Questioned: Is A True Low Level Stealth Attack Possible? | DCS WORLD

[@billylozito1789]

use F22's to try and reach the aircraft Carrier!

[@grimreapers]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5eVmJ5niMekg7M

[@Davros-vi4qg]

A long time ago in a DCS far far away CAP got an AWACs using a Viggen and this method!

[@beastmonster88]

Current pilot here…. I have a few old war pilot friends and teachers, mostly bombers (B52), they’ve all said they used this tactic when doing quick strike bomber runs or in red flag ops over the US they would drop the bombs over target and then after picking up enemy fighters trying to get them on the way out the combat zone, they would drop down to the deck and then go full speed and kick up dust or sand and the Doppler would get confused with all the particulate and they wouldn’t be able to lock on to them in time

[@mauricefuchs7921]

Incredibly smart I must say

[@turbinia]

Tom Clancy used this tactic in his book Debt of Honor, where a Comanche 'stealth' helicopter was used to sneak under an AWACS aircraft and zoom climb to kill it with AA missiles.

[@hphp31416]

Awacs probably cant point radar so low as it have wings in the way

[@TheGunfighter45acp]

An outstanding analysis. Poor RC (or anybody): You've located the Raptor, but it's still danger close...

[@firmanpandi9666]

Cap: "Sorry for childish drawing, stick with it ;D" Meanwhile: Piccasso: "What an art!" (Reference: Picasso love cubism catoonish art style)

[@grimreapers]

lols

[@matchesburn]

Fun Fact: This is actually why A-4 Skyhawk aggressor pilots did to train and humble (...well, as much as you *_can_* humble a fighter pilot) fighter pilots in unconventional tactics. They'd have A-4s dragging their ass on the desert floor and in terrain and pop-up and ruin the day of the pilots in question. That's one of the reasons why you see some of the great camouflage painting on A-4 aggressors - they were making use of that by terrain masking and hiding and ambushing student pilots. Because the A-4 is so small, but doesn't suffer from energy issues (unless you throw a ton of ordnance on it) and is agile as hell, it all kinda added up to be the perfect machine to do this with. The only thing that really came close was the F-16N (which also had the elaborate paint schemes), but unfortunately the wings on those aircraft started suffering fatigue cracks because they were pushing the airframe so much (apparently doing the same thing as the Scooter but up to twice as fast is detrimental to aircraft service life... who knew?).

[@kayakutah]

A very minor point, but one that is worth mentioning. I was a Navy Adversary pilot in VF-126 (F-16N, A-4F) and then VFC-13 (Superfox). We (Navy and Marines) were Adversary pilots. The Air Force uses the term "Aggressor" to describe their operation. The roles were subtly different. Anyway, I contributed to the wing spar deterioration that you correctly describe. The F-16N was frequently flown to its 9.3 G limit. In fact, once the fighters ran out of gas, the bogies who were left would (if they had gas left) always fight 1v1, guns only. The A-4 was no match, though, for the F-16N - even the Superfox.

[@matchesburn]

@@kayakutah Whoa, talk about a small world. Would be interesting if GR had you on for an interview or something if you were up for that, not many guys have done what you did. Out of curiosity, what was the biggest advantage in a 1v1 against an A-4 for the F-16N? Did it just come down to having that ungodly amount of thrust on command or was it something else? I ask because there was an article (from nearly 20 years ago now, back in 2004) where Randy Clark of ATSI was talking about the A-4 and them assisting the DoD with training requests for it (and desperately getting their hands on any A-4 they could buy and parts to go with it) and he was absolutely gushing over the thing as basically the best adversary trainer ever and just wanting a newer and better version of it. If you want, you can read it here: airspacemagDOTGOESHEREcom/military-aviation/the-hotrod-squad-5846400/?page=1

[@kayakutah]

