Question about stealth aircraft. - Page 1

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Question about stealth aircraft. (Page 1 of 3)

Posted: 3/1/2013 6:54:07 PM EDT

I know that these aircraft are very difficult to detect and track. Could you not use a form of doppler radar to detect the disturbance that the aircraft makes as it passes though the air to detect and track it?
Seems to me that if you find the point where the air is being disturbed you have your target.

Posted: 3/1/2013 6:54:30 PM EDT

[#1]

Lol

Posted: 3/1/2013 6:56:54 PM EDT

[#2]

If air reflected radar waves...how would they be able to radiate out to hit an aircraft?

Posted: 3/1/2013 6:58:22 PM EDT

[#3]

Detect and track are required. The second might not be so easy.

Posted: 3/1/2013 7:03:02 PM EDT

[#4]

The speed of heat.

Posted: 3/1/2013 7:04:53 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
If air reflected radar waves...how would they be able to radiate out to hit an aircraft?

It might be possible if there is high humidity, or the plane is flying through clouds.

Posted: 3/1/2013 7:08:36 PM EDT

[#6]

If you just had an area spotted with high speed treadmills you could detect the rapid altitude drop when they passed overhead.

Posted: 3/1/2013 7:08:37 PM EDT

[#7]

If you charge the air + before it hits the - charged wing it laminates better and makes much less turbulence and therefore less return. Just don't fly in bad weather.

Posted: 3/1/2013 7:10:15 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
If air reflected radar waves...how would they be able to radiate out to hit an aircraft?

There is always something in the air. If you have a radar that is sensitive to detect dust sized particles then you just watch the screen for where the dust particles are being disturbed by the passing of the aircraft.
Kinda like they detect tornadoes in a thunderstorm.

Posted: 3/1/2013 7:10:36 PM EDT

[#9]

you would be better off doing something else to try to detect masking attempts

Posted: 3/1/2013 7:10:39 PM EDT

[#10]

Star Trek & Shit.

Posted: 3/1/2013 7:11:54 PM EDT

[#11]

The acoustic hole as it moves through the air...

One ping Vasily.

Posted: 3/1/2013 7:12:39 PM EDT

[#12]

I like Tom Clancy's idea (for submarines, but same idea). There's always background noise, so if a craft is really stealthy you just have to look for the hole in the background noise.

Posted: 3/1/2013 7:13:04 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

If you charge the air + before it hits the - charged wing it laminates better and makes much less turbulence and therefore less return. Just don't fly in bad weather.

Posted: 3/1/2013 7:13:59 PM EDT

[#14]

The disturbance of the air would cause very slight changes in the impedance of the air (deviations from Z0), which would cause reflections when illiminated with RF energy. But, these reflections would be very weak and difficult to detect.

You would probably get stronger returns directly from the skin (also very weak if it is a good stealth aircraft).

If you have enough power * aperture, enough receiver sensitivity, and use a well chosen radio frequency, you can detect stealth aircraft. But it is difficult and expensive to build the needed hardware.

Posted: 3/1/2013 7:14:43 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If air reflected radar waves...how would they be able to radiate out to hit an aircraft?

There is always something in the air. If you have a radar that is sensitive to detect dust sized particles then you just watch the screen for where the dust particles are being disturbed by the passing of the aircraft.
Kinda like they detect tornadoes in a thunderstorm.

Rain yes dust particles not so much!

Posted: 3/1/2013 7:16:46 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If air reflected radar waves...how would they be able to radiate out to hit an aircraft?

There is always something in the air. If you have a radar that is sensitive to detect dust sized particles then you just watch the screen for where the dust particles are being disturbed by the passing of the aircraft.
Kinda like they detect tornadoes in a thunderstorm.

Doppler radar is VERY slow. In precipitation mode, a scan takes 5 minutes. In a clear air mode (the most sensitive) it takes 10 minutes.

Posted: 3/1/2013 7:19:20 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If air reflected radar waves...how would they be able to radiate out to hit an aircraft?

There is always something in the air. If you have a radar that is sensitive to detect dust sized particles then you just watch the screen for where the dust particles are being disturbed by the passing of the aircraft.
Kinda like they detect tornadoes in a thunderstorm.

