stealth aircraft in CMO

[thewood1]

Because the Pentagon is always truthful and immediately forthcoming with information. I am not saying its true or untrue in either this case, but the Osprey books have a lot of detail in them from pilots who flew missions.

B-2s flying without SEAD escorts doesn't really surprise me for 2003. No one had seen one on radar outside the US military. Just like the F-117s in 1991. But the F-117, in 2003, already had a history and known radar profile. I am very surprised if they would go in unescorted.

[SeaQueen]

ORIGINAL: BDukes
Intermittent ok but I build more logic between illuminate and not illuminate decisions, especially against more modern combatants. Flicking the light on and off at fixed intervals isn't random once the pattern is learn.

Yeah, but if you combine blinking with mobility (as one does in the case of ships) then the ES picture becomes considerably more complex. Also, with blinking you need to randomize their initial state, so that that everyone isn't on and off at the same time. Depending on the situation, it may be the case that it's better not to use one's organic sensors at all and rely on helicopters, UAVs, MPA and other aircraft to maintain SA. You also shouldn't think of blinking as a tactic for a single ship. It's really about teamwork and creating a confusing, conflicting stream of ES information which is sufficiently complex as to prevent targeting and correlation of the tracks.

[TheOttoman]

ORIGINAL: JPFisher55

When I wrote "assistance," I was referring to sead or fighter support, not tanker, sorry. The one F-117 lost over Serbia was due to mechanical issues according to the official Pentagon report. I'm not sure that SAM radar, or other search radar, can detect stealth aircraft as easily as they do in CMO. F-117's dropped bombs over Baghdad without being detected in the Persian Gulf War. B-2's and F-117's did the same in the 2003 Iraq Freedom War. Maybe the Iraq air defense was poorly operated? I guess the truth is not known. I do know that in CMO my B-2's cannot penetrate Chinese or North Korea without some sead and fighter suport.

What official Pentagon report are you referring to? It's universally acknowledged that it was shot down.

As to your scenarios, there's some questions that should be answered:
Which radars are you using against the F-117?
What is the altitude of the F-117 and distance from the radar?
What is the speed of the F-117?
What is the position of the F-117 in relation to the radar cone? Is it directly facing it (providing the smallest signature), or is it a perpendicular facing (has a larger cross-section)?

In the 90's Iraq had the following in their inventory in regards to SAMs:

20 battalions SA-2
25 battalions SA-3

appox. 100 SA-6
50 SA-8
100 SA-9
60 SA-13

Looking at their inventory for 2002-2003, it's roughly the same and importantly, nothing new was purchased.

Are you putting an equivalent SAM site against the F-117.

[TheOttoman]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

My understanding has always been that F-117 aren't undetectable, but have a radar return that is small enough to be filtered out both electronically and by human decision-making. And then, even if you know something is there, it can be difficult to get a fire control lock.

In Serbia, it wasn't mechanical failure. It was a combination of planners getting lazy or complacent and a smart Serbian officer who paid attention. He had his search radar set to its lowest freq. setting and had received human intel a strike was inbound along the same track NATO always used. He knew exactly where to look and the search radar picked up enough of a return to manually track the returns with the FCR. So when the F-117 opened its bay doors, the FCR had enough of a signal to fire. Two missiles fired as the bay doors closed and the 117 banked away. The first missile couldn't track, but the second guided enough to hit.

That is from Osprey's Air Vanguard 16 and Combat Aircraft 24

In those accounts there is discussion about radars and how long they stayed energized. The Serbians felt that 20 sec. was the longest you could leave a radar active without getting a HARM down your throat. But they had human intelligence tracking flights and consistent flight paths. So they could easily time when to turn radars on. There was no intermittent schedule for turning radars on.

There's also some data indicating the stealth aircraft (and stealth in general) can be found *easier* via passive bistatic radars which cell phone signals typify. There's also a theory that the Serbians were able to identify previous flights of stealth fighters using the cell phone network, and use that to make a judgement as to where the planes would be, and then re-position their SAMs as needed. Then use the cell antennas as a trip wire to tell the SAMs to turn on their radar.

Here's an article on stealth and radar:
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a515506.pdf

[thewood1]

While all that fancy stuff might be true. Most of the intel the Serbians used were cellphone-based. But it was people on cell phones calling and texting to tell Serbian command what they observed at various airbases and along flight paths. Eventually, because NATO was stupid enough to use the same ingresses repeatedly, the Serbians knew the patterns and where to place observers and SAMs. In the Osprey accounts, detailed tracking for fire control was visual from the SAMs optics. This limited the time the FCR needed to be active.

[DWReese]

I conducted a little test tonight. I only used the B-2 for now, and I pitted it against various Russian and Chinese radar units.

Basically, the radar units start to get a whiff of the B-2 a around 40 nm. They will then go long periods of time (minutes) without getting any more updates.

If you attach an OECM unit to fly with the B-2, then the enemy doesn't start to get a whiff of the B-2 until about 30 nm out.

At around 20 nm, the radar unit should have an accurate bearing, altitude and speed of the B-2.

The biggest threat seems to be if SAMs (with cameras) are present.

The SAM cameras can identify the plane, first as a bomber, and later as a B-2.

If the SAM camera isn't present, then the radar will likely get a bearing, altitude, and range, but it will be intermittent.

The various SAM units have very little chance of getting a shot off, especially if the OECM plane is present, unless they are able to do so using the camera for guidance. Otherwise, it constantly states that it can't illuminate the target.

