The links are:

 

Again, there are other threads as well.

 

Well, I don't understand jack of anything on this thread except that Hamil is obviously a professional while you're an amateur that is confounded by his jargon and understanding of underlying concepts that would not occur to you as related or fundamental even.

 

Interesting read~

 you said:

"Well, I don't understand jack of anything on this thread except that Hamil is obviously a professional while you're an amateur that is confounded by his jargon and understanding of underlying concepts that would not occur to you as related or fundamental even."

very interesting-thank you!

 

Flyingarty

Wrong.

 

6-Multisensor will prevail. Only a black hole are LO on all the spectrum and even them are detectable... from earth!

about the SPOON REST, my mistake!

This could have been asked or checked.

 

For the rest, the concepts are not hard to follow.

 

Radar as a weapon depends on charge coupling at the target. The photon as the force carrier boson deposits force into parts of the target that are vulnerable to such captor effects. That would be the antenna and the pilot for example. There ois the Faraday cage defense for it Doersn't work if you have an earth path (ground) to sensitive systems.  Try microwave oven for an everyday example of effects..

 

There is an infallible range method that will work on any target provided that you can SEE it (capture photons from it). Its called a stereoscopic long base range finder. The "electronic" equivalent is called signal interferometry. Both are used in astronomy to look for reflected light sources and light source emitters. The downside is that it takes tome to work out the trajectories of tracked objects and that the range and position errors are directly proportional to the angle of the parallax and to the distance/time (physics term for the scalar is interval, for the measured vector is EVENT)  

 

There is an old truism that because of the uncertainty principle, you can nail down a signal source's position or its speed, not both, ecen if you look at it with the naked eye, as it flies past you. We found that out the hard way in WW II with AAA gun directors at POINT BLANK RANGE when it took more than a thousand shells to score a direct hit. The solution

1)  I imagine that if we fly missions over China(!), and their IADS goes into preservation mode, sneaking and peeking, and then we happen to fly an LO aircraft almost right over a Chinese SAM battalion in full readiness that happens to turn on its acquisition radar just then, then the Chinese might shoot down an LO jet, too.

 

2)  I get so tired of this sort of argument regarding any weapon system ("We don't know how the F-35/Rafale will really perform in actual combat").  We have a great many ways to make extremely informed judgements regarding capabilities and performance even without fighting a "real" enemy.  On top of that, if we haven't fought a "real" enemy with LO aircraft, then pretty much the entire world hasn't fought a "real" enemy with most of their weapon systems.

 

3)  Yeah, and having a few submarines is a good plan, but by no means should we have a lot of submarines, because that will only push everyone to develop alternative submarine detection systems?

 

4)  Really?  I'm not sure how you can say that so far, as so far there haven't been any sensors developed and operationally deployed by any of our threat nations on their aircraft that have a significant impact on LO aircraft operations.  Granted, it's certainly possible that it could happen some year soon, and it's inevitable that it will happen eventually.  And by the way, we appreciate your concern over how much it costs us, but the whole "if the countermeasure costs less, then the weapon system is a failure" argument is decidedly false--even when the numbers turn out to actually support the argument.  You see, one of the beauties of being the world superpower is that we can afford to spend more than the enemy can.

 

5)  Umm, yeah, I admit you are right:  it might be impossible without redesign.

 

6)  Of course you're right, the military advantage of current LO technologies will eventually be overcome.  That's the nature of technology in warfare.

 

Meanwhile, while we wait for any and all of the above to finally occur, LO rules.

 

Hello again warpig

 

i like argumenting with you.  You always go right to the point.

 

1) for now, using current SAM and sensor, I agree

2) I agree, the use of "not combat tested" argument is so overuse. It is often use to bash weapon system that are good in all classic domain. But I am a prudent kind of guy and i like to rely on proved stuff. optimism have no place in war!

3) Ya, I think that if you have a submarine only fleet, its will be the only concern of your enemy. think about Germany in ww2 and how allies counter it.

4) the real question is: Can China find a efficent parade to counter LO and adapt standard plane and SAM to it at a cost below raptor and lightning II program togeter? and that before the next generation of LO fighter in +-25years? Dont forget that many economist state China GDP will surpass USA GDP around 2030. And even if it don't happen China will be a Superpower comparable to USA. (but USA have powerfull allies)

5 and 6)Thank you. For me thats show you honestly debating at my argument. I dont like when debate turn into an exeption finding contest. Specialy when whe have limited access on real data. General concept are more fun isn't it?

To Hamilcar

 

If i understand you correctly there is no way to defeat LO. By saying that, you state that there is no balance between stealth and detection. For me, its just like saying that armor is superior to firepower.

 

by the way, Sr-71 also had speed and altitude classics advantage. Russian where eable to detect SR-71 at long range. but where unable to dispatch Mig-25 on interception path in time. You could have put a 10 gigawatt radar flare ont top of the SR-71 it would not have change that much. Of cousce, that would have been highly unprudent to do so.

 

 

To Hamilcar

 

If i understand you correctly there is no way to defeat LO. By saying that, you state that there is no balance between stealth and detection. For me, its just like saying that armor is superior to firepower.

 

\Physics is physics. When you exploit the laws there is no circumvention. False analogies do not help you. Direct to the point, there is no way to discriminate information, if you cannot get a signal, period. If you can't see it in time to stop it, its going to kill you.   

 

by the way, Sr-71 also had speed and altitude classics advantage. Russian where eable to detect SR-71 at long range. but where unable to dispatch Mig-25 on interception path in time. You could have put a 10 gigawatt radar flare ont top of the SR-71 it would not have change that much. Of cousce, that would have been highly unprudent to do so.

 

That shows ignorance. Just because the Russians saw it then, does not mean that they could even chase it. Here is a lesson. How much time do you have to solve a track for a Mach 3 standard object at 25000 meters?

 

You have about ~ 150 seconds but that track has to be fed to every missile battery within slant range and every aircraft that you scramble to altitude because in theory your ground based radar saw it coming at a distance of 650,000 meters radius. 

 

The curvature of the Earth hid it from you. 

 

The trouble comes in further when you discover that those pesky Americans have made the thing with the signal return of a vulture. Whoops! Now you only have 10 seconds, because even with your best ground based radars you can only see it at  45,000 meters slant. Your best rockets might hit it if you could get a solutiin, but not if they cannot climb up to meet on such short notice and not with such a lag chase disparity that they fall before they ever reach the plane. (<Mach 1 chase advantage at 60 seconds burn.) . Those detection threshold examples by the way are for an aircraft hypothetical. There is no way you are ever going to get anyone to give you real numbers if they knew. It also does not take into account asuch things as radar coverage gap exploitation or even false signals.

 

In other words, speed, altitude, curvature of the Earth, are all forms of signal management to which a reduced signal emission and signal return from the target ADD as the cube power or GREATER of the offense over the defense. How would you like to track a sparrow carrying an H bomb? 

     

That is what signal management means.

 

I'm done. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To Hamilcar

 

Ok, if you don't like my armor and firepower analogy, lets ignore it.

 

Do you state thats impossible, due to law of physic, using any kind of current or future technology, to detect and track LO aircraft beyond his engagement range ?

I would appreciate if you could answer by YES or NO, and after do a quick explanation.

 

About the SR-71,

Thank you to have explain why, even without stealth, it was almost impossible to intercept it. cause it was precisely my point.