Rain yes dust particles not so much!

I guess you would have to have a crazy high powered radar to detect dust. Probably would fry everything in a ten mile radius.

Just a thought. My mind sometimes has crazy thoughts.

Posted: 3/1/2013 7:20:47 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If air reflected radar waves...how would they be able to radiate out to hit an aircraft?

There is always something in the air. If you have a radar that is sensitive to detect dust sized particles then you just watch the screen for where the dust particles are being disturbed by the passing of the aircraft.
Kinda like they detect tornadoes in a thunderstorm.

Doppler radar is VERY slow. In precipitation mode, a scan takes 5 minutes. In a clear air mode (the most sensitive) it takes 10 minutes.

Wow I never would have thought that.

Posted: 3/1/2013 7:21:30 PM EDT

[#19]

I always wanted to come up with a system of low frequency microphones all over the place that would triangulate sound thereby tracking the aircraft.

Keep in mind I came up with this idea at 13 so.

Posted: 3/1/2013 7:23:07 PM EDT

[#20]

Depends on the size of the treadmill

Posted: 3/1/2013 7:23:52 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Depends on the size of the treadmill

Posted: 3/1/2013 7:30:40 PM EDT

[#22]

Not Doppler radar, LIDAR. Being used today to detect turbulence by commercial airliners and ground units near airports. But, how would you know the turbulence you were detecting was man-made?

Posted: 3/1/2013 7:31:30 PM EDT

[#23]

to go wiki deep.
passive stealth works on two major areas. shape and RAM (radar absorbing material)

basic radar works on transmitting an E/M wave and that wave reflecting back to a receiver. almost all radars have the transmitter and receiver co-located. thats how the shape of the aircraft minimizes the reflection of radar which reduces the signature. But if the receiver and the transmitter are in different locations, then that technique would lose some abilities.

RAM literally absorbs the radar wave. with no reflection, there is no signature. However, RAM that I know of only absorbs one wavelength band. So if you use multi-spectral radars, current RAM is defeated.)

If you could develop multi-spectral RAM (assuming we haven't), you'd be one rich mofo.

so, the abilitity to defeat current stealth technologies are out there.
grown ups out there (IAF and CNO amongst others) have realized stealth has expired or is fixing to expire right around the same time the F35 becomes the be all end all.

now, we will still have the ability to JAM which is adjustable to new threats. but if you are going to jam, why buy stealth?

Posted: 3/1/2013 7:31:40 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
The speed of heat.

times the mass of the ass eqauls the sum of the cum

Posted: 3/1/2013 7:34:50 PM EDT

[#25]

The usage of atmospheric schlieren photography coupled with sensitive thermal imaging cameras holds great promise to defeat stealth aircraft.

It can render stealth aircraft non-stealthy if the air conditions are clear.

Posted: 3/1/2013 7:35:43 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If air reflected radar waves...how would they be able to radiate out to hit an aircraft?

There is always something in the air. If you have a radar that is sensitive to detect dust sized particles then you just watch the screen for where the dust particles are being disturbed by the passing of the aircraft.
Kinda like they detect tornadoes in a thunderstorm.

Rain yes dust particles not so much!

I guess you would have to have a crazy high powered radar to detect dust. Probably would fry everything in a ten mile radius.

Just a thought. My mind sometimes has crazy thoughts.

The wavelength of the signal has to be no longer than the dimensions of the object you're trying to detect.

Posted: 3/1/2013 7:37:46 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If air reflected radar waves...how would they be able to radiate out to hit an aircraft?

There is always something in the air. If you have a radar that is sensitive to detect dust sized particles then you just watch the screen for where the dust particles are being disturbed by the passing of the aircraft.
Kinda like they detect tornadoes in a thunderstorm.

Rain yes dust particles not so much!

I guess you would have to have a crazy high powered radar to detect dust. Probably would fry everything in a ten mile radius.

Just a thought. My mind sometimes has crazy thoughts.

The wavelength of the signal has to be no shorter than the object you're trying to detect.

an excellent point. I had never thought about it like that because we are always looking at tinier and tinier wavelengths.

Posted: 3/1/2013 7:38:00 PM EDT

[#28]

During the Clinton regime, didn't the Russians come up with a method using the consecutive blocking of cell tower signals to track F-117 aircraft?

Posted: 3/1/2013 7:41:34 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

to go wiki deep.

passive stealth works on two major areas. shape and RAM (radar absorbing material)

basic radar works on transmitting an E/M wave and that wave reflecting back to a receiver. almost all radars have the transmitter and receiver co-located. thats how the shape of the aircraft minimizes the reflection of radar which reduces the signature. But if the receiver and the transmitter are in different locations, then that technique would lose some abilities.

RAM literally absorbs the radar wave. with no reflection, there is no signature. However, RAM that I know of only absorbs one wavelength band. So if you use multi-spectral radars, current RAM is defeated.)

If you could develop multi-spectral RAM (assuming we haven't), you'd be one rich mofo.

so, the abilitity to defeat current stealth technologies are out there.

grown ups out there (IAF and CNO amongst others) have realized stealth has expired or is fixing to expire right around the same time the F35 becomes the be all end all.

now, we will still have the ability to JAM which is adjustable to new threats. but if you are going to jam, why buy stealth?

I read an article some years ago which claimed that the Aussies had the capability to track out stealth craft. As a poster above said they looked for areas where there was a "hole" where there shouldn't be. I've got to believe that by now most serious folks could detect our planes. Chinese, Russians etc.

Posted: 3/1/2013 7:42:35 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If air reflected radar waves...how would they be able to radiate out to hit an aircraft?

There is always something in the air. If you have a radar that is sensitive to detect dust sized particles then you just watch the screen for where the dust particles are being disturbed by the passing of the aircraft.
Kinda like they detect tornadoes in a thunderstorm.

Rain yes dust particles not so much!

I guess you would have to have a crazy high powered radar to detect dust. Probably would fry everything in a ten mile radius.

Just a thought. My mind sometimes has crazy thoughts.

The wavelength of the signal has to be no longer than the dimensions of the object you're trying to detect.

Very good point!

Posted: 3/1/2013 7:45:01 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
During the Clinton regime, didn't the Russians come up with a method using the consecutive blocking of cell tower signals to track F-117 aircraft?

Did the Russians have many cell phone antennas in 98?

Posted: 3/1/2013 7:46:33 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:
to go wiki deep.
passive stealth works on two major areas. shape and RAM (radar absorbing material)

basic radar works on transmitting an E/M wave and that wave reflecting back to a receiver. almost all radars have the transmitter and receiver co-located. thats how the shape of the aircraft minimizes the reflection of radar which reduces the signature. But if the receiver and the transmitter are in different locations, then that technique would lose some abilities.

RAM literally absorbs the radar wave. with no reflection, there is no signature. However, RAM that I know of only absorbs one wavelength band. So if you use multi-spectral radars, current RAM is defeated.)

If you could develop multi-spectral RAM (assuming we haven't), you'd be one rich mofo.

so, the abilitity to defeat current stealth technologies are out there.
grown ups out there (IAF and CNO amongst others) have realized stealth has expired or is fixing to expire right around the same time the F35 becomes the be all end all.

now, we will still have the ability to JAM which is adjustable to new threats. but if you are going to jam, why buy stealth?

I read an article some years ago which claimed that the Aussies had the capability to track out stealth craft. As a poster above said they looked for areas where there was a "hole" where there shouldn't be. I've got to believe that by now most serious folks could detect our planes. Chinese, Russians etc.

well, the hole in the sky is the natural state. but, yes, our stealth technology can be defeated. not to say making it harder to find us isn't a bad thing. but if we are going to go bankrupt commiting ourselves to an operational concept which has expired, well, thats kinda dumb.

stealth won't eliminate the strike package concept, just make it harder to execute and with fewer frames and those fewer frames poorly designed to do it.

Posted: 3/1/2013 7:50:12 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
I always wanted to come up with a system of low frequency microphones all over the place that would triangulate sound thereby tracking the aircraft.

Keep in mind I came up with this idea at 13 so.

Clint Eastwood starred in that movie, it was called "Firefox" , and the acoustic detection system was in the Ural Mts. (?)