I did not use any S-400 or S-300 systems. I wanted to keep it very simple.

If the SAM can ever get a fix on the B-2, which really means if it can get close enough to track with the camera, then it will fire.

The the SAM units fire, then the plane is as dead as any other plane. The stealth advantage is gone.

Depending on the radar, you can fly around it or under it in some cases, and that should be enough to keep the SAMs from being able to fire. As I said, it isn't so much the radar as it is the camera on the SAMs that does the work. But, the SAMs wouldn't be activating their camera if the radar unit didn't first get a whiff of the plane.

Tactical maneuvering, and longer-ranged ASM can possible keep the B-2 from being shot at.

As the B-2 turns for home, after it has delivered its ordinance, it is the most identifiable. Rather than conducting the paperclip U-turn, it seems that it is better for the B-2 to continue to fly straight over the target, and get further away from the enemy radars and SAMs before turning for home. The radars are very good when an aspect change is made. So, the B-2 should change course only after it is a distance away.

Doug

[RoryAndersonCDT]

One thing worth keeping in mind is that the tactics / thinking behind the employment of stealth have improved over time too.

[DWReese]

I believe that many people equate "stealth" to mean being "invisible." That isn't necessarily the case. Deployed properly, a radar might be able to detect it, get brief glimpses of it, and might even be able to eventually identify it, but the SAM system can't get a solid fix on it to shoot at it. Often, before the SAM unit ever gets enough solid data on it, the plane has already released its ordinance, and is heading back to the barn.

Personally, I believe that the game does a good job of replicating this.

Doug

[SeaQueen]

Those results are likely dependent on the radars and jamming systems involved as well.

Here's the interesting thing: If the jet can get as close as 40NM without being detected, what does a combination of medium, low-altitude flight and terrain masking do for you? If they're not going to detect me at 40NM no matter what, then I might as well pick an altitude where their radar horizon is no greater than 40NM in order to minimize their OODA loop. It's all about making the hole wide enough for the bomb trucks to slide through.

ORIGINAL: DWReese

I conducted a little test tonight. I only used the B-2 for now, and I pitted it against various Russian and Chinese radar units.

Basically, the radar units start to get a whiff of the B-2 a around 40 nm. They will then go long periods of time (minutes) without getting any more updates.

If you attach an OECM unit to fly with the B-2, then the enemy doesn't start to get a whiff of the B-2 until about 30 nm out.

At around 20 nm, the radar unit should have an accurate bearing, altitude and speed of the B-2.

The biggest threat seems to be if SAMs (with cameras) are present.

The SAM cameras can identify the plane, first as a bomber, and later as a B-2.

If the SAM camera isn't present, then the radar will likely get a bearing, altitude, and range, but it will be intermittent.

The various SAM units have very little chance of getting a shot off, especially if the OECM plane is present, unless they are able to do so using the camera for guidance. Otherwise, it constantly states that it can't illuminate the target.

I did not use any S-400 or S-300 systems. I wanted to keep it very simple.

If the SAM can ever get a fix on the B-2, which really means if it can get close enough to track with the camera, then it will fire.

The the SAM units fire, then the plane is as dead as any other plane. The stealth advantage is gone.

Depending on the radar, you can fly around it or under it in some cases, and that should be enough to keep the SAMs from being able to fire. As I said, it isn't so much the radar as it is the camera on the SAMs that does the work. But, the SAMs wouldn't be activating their camera if the radar unit didn't first get a whiff of the plane.

Tactical maneuvering, and longer-ranged ASM can possible keep the B-2 from being shot at.

As the B-2 turns for home, after it has delivered its ordinance, it is the most identifiable. Rather than conducting the paperclip U-turn, it seems that it is better for the B-2 to continue to fly straight over the target, and get further away from the enemy radars and SAMs before turning for home. The radars are very good when an aspect change is made. So, the B-2 should change course only after it is a distance away.

Doug

[DWReese]

You are absolutely, 100 percent correct.
My test was conducted flying the B-2 straight and level at high altitude. The plane made no attempt to do anything other than fly directly toward the target. (As I said, conducting a follow-up test using OECM aircraft knocked off another 10 miles from that 40-mile range, and it left the radar having a difficult time trying to pinpoint the B-2.) But, the important part of the test was that the B-2 made NO effort to mask, or hide itself utilizing the terrain.

I'd love to see the Flight Planner (wishful thinking) in action. You could program your ingress and egress to maximize any terrain advantage. With even the tiniest bit of effort, the plane is going to be difficult to detect, track, prosecute, and destroy.

As usual, SeaQueen, you make a great point.

Doug

[thewood1]

"I'd love to see the Flight Planner (wishful thinking) in action. You could program your ingress and egress to maximize any terrain advantage. With even the tiniest bit of effort, the plane is going to be difficult to detect, track, prosecute, and destroy."

Why do you need a "Flight Planner" for that?

[DWReese]

Taking one plane "downtown" is simple enough. I did that merely to show that it could be done, and what you could expect.

But, guiding a whole squadron (or a portion) of them, and coordinating them with tankers, and escort OECM aircraft takes quite a bit of effort. The Flight Planner could handle all of that. It could eliminate hours of work.

That's why a Flight Planner is needed.

[Gunner98]

I won't give too much away but there will be an upcoming Northern Fury scenario where this issue will be tested. You won't need a Flight Planner in that one Doug [;)]

And don't forget Caribbean Fury #4 still in testing - a flight/mission planner would be very useful in that one though.

B