Talk:Stealth technology

Why is the 'inventor' of stealth left out?
This article has no mention at all of Pyotr_Ufimtsev, who is considered the inventor of modern stealth technology. Why? Seems a curious omission. T-bonham (talk) 06:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Because this is the Secret "American" plane, that's why...

F-22 refueling probes?

 * One possibility is that two pairs of F-22 could be tasked to intercept an invading force of aircraft, with one pair flying stealthily and the second pair flying 50 km behind them with refuelling probes extended so as to be visible on enemy radar.

The F-22, like almost all USAF aircraft, uses a drogue refueling system. A drogue from the tanker is inserted directly into a receptacle on the fuselage rather than attached to a protruding probe. Perhaps the tactic description above could be changed to refer to opening of the refueling port doors? As the port is mostly obscured by the cockpit rise though, it does not seem likely that this would be a realistic method of increasing RCS (at least at high aspect angles).

My personal opinion is that this hypothetical maneuver should be removed entirely from the page, but I'm eager to hear what others have to say... &#9992; James C. 04:21, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)
 * ok, I rewrote the fighters part of the "Stealth Tactics" section. &#9992; James C. 19:54, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)

I'd say the bomb/missile bay doors being opened would increase the radar signature plenty. However, chances are the F-22 carries a towed decoy with signature augmentation, like many other modern US aircraft (so that if a missile is fired at it, it can deploy the decoy and have the missile hit it rather than the aircraft). Radar augmentation is not terribly difficult; you basically receive incoming radiation and re-broadcast it so as to appear "larger" on the radar scope. Installing such a device, to be able to appear and disappear from radars at will, might be useful. Nvinen 02:01, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * No, the F-22 does not carry a towed decoy, unlike the F/A-18E/F. I'm familiar with the concept of "radar augmentation," though I had always known it as a form of jamming (cf. gate stealers, noise etc.). &#9992; James C. 19:16, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
 * And months later I'd like to now add... I don't think the pilot can manually open the weapons bay doors. Opening is automatic with weapon launch, and very quick (I've seen the testfiring videos).  &#9992; James C. 02:44, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

"How stealthy is it?" section
Does anyone else feel most of that section, especially the second paragraph, belongs in radar cross section? &#9992; James C. 04:19, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)


 * I felt that way about the second paragraph in the introduction. I have moved it to the RCS section. It fits better there. -Amatulic 04:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Stealth (movie)
IMDB entry Trailer Need disambig, but too lazy to do it myself. &#9992; James C. 19:14, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

