Stealth Is Dead! Long Live Stealth!

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 will be effective for a long, long time. With the elimination of corner reflectors multiple radar installations are required just to get a hint that there is an aircraft out there. Stealth will be with us until some very advanced optical technology comes along, and that’s going to be decades from now IMHO.

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.

Dr Petr Ufimtsev was the Soviet physicist who derived the equations for defusing radar signals away from their source. He took his work to the Kremlin who concluded that it had no military relevance whatsoever and allowed him to put it in the public domain. The rest is history.

The Designer Of The F-16 . . .

He didn't design the F-16. He had some input (among many others) into the requirements that led to the F-16, and his net contribution is more from being vocally anti-F-15 than pro-F-16.

And here he is again vocally anti-something. It's easy to make a lot of noise by saying someone else is wrong. That doesn't make him right.

(By the way, I worked on the F-16 and the F-22 and the F-35. They are all awesome aircraft and I think the US should buy thousands of each - thousands more of F-16s.)

I am not anti-F-16, but there are things the F-35 can do that no other aircraft in history could do. Whether those new capabilities are worth it is a valid matter of opinion and analysis, but there are many, many scenarios where F-35s will succeed and nothing else would.

There are also scenarios where an equal-cost force of F-16s will beat any other aircraft every invented. It's very cost effective at what it does well.

I'm more in the mode of giving those who are charged to make the decisions the benefit of the doubt over outsiders - especially those who inflate their own importance.

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

And anti-gravity will revolutionize our commute to and from work. Of course, making anti-gravity work, or multiple, real-time triangulations on something that doesn't reflect or emit anything is kinda hard to to.

The idea that the stealth aircraft will create a shadow in the sea of other emissions is fine . . . until you get above the top of the TV towers. Then you'll only notice it if your receiver is on the line-of-sight (upward) from the tower through the aircraft. And if you want more than an instant of digital noise (as the aircraft goes by), you need a *lot* of high-altitude receivers. Not an easy solution. That's the same problem with bi-static radars.

The article is fundamentally wrong in saying that low-band radars are good at detecting bumps and things on aircraft. The exact opposite is true. And low-band radars need antennas that are many wavelengths long to get any pointing accuracy. Those are huge, expensive, and difficult to move to track a high-speed target (look up Cobra Dane, or the very-low-precision Soviet/Russian Tall King). They're impossible to use on targeting systems that need precise target location for terminal maneuvers.

This topic is a case that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I really hope that the Russians (and other potential adversaries) think beating stealth is that easy. It will mean a lot of F-35 pilots get through and come home safely.

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.