Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
The Electronic Battlefield Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: RAM vs. ECM
Lance Blade    1/29/2011 8:43:48 AM
At the risk of generalising or sounding ignorant... can pure ECM (the concept/discipline) be a viable alternative to stealth (the concept/discipline) in the classical sense (by that I mean RAM, plane design as per V-tails, matched planform angles, etc)?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
gf0012-aust       1/29/2011 4:43:44 PM

At the risk of generalising or sounding ignorant... can pure ECM (the concept/discipline) be a viable alternative to stealth (the concept/discipline) in the classical sense (by that I mean RAM, plane design as per V-tails, matched planform angles, etc)?

no, its a sympathetic solution.  sig management is about fundamental design issues for the platform mission intent, discretionary active and passive systems that compliment each other - and additionally, its about other supporting systems that companion the platform to fulfill the mission intent.  its not just about physical design and hardware management on the platform, but also about assistance in that moving battlespace/sensor space bubble around the asset as well as to the target.


 

 
Quote    Reply

Lance Blade       1/29/2011 6:46:58 PM
So what you mean to say is, 'stealth' itself is a discipline, a concept, combining materials technology/passive signal management with electronic tactics like blinding/jamming, etc etc? One reason I wondered was because I read apparently the Tu-160 is quite hard to pick up on radar, but just by looking at the plane, it did not look 'stealthy'. Wondered if it had some advanced ECM suite to blind radar like the Israelis did in Operation Orchard. 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       1/29/2011 7:33:24 PM

"stealth" is something that has conveniently been looked at as platform specific developments.

even in the publicy promoted of events in 99 (in its first real deployment in complex space) it was much more than this, but its been dumbed down out of convenience I suspect.

Its always been about a systems solution and this is in a sense about a construct of disciplines and supporting capabilities.

there's obviously a place for purposeful designs that embrace sig suppression body features, passive, active management, materials science solutions etc... but the track to the target and back is about the platform being a component and companioned with other capabilities as a system event.

people can get excited about RAM applique, treated cockpits, DSI humps. sawtoothing, canted skegs, leading edge arrays etc as much as they like - but in the end its academic as in contested and/or complex space that asset has to get there intact to complete its mission.  being 5th gen alone does not do all that is needed to do the job.



 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       1/29/2011 7:43:04 PM

One reason I wondered was because I read apparently the Tu-160 is quite hard to pick up on radar, but just by looking at the plane, it did not look 'stealthy'. Wondered if it had some advanced ECM suite to blind radar like the Israelis did in Operation Orchard. 

the platform still needs to have a degree of design management in play irrespective of how many black boxes it carries.

if you look at what the israelis did I'd argue that there are less than a handful of countries that have the capacity to pull off similar events.  Its also critical to consider the theatre and capability of red team.


 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics