Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Stealth Is Dead! Long Live Stealth!
War is Boring ^ | 16 September 2014 | Joseph Trevithick

Posted on 09/16/2014 12:43:13 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki

Russian expert says fighter jets can’t hide forever—but that’s 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 can’t stay hidden much longer as enemy radar technology improves.

The U.S. military is betting hundreds of billions of dollars—in essence, its whole air-power investment—that 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, that’s the simplistic reading of stealth and counter-stealth in today’s warplane development. And make no mistake, Sutyagin’s argument is simplistic.

In truth, the Russian expert’s claims aren’t particularly new. And there’s no reason to think that better radars are about to render radar-evading warplanes totally obsolete. Emphasis on totally.

Reality is more complicated that Sutyagin’s 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 design—albeit still a very important standard feature.

Again, there’s nothing particularly new about that. Stealth has never been perfect. It’s not perfect today. It won’t be perfect tomorrow. But it still matters.

The core of the alleged former spy’s 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” — that’s also the title of Sutyagin’s 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 doesn’t know … or won’t admit?

For his part, the Russian expat seems to suggest that Western aircraft manufacturers have been oblivious to the low-band threat. But it’s hard to ignore a possible nationalistic prejudice in his assessment. At times, Sutyagin’s essay in RUSI’s 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.”

Here’s the truth. Yes, low-band radars can detect very small objects or tiny individual parts of larger objects—for instance, protrusions on a stealth jet’s airframe. Experts including Aviation Week’s Bill Sweetman have criticized the F-35 for its lumpy, bumpy fuselage, which could make the jet easier to find.

Low-band radar’s special sensitivity represents an important capability for any country trying to detect its enemy’s stealth planes. But for a long time, radar operators couldn’t 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.

That’s becoming less of a problem. Indeed, that improvement is the crux of Sutyagin’s argument. He explains that today’s powerful computers can help sort through all the extra radar “noise” and find specific targets.

Now, Sutyagin’s conclusions aren’t wrong, but they also don’t exist in a vacuum. Every new military airplane gets introduced into an ever-changing environment of countermeasures and counter-countermeasures. That’s 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 isn’t 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.

It’s 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 Washington’s 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 wouldn’t need to fly so close to enemy radars if it could simply attack from long range with a weapon that’s really, really hard to intercept.

Even aging and portly B-52 bombers—which are anything but stealthy—could 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 Americans—as well as everyone else—have struggled to get hypersonics to work. Just like it’s hard getting stealth to work. And just like better sensors also require intensive development and investment over many decades.

Perhaps most importantly, Moore’s Law—the idea that computing power doubles every two years or so—has 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 don’t 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.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Russia
KEYWORDS: aerospace; russia; stealth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

1 posted on 09/16/2014 12:43:13 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Caption for above image-

Airmen load an X-51A WaveRider hypersonic test vehicle onto a B-52. Air Force photo


2 posted on 09/16/2014 12:43:49 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
"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."

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.

3 posted on 09/16/2014 12:48:00 PM PDT by SZonian (Throwing our allegiances to political parties in the long run gave away our liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Build a better cloaking device and the world will beat a path to your...no wait a second!


4 posted on 09/16/2014 12:50:26 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

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.


5 posted on 09/16/2014 12:50:32 PM PDT by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
Low frequency = low resolution and big antennas.

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.

6 posted on 09/16/2014 12:52:17 PM PDT by KarlInOhio (The IRS: either criminally irresponsible in backup procedures or criminally responsible of coverup.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
In 1884, the German Empire invested heavily in designing and fielding what was arguably the most advanced military rifles in the world, the Mauser 71/84. It was state of the art, a well balanced black powder cartridge, a slick bolt action, and an 8 round tube magazine, which made it far superior the to French Gras.

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.

7 posted on 09/16/2014 12:56:32 PM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio

Multiple triangulations in real-time will kill any advantage stealthy designs might have.................


8 posted on 09/16/2014 12:56:35 PM PDT by Red Badger (If you compromise with evil, you just get more evil..........................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio

The problem with bistatic is that it is even easier to spoof.


9 posted on 09/16/2014 12:57:46 PM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio
A stealth object swimming through an ocean of cell phone and TV RF creates a moving dead spot. The clutter steady state is disrupted.
10 posted on 09/16/2014 12:59:02 PM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

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.


11 posted on 09/16/2014 1:06:20 PM PDT by doorgunner69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio
A bigger threat would be bistatic radars and using external signals like TV or cell towers as the signal source.

An unnamed country in the Far East has been working very hard on just what you speak of for some time.

12 posted on 09/16/2014 1:09:17 PM PDT by doorgunner69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SZonian

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.


13 posted on 09/16/2014 1:11:01 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
I remember General Horner talking about this right after Gulf War I. He said that there could be advances in radar that would negate stealth but that wouldn't instantly change all the existing radar systems.

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?

14 posted on 09/16/2014 1:12:29 PM PDT by Dilbert56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

“Perhaps most importantly, Moore’s Law—the idea that computing power doubles every two years or so—has 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.


15 posted on 09/16/2014 1:13:31 PM PDT by spel_grammer_an_punct_polise (Why does every totalitarian political hack think that he knows how to run my life better than I do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

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.


16 posted on 09/16/2014 1:14:15 PM PDT by Hugin ("Do yourself a favor--first thing, get a firearm!",)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

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?


17 posted on 09/16/2014 1:24:35 PM PDT by RockyTx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
Perhaps most importantly, Moore’s Law—the idea that computing power doubles every two years or so—has never been repealed, so to speak.

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.

18 posted on 09/16/2014 1:30:08 PM PDT by FredZarguna (His first name is 'Unarmed,' and his given middle name is 'Teenager.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spel_grammer_an_punct_polise
Actually, that's not what Moore's law says either. Moore's law is specifically about the doubling time of transistors. In any case, with the end of Dennard Scaling, Moore's law has effectively been repealed.
19 posted on 09/16/2014 1:33:33 PM PDT by FredZarguna (His first name is 'Unarmed,' and his given middle name is 'Teenager.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

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


20 posted on 09/16/2014 1:54:02 PM PDT by DJ Taylor (Once again our country is at war,and once again the Democrats have sided with our enemy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson