Posted on 09/16/2014 12:43:13 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Russian expert says fighter jets cant hide foreverbut thats old news
A Russian military expert has sounded a seemingly dire warning for the United States. Dr. Igor Sutyagin claims that stealthy fighter jets and bombers cant stay hidden much longer as enemy radar technology improves.
The U.S. military is betting hundreds of billions of dollarsin essence, its whole air-power investmentthat detection-dodging stealth works and will keep working for many decades to come.
So if Sutyagin is absolutely right, America could be in big trouble. The roughly trillion dollars Washington has spent designing and building F-117s, B-2s, F-22s, F-35s and new Long-Range Strike Bombers since the 1970s has been a waste. And the United States is about to lose its aerial advantage.
At least, thats the simplistic reading of stealth and counter-stealth in todays warplane development. And make no mistake, Sutyagins argument is simplistic.
In truth, the Russian experts claims arent particularly new. And theres no reason to think that better radars are about to render radar-evading warplanes totally obsolete. Emphasis on totally.
Reality is more complicated that Sutyagins warning implies. Back-and-forth technological advancements mean that, yes, stealth is no panacea. Instead, radar-evasion is becoming just one standard feature in warplane designalbeit still a very important standard feature.
Again, theres nothing particularly new about that. Stealth has never been perfect. Its not perfect today. It wont be perfect tomorrow. But it still matters.
The core of the alleged former spys recent article published by the U.K.s Royal United Services Institute, where Sutyagin is a fellow is that low-band or low-frequency radars are quickly getting a lot better at finding radar-evading aircraft.
But Sutyagin admits up front that these sensors have been around for more than 80 years. Indeed, reports suggest that Serbian troops deployed this type of equipment to shoot down a U.S. Air Force F-117A stealth fighter-bomber 15 years ago.
Military officials around the world warned about the limits of stealth thats also the title of Sutyagins article before and after Serbia shot down the F-117 during NATO air raids on the rogue country in 1999. Every air arm working on new stealth planes is fully aware of the low-band radar problem.
Are these air forces wasting their time, effort and money? Or do they know something Sutyagin doesnt know or wont admit?
For his part, the Russian expat seems to suggest that Western aircraft manufacturers have been oblivious to the low-band threat. But its hard to ignore a possible nationalistic prejudice in his assessment. At times, Sutyagins essay in RUSIs Defense Systems reads like an advertisement for Russian arms manufacturers.
Unlike Western states, Russia has been constantly developing low-band radar technology since 1930s and has achieved impressive results, Sutyagin expounds. The air-defense detection systems currently marketed by Russian producers represent a serious potential challenge to Western air power in many parts of the world in the future.
Heres the truth. Yes, low-band radars can detect very small objects or tiny individual parts of larger objectsfor instance, protrusions on a stealth jets airframe. Experts including Aviation Weeks Bill Sweetman have criticized the F-35 for its lumpy, bumpy fuselage, which could make the jet easier to find.
Low-band radars special sensitivity represents an important capability for any country trying to detect its enemys stealth planes. But for a long time, radar operators couldnt take full advantage of this capability. Historically, sensor operators had a hard time picking out stealthy jets from among the clouds, rain drops and other clutter that the low-band radar tend to also detect.
Thats becoming less of a problem. Indeed, that improvement is the crux of Sutyagins argument. He explains that todays powerful computers can help sort through all the extra radar noise and find specific targets.
Now, Sutyagins conclusions arent wrong, but they also dont exist in a vacuum. Every new military airplane gets introduced into an ever-changing environment of countermeasures and counter-countermeasures. Thats been the case since the dawn of military aviation more than a century ago.
Yes, counter-stealth tools have been improving all over the world for some time now. Besides low-band radars, Moscow, Beijing and Washington are also experimenting with long-range infrared sensors as alternatives to radars, for example. For that reason, the Pentagon actually isnt counting on stealth alone for its air-power edge. American officials definitely worry about how the F-35 and other new planes will fare against state-of-the-art air defenses.
Its not for no reason that the U.S. Navy is taking its time acquiring stealth fighters, and is instead focusing on building more and better EA-18G electronic-warfare jets that can jam enemy radars instead of avoiding them.
Likewise, consider Washingtons renewed interest in extremely long-range, fast-flying hypersonic weapons. These super-fast weapons could help make up for the decreasing effectiveness of stealth. An attacking warplane wouldnt need to fly so close to enemy radars if it could simply attack from long range with a weapon thats really, really hard to intercept.
Even aging and portly B-52 bomberswhich are anything but stealthycould lob hypersonic projectiles at targets from hundreds or thousands of miles away. The speedy missiles could zip right through enemy defenses.
In theory. In reality, the Americansas well as everyone elsehave struggled to get hypersonics to work. Just like its hard getting stealth to work. And just like better sensors also require intensive development and investment over many decades.
Perhaps most importantly, Moores Lawthe idea that computing power doubles every two years or sohas never been repealed, so to speak. The fact is, stealth like any advanced technology was always bound to face challenges from any number of other technologies, particularly those that hinge on improvements in computer processing.
But future plane designs will still incorporate stealth features, even if those features dont represent a major advantage. Stealth might not be a panacea, but having no stealth at all just might be aerial suicide. New sensors work even better again non-stealthy jets than they do against stealthy ones.
Even the Navy, with all its skepticism regarding radar-evasion, has added some stealth features to its latest F/A-18E/F fighters, including special air inlets that are harder to spot on radar.
Stealth is becoming as much a standard fit for advanced military aircraft as radios or radars are. Sutyagin is right that radars are getting better. Sutyagin is wrong that improving sensors alone will change aerial warfare.
Stealth is dead. Long live stealth.
Caption for above image-
Airmen load an X-51A WaveRider hypersonic test vehicle onto a B-52. Air Force photo
Those Serbs had a LOT of help...even from NATO...in getting that bird.
Spies in Italy, ingress routes locked in, etc.
I suspect that it was Clintoon and his cabal of leftists that sacrificed that bird so the commies and our enemies could learn from it.
Build a better cloaking device and the world will beat a path to your...no wait a second!
Interesting since the first mention of what we now call stealth technology was a paper published in an obscure soviet mathematics journal during the cold war that hypothesized the clever arrangement of surfaces to minimize radar echos, that was noticed by US researchers who ran with the idea.
A bigger threat would be bistatic radars and using external signals like TV or cell towers as the signal source. A lot of stealth is focused on reflecting a radar pulse in any direction but the one from which it came. Separate the transmitter and receiver and you have break that.
In 1886, the French invented smokeless powder and designed the Lebel cartridge/rifle. It was in every way far superior to the 71/84 Mauser.
In 1888 the German rifle commission designed the Gewehr 1888. A rifle that was in every way superior to the French Lebel.
My point is that military technology can change suddenly and inventory must be replaced immediately, no matter how new it is or expensive it was.
Multiple triangulations in real-time will kill any advantage stealthy designs might have.................
The problem with bistatic is that it is even easier to spoof.
I thought the word was the Serbs got the F-117 by diddling the range or velocity gate settings beyond the factory standard to enable detection. That and knowing where to look.
An unnamed country in the Far East has been working very hard on just what you speak of for some time.
The funny thing was, that stealth tech was outdated by the time it was used. It still worked, but there were better stealth craft already.
Imaging the cost and effort to upgrade the radar systems for the entire 12,500 mile Russian border. China's is larger. Who else is going to "stealth proof" their airspace? Iran? North Korea?
“Perhaps most importantly, Moores Lawthe idea that computing power doubles every two years or sohas never been repealed, so to speak.”
Dear dumb-ox. That is not what “Moore’s Law” says. Moore said that doubling the number of semicondutors on a ‘chip’ would be doubled every two years. That does not necessarily equate to ‘computing power doubles’. But you are correct. Thus far “Moore’s Law” has not been repealed.
This stuff definitely goes in cycles. Body armor was considered obsolete for a couple hundred years, then someone invented Kevlar. Following the Yom Kippur war a lot of experts said RPGs had made tanks obsolete. Then they invented Chobham armor and reactive armor. If they get low frequency radar perfected, someone will just have to invent something to counter that.
I don’t keep up with this stuff anymore.
what happened to the idea of ?...
‘optical/infrared detectors and rangefinders’, netted with...
multiple radar receivers in diverse locations...
all tied together with computers?
Dennard Scaling ended with the silicon generation that began in 2005. Moore's Law hasn't been repealed yet, but it will come up against thew limits of physics by around the end of this decade.
The Designer Of The F-16 Explains Just How Stupid The F-35 Is.
Pretty alarming interview from a guy who certainly knows what he’s talking about.
http://digg.com/video/the-designer-of-the-f-15-explains-just-how-inanely-stupid-the-f-35-is
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.