@@matchesburn Thanks. I have had conversations with people about interviews (not GR), but I retired in 1996 and frankly, many enthusiasts are so well informed that I don't think I have much to contribute - it would become, "Hey, I've talked about myself for 20 minutes now. Why don't YOU talk about me some?" I gravitate to sites such as this occasionally out of interest in what the current conversations are and I'm impressed. Anyway, the F-16N had several advantages. It maintained energy better, added it back faster, had a real advantage 2 circle in turn rate and could outclimb the A-4. I loved both airplanes and even though the A-4 Superfox with the P408 had more power than the A-4E/F with the P8, I liked the flight characteristics of the A-4F better. We flew them slick, BTW, except for the TA4 with a P8 we had. It just "felt" better. We'd always end up fighting each other if we had fuel left over. At the end of my time in VF-126, I fought a Super from VFC-13 (sort of a "do we want to hire this guy" kind of flight). We started in a scenario that played into the strengths of the A-4. 1/2 mile abeam and 200kias. I pulled into a gentle climb into him, he pulled to meet me. At the merge, I could see he was down to about 180 - flaps down - and I was pretty close to 220. He had no where to go but down and I was able to execute a very nice pure vertical loop. Coming out of that he was a mort. 2 circle, you could outrate the A-4 and you'd meet at consecutive merges with significant altitude advantages. At some point, you could just split S onto his six. They were both great airplanes. The beauty of the A-4 was that you had to FLY the airplane. The elevator was tiny, so to get good pitch authority, you'd constantly work stab trim, you had to get the slats out early and use of flaps was almost continuous. Also, if you went to idle, the engine would cool almost immediately and it was very difficult to get a tone, so we'd use that against fighters as well. If you got slow and close in with a Scooter, it was like "trying to get a booger off your finger" for the fighter! Lots of fun! I'll check out that site.

[@kayakutah]

@@matchesburn I just read it. Cool. I got to fly back seat in a CF-18 from Cold Lake when they came on a Det to San Diego. Those guys were awesome! I had the chance to fight an A-4 from the back of the CF-18. It took technique on their end, for sure!

[@matchesburn]

@@kayakutah "Also, if you went to idle, the engine would cool almost immediately and it was very difficult to get a tone, so we'd use that against fighters as well." You see, this is why hearing from your experience is so interesting - I never knew that was a possibility. I mean, you were still in up until the 1990s and we had really nailed down heat seeking software and hardware by then to a science. So hearing that you could do something like that against IR missiles is actually pretty surprising. I would've figured with as advanced and sensitive as they were even engines at idle would be putting out so much heat that the seeker heads wouldn't care and would still be able to detect it. Seriously, thank you for contributing. As an enthusiast it's fascinating to learn how many things go into making all this work and how.

[@cheapscifi]

Didn't the book Red Storm Rising have exactly this attack in the opening moments of ww3? As I remember it, Clancy described what we would eventually come to know as the f117 attacking Russian awacs. Not a bad guess for 1986.

[@1QuebecSierra]

#1. Love these videos.

[@FatOnAxis]

Mee too

[@lukecreamer8426]

16:38 Nah, that's how you die to competent opposition. You want to stay normal to the radar by using the vertical to invert your heading, and keep the side of the aircraft facing the target at all times - fly upside down during the inversion instead of rolling over and giving a momentary top-down return. Keep it low, but you don't have to be on the deck as long as you're perfectly notched. You don't even have to move towards them, just fly loops like that basically parked in place. They're flying towards you, they're dead if they don't see you... if you're in Raptor.

[@dogone7262]

The filter acts on projected speed, not total speed. By zig-zaging you can reduce the exposure. Also, when looking down 50 degrees, the projected speed will be different. If not the filter compensates for that, it might be fooled. If it compensates, you are toast. A pulse doppler radar WILL pick you up if you move fast enough on the ground, hence the filtering to avoid cars, wind mills, waving trees, higher sea states, etc. If you turn hard enough with a projected speed low enough, it is not certain that the radar will consider you as the same target, but a new one.

[@PORRRIDGE_GUN]

The whole point of stealth was that you can attack or get to a standoff range at any height. Low flying is difficult and dangerous. Poor visibility due to weather and lighting conditions, fuel consumption is higher, bird strikes are a risk, ManPADS or SLAAMs are a risk, never mind AAA or AAMs, or even a lucky shot from infantry weapons. During GW1, the coalition's heaviest losses were on low-level strike missions on heavily defended Iraqi sites. If you want to kill something, drop a GBFO LGB from 30,000 ft AGL and bugger off immediately shovelling out chaff.

[@KomradeDoge]

When a video starts off with "Please dont be put off by the childish drawing" and Cap barely containing his laughter you know it's gonna be a good one.

[@DarylNorthrop]

This scenario is used in the Tom Clancy novel "Red Storm Rising"

[@texasknight5175]

Such a great book...

[@cf453]

If you liked that, try The Kidd Incident. Available free online.

[@cheapscifi]

Haha shoot! I just made the same comment. Thanks for confirming, been a long time since I've read it.

[@Davros-vi4qg]

Yep, the fictional use of Sidewinder armed Stealth Bombers.

[@lordsqueak]

The whole point of the doppler radar is to detect super low flying objects. By figuring out if its moving at a different speed. (radar return of the object gets a doppler shift compared to the ground) So it's basically just looking for speed differences, not bothering with altitude. (i mean,, the radar return of the object would arrive a bit earlier, and interesting information, but that's not what its detecting. ) * I could be wrong though.

