NationStates Jolt Archive

:idea: I was wondering, does anyone think it is possible to design a stealth missle, hard to pickup on radar? Could you build a missle like a stealth bomber, the special paint, design, alloy, engine, e.t.c. this is some of the ways the stealth bomber is hard to detect? I believe it to be possible. I propose a talk about it with any nations willing to help design, create such a weapon, the rewards are those who work well and engage in the debate, will also be able to use this new weapon free of charge. Everyone gets a copy of the work to take back to their country. Give me your opinions. :idea:

Yes.

The JASSM, AGM-129A, and AS-19 Koala are all stealthy missiles.

I can't see how it would be cost effective...

Not.
There's a reason why things can be stealth, I don't remember exactly, but it's something about the shape.

Yes.

The JASSM, AGN-129A, and AS-19 Koala are all stealthy missiles.

Really...?

Nice... I didn't know that... :P

stealth missles aren't worth it. the reason missles are hard to kill is because they are so fast. putting all that stealth stuff on it is useless, because either they will pick it up or they won't. they're too expensive to make stealth if they are designed to explode anyway.

Not.
There's a reason why things can be stealth, I don't remember exactly, but it's something about the shape.
Yes.

The JASSM, AGM-129A, and AS-19 Koala are all stealthy missiles.


It's very easy to destory a missile... patriots shot down scuds, russian S-400 SAm system can shoot down a missile going mach 20, and it has a form of anti-stealth radar (reportedly).

As Dark terror already mentioned, the latest IRL missiles are actually incorporating specific design elements to reduce their electromagnetic signature. It is a cost-effective way of hitting hard targets from standoff distances without being intercepted.

These missles would not be large. They would range from the size of a jet airplane missle, to cruise missles. Think of it...a missle totaly invisible to radar, impossible to intercept, yet it can be used to intercept other missles without the enemy suspecting it. :shock:

Missles are pretty stealthy in and of themselves. Most are ground hugging, and very small and fast.

These missles would not be large. They would range from the size of a jet airplane missle, to cruise missles. Think of it...a missle totaly invisible to radar, impossible to intercept, yet it can be used to intercept other missles without the enemy suspecting it. :shock:

Anyway, if you have enough money to bay such missile, you'll better buy a B-2 or F-117 and just drop a bomb... :idea:

Stealthy cruise missiles already exist IRL... so, obviously the powers-that-be have determined that they are, in fact, cost-effective. :)

you can reduce their RCS but you are still gonna get alot of feedback on an IR scanner....you cant eliminate engine heat from them no matter what type of jet engine you use or if you try using turboprops to propel them like torpedoes

Anyway, if you have enough money to bay such missile, you'll better buy a B-2 or F-117 and just drop a bomb... :idea:

Why do that when you can buy cheaper and stealthier cruise missiles that you can fire off from standoff ranges outside of enemy air defenses?

Missles are pretty stealthy in and of themselves. Most are ground hugging, and very small and fast.
When you see a flock of birdgs on the radar going mach 2, you start to think its not a flock of birds (a decent radar system would detect *something*)
Newer lookdown radars take care of the problem of sea-skimmers/ground-huggers, appearently the newest ones can pick missiles out from ground clutter. Russia's BUK-M1-2 SAM system is reportedly able to shoot down HARM missiles at 100 metres altitude... which is just over 300 feet.