factual inaccuracy


The article says: The technology was first used on a large scale during the Gulf War in 1991. This is nonsense, even if we restrict the meaning of "stealth technology" to just mean measures to reduce radar signature. During World War II, the Mosquito fighter-bomber had a very low radar signature which allowed it to evade German ground radars and night fighters. Using "stealth tevhnology" in the wider sense, i.e. all technologies that reduce the probability of being detected, it has been in use for millenia. For example, the Romans painted their warships blue to make them harder to spot -- Cabalamat 18:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Very good point. I'll change it from "the technology" to "radar avoidance technology". --Apyule 01:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, the first aircraft to use this technology (or an early version of it) was a WWII German aircraft, the Horten Ho 229. The article really needs a history section... bogdan 14:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the statement "The aircraft must be painted by robots, because the solvent used is highly toxic." In my experience working in this area, toxicity isn't really the reason to use robots. Rather, robotic sprayers are used to control thickness accurately. I have made a minor edit to say so. Also, I added the USS San Antonio to the list of ships that incorporate shaping. There are others such as the Arleigh Burke class destroyers, but the San Antonio is a more advanced design with greater attention to shaping details (I was involved in RCS aspects of its design). --Amatulic 17:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Not always soldiers wanted to hide
Being able to operate without the knowledge of the enemy has always been a goal of military technology and techniques. Is it really so? Before the modern ages it was usual in europe that troops wanted to be seen. They made loud music, had coloured clothes and they gathered at open fields to face the enemy. This was due to concepts of honour, manhood and fairness. 193.65.112.51 09:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * nope, they just didn't KNOW how to use cammo, it doesn't mean they don't want to hide! also the music is to raise morale and it doesn't travel FAR enough to be heard... you will SEE the enemy before you HEAR them which makes the arguement questionable if that was the intention of the noise. harden troop know their live is saved by ending the enemies, raids are conducted by stores to starve the enemy whatever possible. camp are set on fire to burn them in their sleep. but of course, people are only interested in major engagement and not what the crack troop and their commanders are really doing the rest of the time... why do you think there is a need for rearguard and vangaurd so early in military history? ;) Akinkhoo (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually thats not entirely true. Ancient militaries like the Romans and Greek's knew of the use of stealth and even arranged these bright and colourful troops for ambush tactics and the like. The difference was, that visibility did not so quickly equate to death. In fact, with poorly motivated troops, visibility could equal victory. A huge amount of historical battles were won through a display of force, rather then the application of force. Peasants were aware of the horrors they were about to face, and the more likely those horrors looked, the less likely they were to fight. Sometimes commanders went so far as to take this into account and surrendered or came to terms for an orderly withdrawal when the army on the other hill looked more fearsome. As for 'seeing an enemy before you hear one'. Thats a load of garbage. Big movements of people make large amounts of noise. Instruments were often used because shouting orders was inneffective over the din of marching, so they had to be louder. While sometimes, visibility is superior, hearing a mass of people over a hill or in some trees is almost as likely as seeing them on an open field.--Senor Freebie (talk) 06:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Stealth ship
The main wiki article on the Arleigh Burke class destroyer does not mention stealth at all. The referenced article says that it is "stealth-like". To name it as a significant stealth forerunner is to reduce the meaning of the word, as the radar signature of that ship will be substantional, as all the armament is still above deck. I vote to strike the reference, as the Visby and similar ships are the first "true" stealth ships, with reduced visibility both in radar and IR.--Mossig 20:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "stealth" is not a binary condition. The language "incorporated some signature-reduction features" is accurate, as it implemented evolutionary changes that reduced its radar and IR signature. No, it should stay.--Mmx1 21:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. As the article stands now, it's OK. Mossig 08:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one who added that bit about the Arleigh Burke in the article based on personal experience working on the stealth features of that ship. There's more to it than you might think, and its measured signature isn't "substantial" compared to other ships of similar size. Surface-ship stealth isn't intended to make a ship undetectable, it's more to make the ship's own countermeasures more effective against threats like anti-ship missiles. This whole article is far too aircraft-centric. There's more to stealth than what aircraft deal with. -Amatulic 04:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Stealth Radar section
The Stealth Radar section needs a massive rewrite in order to be readable, or should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mossig (talk • contribs) 14:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC).


 * I agree, it's almost unintelligible. I was going to attempt to copyedit it, but found it to be too big a job, and I don't have the time right now to attempt a complete rewrite. -Amatulic 18:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not rotary bomb bay doors?
The Blackburn Buccaneer has a rotary bomb bay doors, instead of bomb doors that open externally. Wouldn't rotary bomb bay doors make more sense on a stealth aircraft instead of externally opening bomb doors that can be seen on radar?204.80.61.10 15:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Bennett Turk


 * I could be wrong, but the way I understand how a rotary bomb bay works, the bombs are mounted on the inside of the door, and the door is flipped around in flight to drop the bombs. During that event the bay is open, and not stealthy, so there isn't really a stealth advantage to it, other than perhaps a shorter interval of being non-stealthy. I believe a conventional bomb bay can also store more bombs in the same volume, because there is no internal volume swept by the rotation of bombs and doors. -Amatulic 18:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * i believe the opening of a rotary system can be made to have a smaller signature. but the loading time is longer, it limit the type of weapons you can carry since they must fit into the rotary, the system itself is of course heavier and larger then just hanging it in a bay. the russian considered the rotary bomb bay in some of their prototype fighters, the lack of interest (no money!) will unlike see these planes built; also the russian didn't have a big focus on using them as strike-fighter but to fight off the F22 in an air superiority role so they don't have a priority on having flexible range of bombs to choose for a mission. perhap the predetermine shape of the F22 itself play apart in the bomb bay design. Akinkhoo (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Space based detection
Most stealth are optimized along certain directions. This is why stealth planes often take varied routes through radars to avoid exposing their less sleathy sides. One direction they are not optimized for stealth is the top, thus allowing them to be seen from space. Even if they were optimized on the top of the plane, they still could be detected from space. Stealth works by absorbing or deflecting away the beam from radar source. If the radar beam points into empty space, absorbing/deflecting works fine, but a beam pointing at the ground from space would see a stealth plane apear as a plane sized hole traveling at jet speeds along the earth's surface. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.35.136 (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This is true for optical detection too, cameras that see well into the ultraviolet and infrared as well as visible spectrum are being employed by both Israelis and Russians to develop anti-stealth SAM Jenga3 (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Clouds are not a problem for space based radars, but the 4th power law cuts in here. A radar moved twice as far away from the target (and orbit tends to be hundreds to thousands of miles up) needs 32 times as much power.  Space based radars have been used to track ship formations, but nothing much smaller than that.  For optical or near-optical wavelengths the simple fix is to fly under cloud cover.  Hcobb (talk) 00:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Also the ionophere reflects some radr wave lengths.--123.243.119.185 (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Radar absorbing material subsection
I don't put a lot of stock into Mythbusters, much less any backyard scientist, but a lot of people I know are "convinced" that iron ball paint does not work. I was thinking we could add a subsection about the controversy over said paint. It'd be rather small though so we could also possibly just plug it onto the back of the paragraph. I would just edit something in but since it would be my first edit on a major article, I figured I'd wait and ask first. Kampfers (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The paint is completely smooth latex with embedded piezoelectric crystals Jenga3 (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