[@FriendlyAC130Pilot]

Grim Reapers Not sure if possible in DCS, but a fun idea I had for a very long time (low-spec PC, so I can't try myself): Using Combined Arms module to create a search and destroy/hide&seek type of minigame scenario where there are 10-20 players in UAZ vehicles trying to hide or run from the hunter (T-90/Abrams/Tunguska/etc.) in a city within a limited area (marked by smoke or placed structures). You could overview this and comment like if it were a football match or something. 😂

[@grimreapers]

Interesting idea

[@mickeyg7219]

Stealth opens up an option for the pilot to fly at a high-altitude for the entire flight profile in a contested environment, but stealth fighters still maintain the capability to fly at a low altitude if the situation called for it. In theory, stealth fighters should be even orders of magnitude more effective than non-stealth fighters at a low altitude because it stacked the effect of its low-observable feature with the ground clutter. Older radar and infrared sensors are terrible at detecting even non-stealth aircraft at a low altitude, and even newer ones would still have trouble dealing with the ground clutter. However, flying low have its drawbacks, mainly a great reduction in range, ability to go supersonic, and exposure to SHORADs.

[@cf453]

Stealth aircraft are usually optimized to minimize the underside IR signature. From above, those nozzles will look mighty hot.

[@mickeyg7219]

@@cf453 The air bypass duct surrounded pretty much most of the turbofan engine, so the infrared signature from the underside and above shouldn't be all that much different. Based on what's available publicly, stealth aircraft seems to give the same priority for its top and bottom aspect when it comes to IR signature. From the front or behind, that's another story.

[@06savoy]

When you replicate this against ground based integrated air defense network the results should be different when different radars/sensors hit the aircraft from different aspects.

[@Auracanal]

For a modern radar picking a movin target over flat ground is piece of cake.

[@dallaswood4117]

Definitely spot on with the observation that finding something when you know to look for it and spotting it when you’re just cruising along are two very different things

[@aymericsimon6261]

Just an error in the thumbnail : to the best of my knowledge that type of radar is named Doppler, named after the Doppler-Fizeau effect.

[@christophersbarounis8473]

and btw all radars use the doppler effect

[@hairychris444]

@@christophersbarounis8473 Not necessarily. Only radar that needs to detect relative movement via doppler effect. Obvs modern fighter radar does, plenty of applications don't need this (nautical, ground penetrating, etc).

[@grimreapers]

thx

[@ViceCoin]

A Low altitude flight at high speed would melt stealth coatings. Using terrain following radar would alert ground defenses.

[@osuna3525]

Seeing that desert makes me want a Gobi Desert map. Like a huge bowl of sand everyone dies in LoL Oh hell and a Himalayan mountain map!! That would be challenging to dogfight in!

[@slowhornet4802]

American F-15's picked up cars on German Autobahn. Apparently some Porsches went too fast for the notch filters.

[@grimreapers]

lol

[@grimreapers]

Probably shouldn't irradiate cars by locking then USAF...

[@A6J6K6]

Would the doppler radar pick up a stationary airborne AV-8 harrier? Say the harrier took off vertically to intercept while the f 16 was still 10-15 miles out. A laughable scenario for sure but an interesting one I think.

[@grimreapers]

Hovering harrier will be invisible to radar up until I'm guessing around 8ish miles.

[@Etha-xi8ei]

Hey cap, could you test if AI flares are stronger than flares dropped by a human? I've been noticing this lately and I wanted to see if you could properly test it.

[@grimreapers]

Completely agree. Struggling to think of a way to measure this scientifically but will try.

[@poiu477]

To be fair to chat, I just did the math and the slant range was pretty close to 8 miles on the nose hahaha

[@sasquatchycowboy5585]

It is or was on older Gen3 jets. I've flown the mig 21 right under Ai f-4s, and mig 23s. Puls doppler seem to be immune to it though.

[@pete-iv]

Land a Harrier on a highway in front of RC, stop, and wait for him to come to you. When he gets in missile range take off and shoot.

[@grimreapers]

Cool!

[@Davros-vi4qg]

A long time ago in a DCS far far away CAP got an AWACs using a Viggen and this method!

[@grimreapers]

good days... simpler days...

[@nellyb5446]

A thought.. If you had to tally the IRL total monetary cost of A/C destroyed during testing, questions answered, Sunday Funday, Skill comps and the like over the years - what figure would be the best guestimate, how many brave pilots would have lost their lives? :-)

[@keithwaterhouse2845]

A harrier should nail it, a chopper for sure unless the blades gave it away.