Anyway, if you have enough money to bay such missile, you'll better buy a B-2 or F-117 and just drop a bomb... :idea:

Why do that when you can buy cheaper and stealthier cruise missiles that you can fire off from standoff ranges outside of enemy air defenses?
AS-19 Koala, which was cancelled by Russia in 1992 due to financial difficculties, wouldve been stealthy, had 2 200kt warheads, and a 4,000 km range. Oh yeah speed of mach 4 to mach 5... not bad eh?

the stealth missle's are real the USAF was key word was testing them buy flying them into canadian airspace because as every one knows if they bust us all they'll do is grumble and tell us to stop it. also helps they have a really good radar system and nicely trained techs at the controls. how else would we really know if they could see them. our techs would say "" damn af is testing a new bird" ah hell forget about it". it doesnt help that their radar didnt pick them up. seems a passanger jet spotted the damn thing's, piss on all the luck huh! as for their usefull ness. think about it really hard. stealth bombers with no range limits bombing you with 3000+ mile range stealth missle's just how the flying F%^& is anyone going to defend against that heheheheheheheeh

The Czechs have developed an anti-stealth radar called Tamara which tracks a stealth planes emissiopns at closer ranges, the Yugoslavs allegedly used it with some success. Russia claims to have an anti-stealth radar on its S-400 SAM system. B-2's can be tracked. There is no stealth, only n00bs who think their stealth is invincible.

Sounds clever to me, why spend lots on a missle that gets detected and then blown up before it gets to its target?

Sounds clever to me, why spend lots on a missle that gets detected and then blown up before it gets to its target?

That's exactly why people are developing stealthy missiles... so they don't get detected and blown up.

It is possible, but the question is where it is cost-effective to be used? For example making AA missiles or AGM missiles stealth would not be cost-effective and it would be rather pointless. Making long-range large missiles stealthy on the other hand would be quite usefull.

Only a matter of time before stealth missiles can be tracked IRL.

Only a matter of time before stealth missiles can be tracked IRL.

And the cycle continues... What's your point?

Yes. They can be tracked, but they apear on radar as a very small . <dot

Only a matter of time before stealth missiles can be tracked IRL.

And the cycle continues... What's your point?
Stealth is overrated, but usefull against n00bs who think its invincible.

i.e There is no stealth, only n00bs who think it's invincible

I agree. We can keep the big ones under wraps. Hehe. Have to watch out for those anti-weapons-of mass-destruction people.

I think that anti-stealth capabilities are equally as overstated.

Only a matter of time before stealth missiles can be tracked IRL.

And the cycle continues... What's your point?
Stealth is overrated, but usefull against n00bs who think its invincible.

i.e There is no stealth, only n00bs who think it's invincible

Thats the problem, some think stealth makes "it" really invisible, just hard to spot with radar.

There is stealth but stealth can be overcome. Ofcourse a stealthy craft will be harder to pick up and will be a smaller dot in a radar than a non-stealthed craft so stealth is usefull but hardly invincible.

There is stealth but stealth can be overcome. Ofcourse a stealthy craft will be harder to pick up and will be a smaller dot in a radar than a non-stealthed craft so stealth is usefull but hardly invincible.

Yep. The F117 is no contest when it is spotted and has AA guns shooting at it as well as SAM's and fighters on its tail.

As of right now, stealth is really "very low observability". Anti stealth radar may be overrated- laser radar cannot pick up ultradark objects- but when you see supersonic flocks of birds on your radar, you might wanna shoot at them.

What? Supersonic birds dont exist? :lol:

Anyways, ofcourse stealth craft can allways be spotted visually, its pretty hard to make you invisible to the good ol' eyeball mk1 but since air combat pretty much relies on electronic detection as do SAM's, stealth is generally a good thing.

Stealth is not perfect but it is good enough to thwart almost any AA system currently in existence. Even if you are able to guess that the supersonic blip you see on your radar screen is something other than a glitch then what? Missiles are no good; They cant see whatever it is and if anyone here knows an AA gunner who could hit a Jet going MACH 3 let alone a missile going a helluva lot faster I would like to shake their hand myself because they are probably a demigod of some kind.
A stealth missile was in the works since the 1980's as a "special delivery system for atomic and conventional warheads" (ie a first strike weapon) but the project was scrapped by Bush Sr. due to post Cold War budget cuts.
In short it could work.... If you have the green and dont mind risking MAJOR arms escalation.

Stealth is not perfect but it is good enough to thwart almost any AA system currently in existence. Even if you are able to guess that the supersonic blip you see on your radar screen is something other than a glitch then what? Missiles are no good; They cant see whatever it is and if anyone here knows an AA gunner who could hit a Jet going MACH 3 let alone a missile going a helluva lot faster I would like to shake their hand myself because they are probably a demigod of some kind.
A stealth missile was in the works since the 1980's as a "special delivery system for atomic and conventional warheads" (ie a first strike weapon) but the project was scrapped by Bush Sr. due to post Cold War budget cuts.
In short it could work.... If you have the green and dont mind risking MAJOR arms escalation.

Stealth is not perfect but it is good enough to thwart almost any AA system currently in existence. Even if you are able to guess that the supersonic blip you see on your radar screen is something other than a glitch then what? Missiles are no good; They cant see whatever it is and if anyone here knows an AA gunner who could hit a Jet going MACH 3 let alone a missile going a helluva lot faster I would like to shake their hand myself because they are probably a demigod of some kind.
A stealth missile was in the works since the 1980's as a "special delivery system for atomic and conventional warheads" (ie a first strike weapon) but the project was scrapped by Bush Sr. due to post Cold War budget cuts.
In short it could work.... If you have the green and dont mind risking MAJOR arms escalation.

Stealthy cruise missiles already exist IRL and are in service... I'm not sure why people are still convinced that they are some kind of impossibility.

Stealthy cruise missiles already exist IRL and are in service... I'm not sure why people are still convinced that they are some kind of impossibility.Back in USSR days Russia was designing a mach 5 one with 2 independant warheads and a 4,000km range :twisted:

you can reduce their RCS but you are still gonna get alot of feedback on an IR scanner....you cant eliminate engine heat from them no matter what type of jet engine you use or if you try using turboprops to propel them like torpedoes

Actually, some stealth aircraft have troughs behind their engines that cause the exhaust to mix with cool air, thus reducing the IR signature. I don't think this would be practical on solid-rocket propelled missiles, but on jet-propelled cruise missiles (a-la Tomahawk) it could be easily done.

OOC:
Fully Integrated Scramjet Missile Engine Tested at Mach 6.5

By Office of Naval Research Public Affairs

ARLINGTON, Va. (NNS) -- The Office of Naval Research (ONR) and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) successfully conducted the first ground test of a full-scale, fully integrated hypersonic cruise missile engine using conventional liquid hydrocarbon fuel on May 30, 2002. The test, performed in a wind tunnel at NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va., demonstrated robust operation of the engine at simulated hypersonic cruise conditions (Mach 6.5 at 90,000 feet altitude).

Demonstration of efficient supersonic combustion ramjet (scramjet) performance with a liquid hydrocarbon fuel is an essential step to enabling a viable hypersonic cruise missile. The May 30 test is the first demonstration of net positive engine thrust for a fully installed, hydrocarbon-fueled scramjet missile engine. Additional tests are planned later this summer at the Arnold Engineering and Development Center, Arnold Air Force Base, Tenn., to verify operation at Mach 3.5 and 4 flight conditions, which will simulate the hypersonic engine taking over following a rocket boost

The United States now has something faster. They thought about those USSR projects.

I know, I use a modified verison of that as my main air-launched ASM.

OOC:
Well then, nice, you developed it?

Yes, but not cost effective, or fast.

There's a few things that contribute to stealth:

Shape (No right angles)
Material
Low Exhaust

Shape:
Take the two stealth aircraft in the world now, the F117 Nighthawk and the B2 Stealth Bomber. Two different designs on the same principal.

The bottom of both planes are flat. The top of the F117 is very boxy. No right angles, not even for cockpit windows. I.E:
http://ftp.arl.mil/ftp/war-gif/f117-in-hanger.gif

Now take the B2 bomber. Flat bottom, but a curved top.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/jdam-plane-b2.jpg
http://www.vliegtuigen.net/grfx/b2.gif
All of these features contribute to making sure that the waves used by radar are not reflected back to the source station. If it doesn't reflect back, they can't see you on radar.