Posted: 3/1/2013 7:50:18 PM EDT

[#34]

Doppler doesn't work like that. Read Stimson's Principles of Airborne Radars and get back to us.

Posted: 3/1/2013 7:53:18 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:
During the Clinton regime, didn't the Russians come up with a method using the consecutive blocking of cell tower signals to track F-117 aircraft?

Did the Russians have many cell phone antennas in 98?

Serbia.

Posted: 3/1/2013 7:59:45 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:
to go wiki deep.
passive stealth works on two major areas. shape and RAM (radar absorbing material)

basic radar works on transmitting an E/M wave and that wave reflecting back to a receiver. almost all radars have the transmitter and receiver co-located. thats how the shape of the aircraft minimizes the reflection of radar which reduces the signature. But if the receiver and the transmitter are in different locations, then that technique would lose some abilities.

RAM literally absorbs the radar wave. with no reflection, there is no signature. However, RAM that I know of only absorbs one wavelength band. So if you use multi-spectral radars, current RAM is defeated.)

If you could develop multi-spectral RAM (assuming we haven't), you'd be one rich mofo.

so, the abilitity to defeat current stealth technologies are out there.
grown ups out there (IAF and CNO amongst others) have realized stealth has expired or is fixing to expire right around the same time the F35 becomes the be all end all.

now, we will still have the ability to JAM which is adjustable to new threats. but if you are going to jam, why buy stealth?

I read an article some years ago which claimed that the Aussies had the capability to track out stealth craft. As a poster above said they looked for areas where there was a "hole" where there shouldn't be. I've got to believe that by now most serious folks could detect our planes. Chinese, Russians etc.

Watch from overhead. Big field of view in the weakest sector (strongest return) of the vehicle.

Posted: 3/1/2013 8:00:55 PM EDT

[#37]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_technology#Tactics

Specifically,

Mission planners use their knowledge of enemy radar locations and the RCS pattern of the aircraft to design a flight path that minimizes radial speed while presenting the lowest-RCS aspects of the aircraft to the threat radar.

Knowing what your airplane's RCS looks like to an enemy radar, combined with good intelligence that allows you to know exactly where those radar sites are located at all times, can be as important to a "stealth" aircraft as the shape or materials that it's made from. A lot of tactics go into making airplanes seem invisible...

Posted: 3/1/2013 8:06:40 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_technology#Tactics

Specifically,

Mission planners use their knowledge of enemy radar locations and the RCS pattern of the aircraft to design a flight path that minimizes radial speed while presenting the lowest-RCS aspects of the aircraft to the threat radar.

Knowing what your airplane's RCS looks like to an enemy radar, combined with good intelligence] that allows you to know exactly where those radar sites are located at all times, can be as important to a "stealth" aircraft as the shape or materials that it's made from. A lot of tactics go into making airplanes seem invisible...

clausiwitz is for faggots.

so, all we need now is omnipontent knowledge of our enemy.

Posted: 3/1/2013 8:29:40 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

so, all we need now is omnipontent knowledge of our enemy.

Wouldn't hurt.

But in all seriousness, "stealth" aircraft aren't invisible, it's more that they possess traits of "low observability." Of course the shape and materials matter, and of course there are strategies to lower thermal and acoustic footprints. But most people don't realize just how important good mission planning can be, and a lot of that comes down to knowing what the enemy's capabilities are, and where those assets are located. Just sayin.

Posted: 3/1/2013 8:38:59 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I always wanted to come up with a system of low frequency microphones all over the place that would triangulate sound thereby tracking the aircraft.

Keep in mind I came up with this idea at 13 so.

Clint Eastwood starred in that movie, it was called "Firefox" , and the acoustic detection system was in the Ural Mts. (?)

Never seen it. So its not possible? We had mics that'd pick up nuke blasts from 1000s of miles. Coupled with a modern computer it seems like a workable idea.

Posted: 3/1/2013 8:48:51 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:
During the Clinton regime, didn't the Russians come up with a method using the consecutive blocking of cell tower signals to track F-117 aircraft?

Did the Russians have many cell phone antennas in 98?

Serbia.

