicwo"11/2011 page 44 ).

In theory fighter with smaller RCS will have some advantage against ARH FOX-3 missiles.

Member for

18 years 9 months

Posts: 13,432

No.

It's 1980s stealth, not current.
Its flight path was known (the USAF re-used the same route often enough for the Serbs to turn fleeting glimpses into a plot).
Its take-offs were monitored by pro-Serbia observers & relayed to the Serbian forces.

So, they knew where it would be, when. That made it a lot easier to find.