BTW, power doesn't really matter when it comes to detecting a stealth aircraft. It's more about frequency, but even that is inaccurate and doesn't lead to any advantage over said stealth aircraft whatsoever. I'd also like to say that current development in stealth UCAV's defeats lower frequency radars.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...a-983bc8260bb5The flying wing design will offer “wide-band, low observable” protection against “all radar bands,” says Scott Winship, Northrop Grumman’s UCAS-D program manager. That means maintaining stealth in the presence of both high frequency (anti-aircraft radars and ground-to-air or air-to-air missiles) and low frequency (long-range search radars) emitters, a capability that earlier stealth designs didn’t have.
Edit: Funny example would be like If I went into a Sony store to buy a TV that is relatively the same as a Panasonic model at bestbuy but is more expensive. The Sony store clerks will say how great it is with its 600mhz is better then that of the 120mhz on the TV (when it is a 60hz, 10 stage compared to 120hz one stage). They can talk about how great it is, but in the end, it isn't much different in comparison to the Panasonic. But they will try to justify its cost and try to make a sale. It would be stupid for the sales man to go in and say "It is as good as the cheaper Panasonic one at Best Buy. Go buy that.
By the way, according to many, L-band radar is capable of detecting stealth at long ranges. L-band radar is also attached to SU-35 wings. Also, it is more then likely that AWACS, Ground based radar or the optical tracking will pick up the stealth craft rather then the onboard radar.
Last edited by sepheronx; 01-02-2010 at 03:29 PM.
Until then I agree that its more designers claims.
As for the X-47B...
http://www.aviationnow.com/aw/jsp_in...headLine=UltraNorthrop Grumman has stressed the "all-aspect, broadband" stealth inherent in the X-47B. Tailless shapes don't have the "bow-tie" RCS pattern, with the smallest RCS on the nose and tail and peaks on the beam configurations, which characterizes conventional aircraft. They are stealthier against low-frequency radars -- including updated, active-array VHF radars marketed by Russia -- because they do not have shape features which are so small that their RCS in the VHF band is determined by size, rather than shape or materials. It may be significant that John Cashen, leader of the B-2 signatures team, returned in 2006 after 10 years in Australia and is now a consultant for Northrop Grumman.
RCS test facilities across the U.S. have been upgraded since the F-22 and B-2 were designed: USAF's range at Holloman AFB, N.M., was reequipped to handle bistatic measurements, and a sophisticated airborne RCS measurement program based on a modified 737 was delivered in 2001.
How low can LO go? One paper, co-authored by a principal in DenMar Inc., the company founded by Stealth pioneer Denys Overholser, refers to the development of fasteners for a body with an RCS of -70 dB./sq. meter -- one-thousandth of the -40 dB. associated with the JSF, and one-tenth that of a mosquito. DTI queried RCS engineers who don't believe such numbers are possible; but then, when mention of a -30 dB. signature leaked out in a 1981 Northrop paper, nobody believed that either.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...2-4278cb55e8aaThe ability of low-band radars to degrade or negate stealth technology is not a matter for debate. Radar-absorbent material performance varies widely with radar band (it's much easier to develop and use RAM against higher-frequency radars) and, in the VHF band, some shaping techniques are no longer effective.
This was known about in the earliest days of stealth, which is why the B-2 bomber - designed to penetrate deep into a live defense system that included many VHF radars - is a flying wing, with no shape features that are smaller than several meters and very deep-section RAM built into its leading edges. The same techniques are used on the X-47B UCAS-D, which is why it's described as using "all-aspect, wideband" stealth technology.
When hunting a flying wing design, you better have good optics
As for ways of detecting stealth aircrafts (X-47B is no different. It may incorporate other kinds of stealth and airframe may be smaller and shaped in the way to defeat radar, but there will always be something to detect it), there will be something to defeat it. Stealth is just another jump in aircraft technology that will be obsolete in the coming years with new surveillance technology. Difference as to why companies create something with it is because they are still that one step ahead of the game then the people dealing with countermeasures. If this is just a means to create new optical tracking systems, then so be it. Or maybe there will be detection through radio signatures in the future? Who knows.
This is why I love seeing projects like PAK FA, F-22, F-35, etc as they are all competing against each others (because they are companies after all, and profit is #1) and with one companies creation, others try to create stuff like it or to counter it. Always interesting to see what is coming around the corner.
Obsolete?Stealth is just another jump in aircraft technology that will be obsolete in the coming years with new surveillance technology.
Stealth will never be obsolete. It was used in the days of WWI when the undersides of aircraft were painted blue. Stealth will always be used.
Countermeasures are harder to come up with. Meanwhile, technology in IR reduction, RCS reduction, as well as the reduction in the visual spectrum are gaining everyday.Difference as to why companies create something with it is because they are still that one step ahead of the game then the people dealing with countermeasures.
As for the stealth comment, sorry for the confusion.