You're talking about bi-static radars (seperate transmitting and reciever sites) that operate using cell phone towers as "transmitters of opportunity" instead of a dedicated transmitter site. The transmitter of opporetunity principle has been around since the 1960s, initially as a method of spying on what enemy radars were looking at.

The transmitter of opportunity concept was added to the idea back in the 1980s and was actually envisioned as using FM radio and television broadcasts as the RF sources for the system. Cellphone transmitters were initially not looked at but as tower proliferated became seen to be as the most convenient RF source for such systems.

Bi-static radars are the radars that can most easily detect a stealth aircraft, since by design such an aircraft will reflect a radar someplace besides signal back to its source. The US Over The Horizon-Backscatter system and the similar Australian Jindalee system are said to be able to spot steealth aircraft, but they cannot be used to guide missiles. Guiding missiles requires radars operating in shorter wavelengths where stealth works best.

Posted: 3/1/2013 9:00:07 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

Quoted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_technology#Tactics

Specifically,

Mission planners use their knowledge of enemy radar locations and the RCS pattern of the aircraft to design a flight path that minimizes radial speed while presenting the lowest-RCS aspects of the aircraft to the threat radar.

Knowing what your airplane's RCS looks like to an enemy radar, combined with good intelligence] that allows you to know exactly where those radar sites are located at all times, can be as important to a "stealth" aircraft as the shape or materials that it's made from. A lot of tactics go into making airplanes seem invisible...

clausiwitz is for faggots.

so, all we need now is omnipontent knowledge of our enemy.

Elint satellites in Molinya orbits above the territories of likely adversaries are wonderful tools. Electronic order of battle and emitter location can be established far more quickly than you realize. Saw some demonstrations that were truly amazing and that was back in the early 1990s. I imagine that things are updated real-time these days instead of the short time delays involved back then.

Posted: 3/1/2013 9:00:13 PM EDT

[#43]

OP even if someone here knows the answer to how stealth aircraft might be detected and tracked, you can bet it's CLASSIFIED information. So, here's a picture of a surprised lemur instead:

Posted: 3/1/2013 11:58:54 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
The speed of heat.

Can it tell me what guns they're using?

Posted: 3/2/2013 12:08:12 AM EDT

[#45]

No.

Posted: 3/2/2013 12:12:11 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
I know that these aircraft are very difficult to detect and track. Could you not use a form of doppler radar to detect the disturbance that the aircraft makes as it passes though the air to detect and track it?
Seems to me that if you find the point where the air is being disturbed you have your target.

I geuss when they decided to make them STEALTH aircraft..they didn't think about this? Furthermore, just to prove you wrong...watch any of the X-Men movies...All you need is one mutant with powers to control weather..and you can cover your tracks....

Posted: 3/2/2013 12:42:56 AM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
The disturbance of the air would cause very slight changes in the impedance of the air (deviations from Z0), which would cause reflections when illiminated with RF energy. But, these reflections would be very weak and difficult to detect.

You would probably get stronger returns directly from the skin (also very weak if it is a good stealth aircraft).

If you have enough power * aperture, enough receiver sensitivity, and use a well chosen radio frequency, you can detect stealth aircraft. But it is difficult and expensive to build the needed hardware.

Or you could do like the serbs and use a 1950's Russian X-band radar ...

Posted: 3/2/2013 1:06:53 AM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
I know that these aircraft are very difficult to detect and track. Could you not use a form of doppler radar to detect the disturbance that the aircraft makes as it passes though the air to detect and track it?
Seems to me that if you find the point where the air is being disturbed you have your target.

About 18 month after the B2 was rolled out, the Austrailian .mil claimed they detected it via backscatter radar, through this exact method.

Posted: 3/2/2013 1:27:01 AM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
I like Tom Clancy's idea (for submarines, but same idea). There's always background noise, so if a craft is really stealthy you just have to look for the hole in the background noise.

They tracked aircraft in WWII by their sound.

Posted: 3/2/2013 1:28:19 AM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
I always wanted to come up with a system of low frequency microphones all over the place that would triangulate sound thereby tracking the aircraft.

Keep in mind I came up with this idea at 13 so.

They already came up with that idea decades ago.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Question about stealth aircraft. (Page 1 of 3)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us