paint
if you paint a stealth plane, will it require a special kind of paint to keep its stealth or dose it matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.216.201 (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, you want the total thickness of material over the bare metal to be exactly one quarter of the radar wavelength in order to completely cancel out the returned wave. Therefore keeping the surface of the F-22 just so takes a great deal of manpower.  Hcobb (talk) 00:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

RAM
Why delete the references to neoprene? It is well-known that at least some versions of RAM have neoprene with graphite. 212.188.109.153 (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Stealthy Ship list
Is there any requirement that stealth performance be calculated, demonstrated or verified or even measured for ships in this list, or is it just going to be a catch-all list of military ships that have been designed or proposed lately and therefore their marketing people include the stealth buzzword? OK, I admit I'm a cynic. That doesn't make me wrong. Greglocock (talk) 08:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * How about we require a source that talks about the measures taken for stealth? Hcobb (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me Greglocock (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree it is tricky to divide ships (and aircrafts!) in two distinct categories. After all, virtually every new military ship and aircraft/helicopter is designed with reduced signature in mind! It would perhaps be best to eliminate the "Reduced RCS Designs" category and only have a list of the ships that go farthest in stealth design. This would shorten the list down to four ship classes: Smyge, Visby, Sea Shadow, Zumwalt and Skjold. (I may have missed one or two). The same with the list of reduced RCS design for fightersWikinegern (talk) 14:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

low freq radar is inaccurate?
I'm far from an expert but the following statement in the article seems like it may be wrong:

"However, low-frequency radar is limited by lack of available frequencies which are heavily used by other systems, lack of accuracy given the long wavelength, and by the radar's size, making it difficult to transport."

Why would it be inaccurate? It would seem the problem would be that it is imprecise and cannot offer a very detailed picture of the target, given the long wavelength. It would seem that the return generated would be as accurate as any other radar system of roughly similar mechanism but meerly imprecise.

Am I correct here? Should this be changed?--24.29.235.58 (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope, you're wrong. Long wavelength (i.e. low-frequency) radars become Diffraction-limited systems. Hcobb (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * True but you wouldn't use long wavelength radar for final targeting, so I'm not really sure that the lack of accuracy is a big deal is it? After all the error is only of the order of one wavelength, typically the wingspan of the a/c, which is plenty close enough. Greglocock (talk) 10:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * To resolve within 10 meters with a 10 meter wavelength at 1000 km distance requires an antenna of around 1000 km wide and 1000 km tall, by the diffraction-limited formulas. Every halving of the diameter of your antenna reduces the returned signal by a factor of eight as you are averaging the result by the contents of a cube twice as tall.  Hcobb (talk) 13:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Shrugs, sure, pick a very long range and you can make any statement sound absurd. The Australian system uses a 100 km (approx) baseline, i think for 15km resolution at 2000 (?) km. As i said it doesn't matter what the error is at great range, because your SAM only has a range of 100km typically. Greglocock (talk) 02:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Your SAM can't destroy everything within a 15km radius. It needs a much tighter resolution to do any good, because it needs to explode within ten meters of the target. So these long wavelength systems might be good for telling you that an attack is underway, but at the very least you'd need to vector in an Eurofighter to PIRATE the bogey. Hcobb (talk) 12:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "but you wouldn't use long wavelength radar for final targeting, so I'm not really sure that the lack of accuracy is a big deal is it" as I wrote in my first post seems to agree with you. So I'm still unsure what exactly you are attempting to prove. Greglocock (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

father of stealth
This article must be updated. It needs to mention Ben Rich who is the "father of stealth". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.201.158.9 (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Isn't he really the Nursemaid of Stealth? After all the Russians invented it. Greglocock (talk) 06:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Or perhaps Midwife of Stealth is more accurate? Greglocock (talk) 10:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Traveling waves

 * "Another important factor is the internal construction. Behind the skin of some aircraft are structures known as re-entrant triangles. Radar waves penetrating the skin of the aircraft get trapped in these structures, bouncing off the internal faces and losing energy. This approach was first used on the F-117."

