| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: Tech | |
| Getting Sneaky With Stealth | |
| 2005-05-24 | |
| May 24, 2005: Is stealth technology booby-trapped? Developing new technologies to defeat American stealth aircraft has become a major international business. Russian firms boat of having "counter-stealth" technology, as do a number of others in Europe and East Asia. But recently there has been some discussion about how some American stealth technology is not all it appears to be. No one wants to provide too many details, since stealth secrets can be big money in the counter-stealth industry, but some researchers believe American stealth technology, especially some of the recent stuff, is designed deliberately to not be as stealthy as it could be. This was done so that potential enemies would spend time and energy trying to defeat stealth as it is. Apparently, once we learn that someone has developed a way to defeat stealth-as-it-is, relative minor adjustments can be made to make things stealthier again.
| |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #5 Super Hose, how about if we all just get out of the water until the shooting war is over? ;-) |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-05-24 21:49 |
| #4 I saw a Discovery Channel show theat demonstrated how the design for the Burke class destroyer shrunk its radar cross section so that it's blip look like a fishing boat. Pretty impressive. Recommendation: don't fish in the vicinity of a Burke class destroyer during a shooting war. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2005-05-24 20:25 |
| #3 It all comes down to one thing: the speed of innovation. Stealth is a fast cycle technology (less than 18 months sustainability per generation). The notion that there is something in the black box to pull out when needed is a misperception and a false contention. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-05-24 19:50 |
| #2 So, I suspect that if we did not reduce the RCS of the F-22 as much as possible, it's not because we are trying to trick other countries, but we viewed other parameters, such as supersonic cruise, a higher priority. Exactly. Sometimes 'good enough' is indeed good enough. |
| Posted by: Parabellum 2005-05-24 17:43 |
| #1 I don't think so. At least not to the point of deliberately picking a sub-optimal stealth level just to go to a higher one later. First, Reduced Cross Section means just that: reduced. The idea is to reduce the distance at which it can be detected, not make it totally invisible. There is a radar return; it's just very, very weak. Obviously, more (or less, as it were) is better, but there are always trade-offs with speed, maneuverability, range, payload, and of course CO$T. While the B-1 is by no means a "stealth" platform, it is vastly superior to the B-52 in RCS. If the radar stations are spaced far enough apart, a B-1 could sneak through a warning net that could detect a B-52. The F-117, B-2, F-22, and F-35 are just more of the same. They are able to penetrate existing nets. But, with more stations or higher power at each station, they could indeed be detected. So, if you want to defeat a B-2, just put your radar stations XXX feet apart and there you go. You'll need some generators for all the power and have half your population in the air defense, but it will work. So, I suspect that if we did not reduce the RCS of the F-22 as much as possible, it's not because we are trying to trick other countries, but we viewed other parameters, such as supersonic cruise, a higher priority. |
| Posted by: Jackal 2005-05-24 13:58 |