[@jager6863]

The F111 aircraft were very fast at low attitude and no one could catch them or get a firing solution at low altitude during Red Flag. Once the F15 came in with its Pulse Doppler Radar, it could keep pace at higher altitude with the very fast F111 and Look Down and Shoot Down the F111 in exercises. At that point Lower Level wasn't a thing. Also when the first F22s were deployed in DAC against F15 and F16, they could detect, track, fire and shoot down entire flights without being detected by the other aircraft, as the F22 Radar was not detectable. The opposing squadrons used to jokingly ask if the F22 pilots were just calling their kills from the ready room, on the ground, as the other pilots never could detect the F22 before or after they were declared dead.

[@Callsign_Spartacus_37Fox]

I know this is a gaming channel, but I like the “questions” that are occasionally asked. I’d like to see the implementation of THz-TDS (TerraHertz Time Domain). It’s used to determine the properties of materials. And I don’t believe there is currently any matter which is not susceptible to that range of radio frequency, except maybe aerogel. Somebody more knowledgeable in physics can chime in. I’m limited by my electrical understanding of the technology.

[@cf453]

IIRC, higher frequency requires more power, and radars are already designed near the max the fighter can output.

[@Callsign_Spartacus_37Fox]

@@cf453 that’s true, i should have thought about that, but for ground stations that’s not an issue

[@antoniohagopian213]

Any idea when the next super tocano version is coming cap? This thing is pepega and way too fun to use. Shot down 4 f16 in a dogfight.

[@grimreapers]

I will go chase them now thx

[@kenhelmers2603]

The notch move, low and slow should work a treat :) Interesting!

[@woombus6385]

So you're telling me, if I get in a Bugatti and go 200mph, a f16 viper can lock me with an air to air radar?

[@grimreapers]

As far as I understand, yes, I wouldn't advise it...

[@Davros-vi4qg]

Apaches gunships are able to lock up tanks on radar... yer Bugatti had a lot of ‘stealth’ carbon fibre, but that big ole engine is gonna show up fine :-)

[@ViceCoin]

Air moisture, clouds, fog and rain will reduce radar effectiveness

[@Horus2Osiris]

Lmao, i usually dial video speed to 2X... didn't need to here... what a badass, love your channel, high density information, better than InfoWars, lol!

[@chrisramos3937]

That top-down aspect isn’t ideal for the F-22’s RCS. New challenge: fly the F-22 as low and slow as you can go, but fly _upside down_ instead 🤣🤣

[@grimreapers]

cool

[@rat276]

Valued viewer question for SuperCap. Can you now use SEA mode on the Hornets radar instead of tacan for IFR carrier landing. Lock it up and follow it in? I wonder if this is easier/more intuitive than tacan.

[@grimreapers]

As long as it's moving yes absolutely, good idea!

[@cody42069420]

Ots cool to think the US military has probably done tests like this using difrent aircraft back before computer models were as accurate as they are these days. This is the kinda stuff I could see them doing out in the desert at Creech AFB or Area 51

[@greghorine4995]

Dear God, Cap, it's SLEWing, not SLEEVing. You SLEW an antenna, normally with either a hand control (for a two-seat fighter, like the F-4 Phantom), or with HOTAS controls for a single-seater.

[@grimreapers]

I remember reading in the F-15C manual that they call it Sleeving, you're making me doubt myself now.

[@TheebayOffroader]

You should try this with the gazelle mistral.

[@grimreapers]

prob would work I reckon

[@HouTexHemi]

Feels so good to be a valley viewer!

[@grimreapers]

Yup

[@hphp31416]

by "modern aircraft" do you mean 20+ years old?

[@dallaswood4117]

If an f22 gets within seven miles before you know it’s there you’re already dead

[@rustknuckleirongut8107]

Is there a typo in the thumbnail? Dopper? Is it not Doppler?

[@grimreapers]

lol thx

[@hiashorst2261]

I dont think notching will work in RL, even if your exactly always 90° to each other it may give you a few milliseconds i guess cuz this can get recogniced in one "sweep"... to explain this, theres a thing called MTI (Moving Target Indication) which to keep it really really simple it actually take some more stuff into account also the doppler effect, if the Radar does find something (it may get filtert out there cuz of notching) but as soon as the radar detects it the second time it then knows 1. theres something moving (MTI) 2. the last position and now position which with this information it can calculate its speed, obviously the often it gets detected the more precise are the information and soon it realise it cant be a car or whatever cuz its "driving" way to fast... And i dont think that this is not considered by radar engineers ... atleast in somewhat modern radars/jets... Also you actually can Detect Targets behind obsticles like hills/mountains this is cause of Diffraction (low chance/limmited) and depends on radar greets

[@ylleba]

That's very interesting, didn't know about the diffraction part at all.

[@KRGruner]

LOL, Okayyyyyy. My advice: stick to what you know.

[@michaelbonet3783]

In the Anime series "Area 88", a mercenary in a Harrier just hovered on the ground in the path of an oncoming enemy and fired a missile at him when he came into range. Is that possible?

[@grimreapers]

Sadly no, when hovering, weapons are disabled.

[@lancer1686]

hey cap it is me again back with another challenge for you boys. can you try to see if you and 3 or 4 other guys can using different heils against a carrier fleet. try your best and see you boys in the skies

[@grimreapers]

thx

[@lancer1686]

I love u guys

[@timtoomuch]

Hey RC watch this!!!!!!

[@jameshewitt8828]

What about trying to get a track on a Nap of the earth attack helicopter

[@kutzancoita6341]

Hi, When u do the notcing, in order to remain undetected try to invet direction vertically design a zero figure in the sky, upside down on top, Try that please.

[@grimreapers]

rgr

[@grimreapers]

good idea

[@MatHelm]

ENLARGE and (in this case) Darken your pointer.

[@CakePrincessCelestia]

I've been asking ED to enlarge the cursor in DCS for years now because of the very same reason in basically every tutorial video. And it _was_ twice as big in 1.5 (or was it up to 1.2?).

[@beezo2560]

Cap, RC. Good stuff.

[@blisteringstars]

just mount a gau-8 on a raptor now for increased attack effectiveness

[@CakePrincessCelestia]

F-23 would be cooler for that and it probably might have the space for that thing with the 2 big weapons bays :)

[@CakePrincessCelestia]

SuperCap: Operator Drewski: HUMILIATING FLIGHT SIM PLAYERS WITH THIS STUPID STRATEGY - DCS World J-11 Gameplay // iaJOElP_6bU

[@grimreapers]

rgr

[@JosephDawson1986]

I have gone through your videos but was curious if A is there a YF23 in the game and B is it possible to recreate the yf23 vs yf22 tests?

[@grimreapers]

There is no Black Widow. There is a F-22 but it is not realistic, just a fun mod.

[@JosephDawson1986]

@@grimreapers pity. Well I love the videos. And an idea for a what if...could One Carrier Group defend the East coast against the entire British fleet? Just curious about it

[@DirtyHairy1]

for when you are so stealth that you can drop the L

[@grimreapers]

lol

[@sabercruiser.7053]

so btf-6 qatar hain

[@gusti187]

its Doppler Radar, not Dopper Radar PS: I love ur videos

[@grimreapers]

lol thx

[@thusharikabotheju5655]

i do low level pop up attacks every time :p

[@ylleba]

I think using any kind of prop plane to measure the effectiveness of a pulse doppler radar is a moot point. The prop will increase the detectability of even a small plane considerably, Otherwise a very decen't video.

[@slowhornet4802]

Wright Flyer: wooden propeller. Then again, the modern radars may pickup the moving parts of the engine...

[@ylleba]

@@slowhornet4802 Modern doppler radars can differentiate the plane and especially the prop from terrain by seeing them blue/redshift from the terrain. That's why modern jets have a concealed turbine inside the air intake and the fuselage. It's like shining a cigarette during the night while somebody watches with night vision.

[@matthewwagner47]

Go realy,realy fast, like mach 10+......

[@firmaneffendi2801]

Meanwhile during off camera, GR probably did these: instagram.com/p/CP1i19CB6Dh/? 😂😅😂😅😂😅😂 DCS combine arm reenachment maybe XD XD

[@grimreapers]

wow! who set up that race?!?!?!

[@firmaneffendi2801]

@@grimreapers no idea, but pretty cool race ;)

[@William3000x]

Operator Drewsky tried this tactic in a multiplayer server and proved that not only it works, but it's also a super effective tactic, which granted him several kills completely within enemy territory on unsuspecting enemy players. I highly recommend his video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/n5KtgHiihcRpmLc

[@irseeker9989]

sasasasamsim!

[@sabercruiser.7053]

thnx man keep up the mighty work god bless

[@Azimuth47]

Could also maddog an AIM120

[@grimreapers]

yup

[@unknonymous5220]

cough cough Operation Opera

[@grimreapers]

You called? kzbin.info/www/bejne/oJq8gmN-rdajpKc

[@billb0313]

Good video but this is why I prefer War Thunder. Sometimes it's just more fun to hop in a game and shoot things down. I don't want to do math equations or geometry when I'm playing a game.