Completely wrong.

For the moment consider the aircraft skin to be a perfect superconductor. Therefore the alternating electric and magnetic fields of radar waves cannot force an electric field gradient through the skin of the aircraft. The electric field must drop to zero at the skin and electrons will darn well move around to ensure this is true. The result is a traveling wave that slides along the skin of the aircraft until it hits a break point in that skin (such as a bomb bay or wheel bay door) and then it all bounces out at that one edge.

The zig-zags "spread out" this sharp edge so that a tiny part of the wave bounces off the tip of the triangle and other bits bounce out along the triangle shape. This creates a much more spread out and diffuse signal.

Most metals might as well be superconductors at radar frequencies (take the burrito out of the aluminum foil before you microwave it) and as long as you ain't Wonder Woman you can be sure that there will be some difference in electrical properties between the air and the skin of your aircraft so you will have some of this effect.

The short answer is that the radar waves DO NOT penetrate the skin, they slide along it.

And don't take my word for it. Rebecca Grant (political expert) writes as much on page 26:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2460745/The-Radar-Game-Understanding-Stealth-and-Aircraft-Survivability

Hcobb (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the statement is completely wrong if it refers to an aircraft with conductive skin, and your explanation is correct. However, some aircraft have nonconductive, transparent skin (such as fiberglass) on some surfaces. In that case the statement is completely correct. By the way, scribd generally isn't considered a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes.
 * I can't speak for the line about F-117 construction, but I am skeptical that the F-117 has transparent skin except where it has radomes. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Transparent to what frequency? It doesn't matter if the material is perfectly conductive, just so long as the electromagnetic properties differ from those of thin air.  And here's another link to the paper, from an even less reliable source: http://www.afa.org/Mitchell/reports/MS_RadarGame_0910.pdf Hcobb (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You're referring to secondary and tertiary effects while I'm referring to first order stuff. In my 25-year career in this field, I observed many times that a nonconductive skin covering an aperture (such as a radome over an antenna) passes electromagnetic waves. Structure behind the skin, especially retroreflective structures forming 90° angles, will dominate the scattered energy returned to the receiver. Yes, the traveling wave phenomenon still exists, but this is insignificant for the purpose of stealth if you don't take care of the specular reflections from internal structure first.


 * The paragraph you quoted above should be rephrased to clarify what it means. It looks to me like it's referring to a treatment for specular returns from apertures. Creating structures that trap energy is a way to solve the problem of apertures. However, the claim that the F-117 does this requires a source. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft shape subsection rewrite?
Anyone fancy tackling this grammatical train-wreck? The offending sentences are as follows, currently (see time stamp): ""However improved computing power are getting better and better at discerning targets more precise, so Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lighting II stealth technology could be inefficient during 2020 decade.[31] That is why some aircraft manufacturer, like Dassault Aviation with Spectra on French Rafale has chosen an active stealth technology."" 2.24.73.41 (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Horten Stealth debunk
http://airandspace.si.edu/collections/horten-ho-229-v3/about/is-it-stealth.cfm

Greglocock (talk) 08:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

"Quantum interference"
I propose removing the one-sentence section on the detection of stealth objects via "quantum interference" because a) it hypothesizes the use of relativistic, not quantum, effects for detection and b) it's only one sentence. Detection through distortions in spacetime is an interesting idea and could become an interesting section, but for now it's just junk. Glosser.ca (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, let's keep the science fiction out of science articles. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no problem in this?
Stealth. Quote - However, U.S. Air Force officials were dismissive of the technique. “Just because something is technically possible doesn't make it tactically feasible,” one Air Force official with extensive stealth aircraft experience explained. In fact, the US Air Force recognized that a number of frequency bands and the radar can not only see really make effective stealth. But at the same time deny that these radars (any version) can be real creatures. However, the huge amount of exist anti-stels radars in fact, such as Gamma-DE UHF range. The effective range of 240 kms (149 miles) to the target with radar cross-section of 0,1 m2 and covering a 360 gradsuov due to rotation (height from minus 2 to plus 60). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.162.80.64 (talk) 06:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Make a Stealth Missile List
I want a list where I can see all the low-observable missiles, such as the Storm Shadow, the JASSM (I think that's what it's called), and the Turkish stealth missile which was exported to Azerbaijan. 92.29.246.50 (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)