Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 92

Thread: Stealth fighter vs stealth ship

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    643

    Stealth fighter vs stealth ship

    it seem that stealth aircraft have lower RCS than stealth ship , they also smaller so harder to detected by EO sensor , however stealth ship have advantages in much stronger radar , low band radar , more sensitive EW , sea clutter make it harder to detect , can be make stealth in IR band so if they go against the other which one be detected first

    Ex :





    VS




    Last edited by moon_light; 22nd January 2013 at 22:19.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Somewhere near heaven
    Posts
    1,328
    Any non-stealthy fighter jet is stealthier than any stealthy ship, has this query solved?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Reading, UK
    Posts
    4,532
    Stealthy ship has a very much lower RCS than any aircraft.



    ....clue is in the photo.

    Last edited by Jonesy; 22nd January 2013 at 22:44.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    643
    Quote Originally Posted by Pinko View Post
    Any non-stealthy fighter jet is stealthier than any stealthy ship, has this query solved?
    but ship have much more powerful sensor and have advantages from sea clutter

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    643
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonesy View Post
    Stealthy ship has a very much lower RCS than any aircraft.



    ....clue is in the photo.

    ok except submarine

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,008
    More powerful radar means easier to detect with ESM and the FLIR in the plane will detect the ship long before an IRST on the ship could see the plane.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    374
    "Stealth ship vs stealth fighter" comparison is way too generalised. If you take Fridjof Nansen for example, the ship has no point defense, only 8 surface to air missiles and two fire control radars to guide them.



    Theoratically, a pair of (non-stealthy) F-18Es, both carrying 4x harpoons and a jammer pod, can sink it without much difficulty, and live to tell about it.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by Andraxxus View Post
    "Stealth ship vs stealth fighter" comparison is way too generalised. If you take Fridjof Nansen for example, the ship has no point defense, only 8 surface to air missiles and two fire control radars to guide them.



    Theoratically, a pair of (non-stealthy) F-18Es, both carrying 4x harpoons and a jammer pod, can sink it without much difficulty, and live to tell about it.
    Hmm, and here I though that it got 1 × 8-cell Mk41 VLS w/ 32 × RIM-162 ESSM!
    And that this means it got 32 surface to air missiles.
    You do know that each cell have 4 missils, so total 32 missils ;-)

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Reading, UK
    Posts
    4,532
    OK the photo was a bit of fun but it does show what real 'stealth' means in the naval arena. The comparison between aircraft and ships is not so simple, in operational terms, as 'which has the largest signature'.

    Another photo to illustrate:



    This showing an ordinary day in a well trafficed maritime environment. This is only showing the vessels on AIS so you'd expect maybe 3 more contacts for every vessel shown here...which a surface search set would detect and track. Getting a detection on a ship and knowing what that ship is are two very different things.

    This is where signature attenuation steps in in the naval world. If I can make my 140m escort look like, on a search scope, a 90m tramp steamer and keep it down to 12knts or so then the wolf can be made to look a lot like a sheep!.

    Covering a wide area searching for a ship just using passive means is going to take a stealth aircraft a very long time if the target doesnt emit on a militarily recognisable radar!. If, to cover the territory, the aircraft emits on a search set, and is above the radar horizon, odds are a ships warfare team will have target ident first.
    Last edited by Jonesy; 22nd January 2013 at 23:53.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    643
    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    More powerful radar means easier to detect with ESM and the FLIR in the plane will detect the ship long before an IRST on the ship could see the plane.
    not really caused we have lpi radar , quite hard to detect by ESM and the ESM on the ship also tend to be more robust too
    while ship may have bigger IR signature they are easier treated by paint or system like this

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pftna34TbJU
    by contrast making aircraft stealth in IR almost impossible due to friction heating

    last but not least sea clutter play an important role too
    The Visby claims to be undetectable by electronic means eight miles away in a rough sea
    http://www.brighthubengineering.com/...ome-invisible/

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    643
    Quote Originally Posted by Andraxxus View Post
    "Stealth ship vs stealth fighter" comparison is way too generalised. If you take Fridjof Nansen for example, the ship has no point defense, only 8 surface to air missiles and two fire control radars to guide them.



    Theoratically, a pair of (non-stealthy) F-18Es, both carrying 4x harpoons and a jammer pod, can sink it without much difficulty, and live to tell about it.
    this ship have 32 ESSM missiles along with CIWS and it's SPY-1 radar far more powerful than any fighter or even AWACs's radar

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,333
    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    the FLIR in the plane will detect the ship long before an IRST on the ship could see the plane.
    Why? The temperature difference between ship and surrounding environment is much smaller than that between aircraft and surrounding environment.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    3,559
    What if the fighter carries a missile with long range which it can fire and leave well before entering the ship's Missile range.
    Love Planes, Live Planes

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,008
    Quote Originally Posted by Rii View Post
    Why? The temperature difference between ship and surrounding environment is much smaller than that between aircraft and surrounding environment.
    As you can see, the F-35's EODAS & EOTS have no problem distinguishing a ship from the sea around it.