Material:
The entire surface of stealth aircraft is covered with a composite RAM (Radar Absorbant Material) layer. How it works is as radar waves hit it

To quote a web source: (http://people.howstuffworks.com/stealth-bomber2.htm)
The radio waves used in radar are electromagnetic energy, just like light waves. In the same way that certain materials absorb light very well (black paint, for example), some materials are particularly good at absorbing radio waves.

The B-2's body is mainly composed of composite material -- combinations of various lightweight substances. The composite material used in the B-2 bomber is specifically designed to absorb radio energy with optimum efficiency. Parts of the B-2, such as the leading edge, are also covered in advanced radio-absorbent paint and tape. These materials are very expensive, and the Air Force has to reapply them regularly.

Basically that means the material will diffuse incoming waves (I'm pretty sure thats what they mean that it "absorbs them")

Low Exhaust:
Obviously you can't have a stream of heat behind your jet. I can't recall how they did this (Something about grating, angles, and materials), but low exhaust is key. Unfortunately that means lower speed to reduce heat output.


Well, thats what I remember about stealth technology. (Originally developed by a ruassian scientist working on how to effect radar waves so they wont return to the source. Too bad for the USSR, they didn't pay attention to it, or classify it.)

So a stealth missile would be somewhat of a cruise missile, just re-designed.

Definately not feasable though. As a standard cruise missile flies low and slower in the first place. So radar detection is tough. Then pinpointing it and shooting it down is even harder.

The Czechs have developed an anti-stealth radar called Tamara which tracks a stealth planes emissiopns at closer ranges, the Yugoslavs allegedly used it with some success. Russia claims to have an anti-stealth radar on its S-400 SAM system. B-2's can be tracked. There is no stealth, only n00bs who think their stealth is invincible.

Do you have a source(s) on either of those stealth detecting materials.

OOC:
Well then, nice, you developed it?Yes with a Russian name (P-1000)

Here's the mach 5, 4,000km ranged, stealthy, 2 warheaded, AS-19/SS-N-24

http://www.aviation.ru/Raduga/Raduga.jpg

Har Land,
If stealthy cruise missiles aren't feasible, then why are so many either already built or in development?

If you are referring to OOC, specifically to the USAF, they like to have those big ticket, not always needed items. IMO, they are more intrested in making big ticket fancy items and getting contracts with industries when they retire. But then again, I'm bias. (Joining the USMC in two years :D )

When I say they aren't feasable, I mean look at the cost and complexity of them. You're going to have to make all of these things, apply the ever expensive Composite RAM to it, and at the end of that, you've got one expensive missile. And until we go to war with another large nation, the bombs/missiles we use often can cost more than their targets.

And do any of you have any sources on some of the things described here? The stealth missile? The radar that can detect stealth planes?

(I've posted this meaning in OCC, or are we all IC here?)

I have an anti-stealth radar, its called strategicly positioned cellular telephone towers, which help us to track the disturbances made by the stealth aircraft.

(OCC)CONFUSED:

Are we IC or OCC here!? When Autonomous City-States says they they are being developed, is he speaking RL here?

I was reffereing OCC, my bad. But was he? Aw man this is confusing

Yes, I was speaking in RL terms. And the USAF is not the only military in the world that is seeking stealth missiles. Shaping alone can do tremendous things for a missile's signature and designers have long since moved past the first-generation computer modeling that was used on the F-117.

OOC:

Ohhh okay. I thought you mean that they are going for the full blown stealth. That would mean all the different materials, jacking up the price of the missile.

But if it comes down to re-shaping it and maybe replacing some parts with lighter materials, that would be great. And it shouldn't up the price... too much at least.

Again, what I mean when they weren't feasable is if they were going to cost so much, that it's more than the target is worth.