    Last edited by SpudmanWP; 23rd January 2013 at 05:46.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by Pinko View Post
    Any non-stealthy fighter jet is stealthier than any stealthy ship, has this query solved?
    I'm not so sure that is accurate. For example the Kirov class battle cruisers were said to the show up as well on radar as very small fishing vessel.

    "If you saw a big wake with nothing in front of it," British marine LO expert Peter Varnish has said, "you knew you'd found the Kirov."

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,088
    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    As you can see, the F-35's EODAS & EOTS have no problem distinguishing a ship from the sea around it.
    Of course. Its sensor works with 0.01K sensitivity. Says nothing about the detection range, though.. Let alone target recognition, which is a completely different problem.
    Last edited by MSphere; 23rd January 2013 at 08:21.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    China
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    As you can see, the F-35's EODAS & EOTS have no problem distinguishing a ship from the sea around it.



    Yeah, F-35's EODAS & EOTS have no prolem even distinguishing a bath duck within that distance.

    what's the odd of a F-35 looking at an enemy carrier from 200 meters above without being shot down by hostile anti-air weapons which look suspiciously like wrenches?

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    322
    as I understand, they never proceeded with the Sea Shadow because it was too stealthy: radars did not detect it, but neither the waves beneat it, so it could be detected because it did not give any type of radar signature

    contrary to an aircraft which is generally not positioned between the radar and a reflective surface right behind the aircraft

    as for visually detecting military ships, a stealthy aircraft with a big optical sensor flying overhead (or even military grade satellite) shouldn't have much trouble picking out the ships and identifying them correctly as a military or civilian type vessel. pass on that targetting data and any missile in range can engage it

    for what that matters, missiles mean any civilian ship can used as a military launch platform, any speed boat can be a commando or bomb delivery method, and any oil tanker is just an IED waiting to happen

  19. #19
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    3,477
    Quote Originally Posted by Sanem View Post
    as I understand, they never proceeded with the Sea Shadow because it was too stealthy: radars did not detect it, but neither the waves beneat it, so it could be detected because it did not give any type of radar signature
    This is where active cancelling would come into play: get a couple AESA antennae sending "sea wave noise" all around.

    Nic
    "allah akbar": NATO's new warcry.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    643
    Quote Originally Posted by quadbike View Post
    What if the fighter carries a missile with long range which it can fire and leave well before entering the ship's Missile range.
    Well missile like Harpoon can be launched in Bearing only mode then the missiles can find target for itself , the aircraft dont even need to know the range to target , however it still need to know that the target is there which is quite hard

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Reading, UK
    Posts
    4,532
    Sanem,

    as for visually detecting military ships, a stealthy aircraft with a big optical sensor flying overhead (or even military grade satellite) shouldn't have much trouble picking out the ships and identifying them correctly as a military or civilian type vessel. pass on that targetting data and any missile in range can engage it
    OK...which of the hundreds of contacts on that AIS capture do you put your optical sensor on first?. How about the hundreds more not shown there as they werent using AIS?. How close does your stealthy platform need to be to get the EO resolution to determine wolf/sheep?.

    Given a ship all alone on the water and an aerial/orbital sensor that has already been told where to look then yes, you are quite right, but operationally such a contrived situation is unthinkable.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,287
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonesy View Post
    Sanem,



    OK...which of the hundreds of contacts on that AIS capture do you put your optical sensor on first?. How about the hundreds more not shown there as they werent using AIS?. How close does your stealthy platform need to be to get the EO resolution to determine wolf/sheep?.

    Given a ship all alone on the water and an aerial/orbital sensor that has already been told where to look then yes, you are quite right, but operationally such a contrived situation is unthinkable.
    Just thinking aloud, but in such a constricted area (the Persian Gulf) a mix of high tech (the combat jets) and simplicity might just do the trick. Several dozen chaps in small phishing boats equiped with a commercial grade radio and binoculars would (probably) be efective in IDing target´s.

    Cheers

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    322
    I was thinking of the Gulf scenario specifically

    on a larger scale, seeing the level of image quality google maps offers, I find it doubtful that military grade opticals would be unable to do better, every picture showing a large area with a level of quality high enough to recognise a ship

    I imagine detecting the ship specifications optically from above isn't that hard: every vessel has very specific dimensions, which are easy enough for a computer to recognise, kind of like the OCR tech used in CAPTCHA. if it has length A and the nose is at angle B, than it can only be ship type 96876513.48 or something along those lines

    this would work even in a crowded image or to spot a single ship in an otherwise empty sea, it's not that hard for a computer to do, you just load up a virtual image of every ship type (also not that hard to do) and the computer does the rest. if the computer finds something it can't explain (for example a piece of a broken ship), then it'll bring this to the attention of its human slav... I mean, overlords

    optical technology certainly has limits, mainly in regard to weather conditions, which is why aircraft like the Global Hawk uses advanced radar tech, which I expect can map the exact dimensions of something as big as a ship, or atleast well enough for automated classification. but considering the current level of technological advances I would not be surprised if a passive sensor that can see through bad weather already existed, or will in the next few years

    either way, this type of large capacity passive optical detection would still be extremely useful in something like the Persian Gulf (which is probably too cluttered for safe radar target detection anyway)

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,008
    Quote Originally Posted by thinkplum View Post
    Yeah, F-35's EODAS & EOTS have no prolem even distinguishing a bath duck within that distance.

    what's the odd of a F-35 looking at an enemy carrier from 200 meters above without being shot down by hostile anti-air weapons which look suspiciously like wrenches?
    You're missing the point. I was responding to Rii's comment about the ship being nearly the same temp as the surrounding water. These pictures clearly show that not to be the case for EOTS and EODAS.

    Given what we have seen come out of SniperXR, the EOTS should be able to detect a ship at well over 75nm.

    Don't forget that the F-35 will be using and fusing data from 3 main sensors as it searches and targets the ship.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  25. #25
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    643
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonesy View Post
    Sanem,



    OK...which of the hundreds of contacts on that AIS capture do you put your optical sensor on first?. How about the hundreds more not shown there as they werent using AIS?. How close does your stealthy platform need to be to get the EO resolution to determine wolf/sheep?.

    Given a ship all alone on the water and an aerial/orbital sensor that has already been told where to look then yes, you are quite right, but operationally such a contrived situation is unthinkable.
    i think IRST system on aircraft can auto tracking just like radar are't they
    EX : pirate irst on EF-2000 can track over 200 targets

  26. #26
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    643
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    Of course. Its sensor works with 0.01K sensitivity. Says nothing about the detection range, though.. Let alone target recognition, which is a completely different problem.
    is it possible to use system like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pftna34TbJU
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdHEcomIj-E
    to make object completely invisible to IR sensor of missiles like NSM or Agm-119

    btw IRST can track air target automatically so i see no problem for EOTS and DAS to track ground targets
    Last edited by moon_light; 23rd January 2013 at 16:03.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    flying high
    Posts
    4,594
    Tracking is not searching. And making something invisible to IR sensors is not enough, we are entering the time of weapons using more than one sensor. For example matching IR and imaging (UV or normal light) is nearly trivial today.
    Member of ACIG

    an unnamed Luftwaffe officer:"Typhoon is a warm weather plane. If you want to be operational at -20°C you have to deploy the F-4F."

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by moon_light View Post
    i think IRST system on aircraft can auto tracking just like radar are't they
    EX : pirate irst on EF-2000 can track over 200 targets
    Correct me if i'm wrong but isn't Pirates FOV somewhat obscured by the location its positioned on the airframe? To my eye it looks far from ideal for scanning for ground/maritime targets.


  29. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    4,483
    One way to "pick the fly specks out of the pepper" of shipping traffic is to use ESM to localize emissions of RF systems used by combattants. ISAR is another, but ISAR is dependent upon the radar being orientated to the ship's beam. The amount of traffic and physical size of the areas involved means identification of white vs red vs blue is time consuming.

    EOIRs have difficulty in a maritime environment due to haze. But EOIR is also the most accurate method for identifying a legitimate small fishing boat vs a sucide Boghammar with a 500 lb bomb on board.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Reading, UK
    Posts
    4,532
    Sanem,

    Another photo to illustrate:



    This is a 1m resolution image of Manhattan from Ikonos. At 1m resolution you get a strip depth of 11km. There are 6 ships underway in the image and at least 3 alongside. I can identify...if I was using this image to target off...maybe 4 vessels. The others I cant classify one way or the other with assuredness to fire on. Adding automation of the type you are theorizing about suggests someone would be foolish enough to let a computer select targets for engagement. Not going to happen.

    Its one thing to have a computer reject an image that doesnt match that shown in a high resolution terminal seeker FoV....its quite another to rely on a computer tell you which are the targets you can shoot at and which not.

    Sintra

    Just thinking aloud, but in such a constricted area (the Persian Gulf) a mix of high tech (the combat jets) and simplicity might just do the trick. Several dozen chaps in small phishing boats equiped with a commercial grade radio and binoculars would (probably) be efective in IDing target´s.
    Tattletales. Yep its a very, very old technique. Can be done on various levels from 'spy trawlers' to merchies with intelligence officers embarked to dear old Uncle Ahmed on his dhow with a cellphone. They can be effective in the right circumstances, but, there are very well evolved force protection measures to keep them at bay that pretty much everyone, who has enough navy to form a task group, practices. Ultimately these 'local eyes' usually have very little view of the strategic picture so, in the extreme case, they even can be used to 'authenticate' decoy ops by a sneaky task group commander.

    Edit: I did catch 'phishing boat' as a term....very clever!
    Last edited by Jonesy; 23rd January 2013 at 16:49.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES