STEALTH: can you defeat it?

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

Subscribe, hit the bell and support me on Patreon ! www.patreon.com/Millennium7

[@nomayor1]

Can I introduce you to something called: Maxwell's Equations. Or, in plain english, there is no such a thign as "stealth". Goodbye.

[@RicardoMrMendes]

Stealth is just part of the air combat equation you also need jamming aircraft like f 18 growlers and Stealth f 22 raptors plus b 2 bombers and f 35jsf plus all the other air sea and land platforms in a war cenario all connected with data links .

[@LRRPFco52]

The exercises referenced in this video at 3:11 where Eurofighter and Rafales made F-22 supremacy "not so clear" were not based on BVR set-ups that evolved into WVR. They were agreed-upon BFM exercises peripheral to the main efforts of the exercises fighting as combined coalition air components forces against aggressor squadrons in F-16Cs at Red Flag or Red Flag Alaska. The BFM exercises are more of a sidebar among partners to get Dissimilar fighter training with each other when presented with these opportunities, even though WVR combat is avoided while trained for as an insurance policy. At no time were the Typhoons or Rafales able to use their IRST and Radars to detect F-22s at BVR, while F-22s had full spherical 360˚ Situational Awareness of Rafale and Typhoons. The Germans also misrepresented the outcomes of their BFM sorties with Raptors, and had to strip their Typhoons of all external stores besides ACMI to try to get parity with F-22 climb rate and excess thrust. Even then, they were not dominant against the F-22s, while making public statements to the contrary about qualities of alcohol awarded by the Squadron Commander to pilots who were able to get simulated guns kills against F-22s. They never directly stated kill/loss rates against the F-22s in these guns-only fights, and when asked about it, the Raptor pilots said their recollection of the training was entirely different than what was being stated by the Germans. In reality, what every Typhoon and Rafale pilot knows is that they would be flying blind before receiving impact from whatever weapons the Raptor chose to use in a VLO, unseen approach from outside of their sensor envelopes, while being offensively targeted by more powerful and more advanced ECM techniques from the Raptor. Unlike the 4th Gen+ cockpits and avionics architecture of the Typhoon and Rafale (both of which are superb by 20th Century standards), the F-22 pilot enjoys a fused sensor situational awareness that also interleaves the sensor data from other F-22s using the IFDL advanced data link. This is a far more capable data link with directional LPI, not like Link-16v4. Another aspect of VLO technology not mentioned is the extensive degree of IR camouflage incorporated into the F-22, which was somewhat morphed from the superb engine exhaust diffusion approach of the F-117A. An F-22 is not nearly as large of an IR signature as any of the 4th Gen fighters for this reason. The ATF program called for significant IR camouflage techniques because of the presence of the IRST on the MiG-29 and Su-27 4th Gen fighters. All of the assumptions I have seen being made by the IRST crowd and detection ranges don't apply to ATF and JSF, so much shorter initial detection ranges need to be accounted for when gaming out tactics limitations that are driven by the relevant technologies. This is also why supercruise was so important to the ATF design at the time. The BVR fighter tactics developed by the USAF Fighter Weapons School for the F-15 used a lot of supersonic weapons separation and evasion, and the Su-27 especially seemed designed to counter this. If a fighter could be made to have supercruise capability without the massive IR plume from afterburners, it would be helpful in negating the IRST systems. On the F-22's fused battlespace management displays, it knows threat and friendly aircraft sensor envelopes through active modeling against the conditions and its sensitive distributed RF antennae suite. It also knows where it can be detected within those sensor envelopes, so there is no reason to fly within them if you don't have to. In one of the many exploitation exercise evaluating the need for Helmet-Mounted Sights on the F-22, they pitted 2 F-22As against 8 F-15Cs with the new AESA, AIM-9X, and JHMCS. One of the F-15Cs was being piloted by a senior Royal Australian Air Force exchange pilots by the name of Stephan Chappell. After one of the F-22s aborted on the ground, it was left to a single ship to take on the 8 F-15C+ air superiority fighters (with 108-0 air combat record). The single Raptor killed all 8 of the F-15Cs, and they went on to do exploitation of the F-22A within visual range with AIM-9X/JHMCS. The AIM-9X has a very wide field of regard with its IR sensor in the nose, which is cued with the helmet sight in JHMCS. No matter what they did, the F-15Cs with AIM-9X still couldn't get weapons cueing on the Raptor within the visual arena. "I can't see the f***ing thing! It won't let me put a weapons system on it, even when I can visually see it through the canopy (with JHMCS/AIM-9X head). Flying against the Raptor annoys the hell out of me." This is not a fighter you want to even try to get within visual range of, let alone roam the skies blindly against.

[@LRRPFco52]

@@EmperorLionflame Wannabe defense analyst strikes again... Luftwaffe Typhoon with IRST: www.aviation4u.de/gallery/Deutschland/ILA2002/02-231-33.jpg Any more uninformed claims you want to make?

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

A couple of remarks. The "Spherical awareness" depend heavily from the presence of other assets like awacs. A group of fighters, particularly if all headed in the same direction, are still constrained by the physical characteristics of the radar cone. Or, one or more of them have to sacrifice the VLO acting as a mini AWACS and likely use the radar in non LPI modes. Gripen and Rafale have substantially the same fusion and presentation technologies, using their own encrypted proprietary data links in the most recent versions. The F-35 has, or will have when all problems will be fixed, a better human interface and, at least for a short while, better passive sensors, but the data fusion and the situation awareness is now commonplace. I would really like to know how Russian and Chinese data links work because this is one of the areas where the battle for superiority is really played, because situational awareness allows for the complex tactics required to counteract pure kinetic or LVO performance. If the only thing you have is a radar in scan mode and you are flying straight into the contested area, then yes, VLO platforms will kill you straight out of the gate. It is difficult to believe, despite those declarations, that "no weapons systems" can lock on the Raptor, even WVR. It seems against the laws of physics. Probably we should not take that declaration at face value.

[@LRRPFco52]

@@Millennium7HistoryTech Love your channel man. One of the only ones that is discussing the comprehensive AeroE aspects of modern fighter technology. The passive spherical situational awareness with the F-22A comes from the AN/ALR-94 made by BAE systems, not necessarily the APG-77. Due to 1/2 rule, passive detection range is much greater than 1/4 rule with the active radar as I'm sure you're aware. One of the things that always interested me was the F-15's TEWS display, and how large it was compared with other RWR sets common to every other teen and legacy aircraft. The TEWS had more resolution with offset angle tick marks on its circumference for specific BVR fighter tactics when employing the AIM-7F/M SARH missile. With the ATF program basing a lot of the air dominance theory on known performance metrics in the F-15C community and the counters from the Su-27, they wanted significant leaps in overmatch that could not be overcome with the natural upgrades that the Flanker would undergo throughout its life. One of the main challenges was embedding RF antennae into the airframe, which the F-117A didn't have, leaving Nighthawk pilots without RWR. This was crucial to ATF development and was focused on with significant manpower and budget. They ended up embedding 30 different RF antennae into the airframe, including the frontal fuselage/nose, wings, wing leading edge flaps, leading and trailing edges of the vertical stabs, on both the upper and lower surfaces of the Raptor. Instead of a federated systems approach, these were all closed-loop integrated systems with the AESA, ALR-94, and the IR/UV MAWS, piped through the central processor bank. Gripen NG and Rafale have latest 4.5 Gen ASPJs and Digital Countermeasures suites, but they still fall into the 4th Generation constraints since these airframes weren't built from a clean slate with extensive embedded RF architecture in-mind. When my family was doing the developmental work on ECA when we lived in Germany (later became EFA/Typhoon and the French wisely split off), there was a lot of focus on the kinematics for supersonic weapons separation and advanced development of what an MSA radar could do, as well as post-stall maneuvering. The integrated systems approach to full spectrum sensor fusion was really an ATF-driven approach that almost nobody knew about due to the tight secrecy of ATF. After ATF went into production and information trickled out, EF and Rafale upgrade programs reacted to this, much of which is partnership-driven when the coalition aircrews and air planners were exposed incrementally to ATF capabilities. This isn't to say that ECM/ECCM wasn't a thought in ECA/EFA, to the contrary. But the level of systems integration undertaken by the ATF and JSF programs was revolutionary compared to even the emerging 4.5 Gen systems design.

[@LRRPFco52]

@@Millennium7HistoryTech The Eurocanard AESAs are a fraction of the size of the Raptor's (over 1900 TRMs) and JSF APG-71 (1686 TRMs), with a much smaller RF sensor count around the airframe, so they don't have the same SA as even the initial combat-coded Raptor from 2005 in the RF spectrum. Due to the saturation of RF sensors on the F-22A, it became more like a ELINT collection aircraft, which short-cuts the older C4ISR hierarchy we were limited to with RC-135, E-3A/B, and the fighters. The JSF took this to another level with lessons-learned from the Raptor, and added the 6 high-res 1024x1024 DAS sensors, as well as all the IR/FLIR sensors and LST inside the zoomable EOTS, which are fused with all the embedded RF sensors, MADL, and AESA. The Swedes have leveraged their limited budget with materials science using GaN TRMs in the ECM suite and Saab AESA radar, although it has fewer than 1000 TRMs. Since electron mobility is substantially better through GaN TRMs, detection range should be awesome with that radar. The rotational gimbal technique they've used is also nice because they can LOAL and crank while keeping LPI directional mid-course guidance to BVR missiles while staying outside of WEZ. The US actually requested a sample for evaluation. The problems for the Russians is their lack of VLO airframes. China chose a really strange configuration for the J-20 that seems to throw VLO out the window with canards and disparate angles between the wing roots and wing leading edges, so I'm interested to see what the actual RCS is of the J-20. I have to recognize that it has far superior seam lines and smooth transition from panel-to-panel compared to the Su-57. They have a J-20B now with TVC nozzles, still using AL-41 Saturn motors as their WS-15 is not forthcoming. The RAAF exchange pilot's comments about the Raptor were with JHMCS and AIM-9X seeker cueing. I was also surprised by the comments, and no clarification will be given I think for obvious reasons. There are plenty of HUD field of view guns solutions shown against Raptor from EF and Rafale, which is a radar-computed impact mode when the guns are selected, but this shouldn't be a surprise that radar-cueing is working within close visual range. I think the RAAF pilot was specifically talking about not getting cueing with AIM-9X when looking off-boresight through the canopy, which brings the IR VLO techniques into question, as well as what ranges they were at. There aren't any OSINT schematics for ATF IR airflow management, but there are some rudimentary ones of the F-117A you can look at and then get a basic idea of what the IR VLO stealth team within ATF were tasked with. They already had a great body of knowledge on the HAVE BLUE/F-117A IR stealth with IR instrumented ranges and airborne sensors as part of the developmental infrastructure for the ATF program. JSF has a large space for cool airflow over the motor and exhaust, with scoops under the wings close to the fuselage. They also integrated heat exchangers into the cool air fan stage of the F135 turbofan. Coming from an intimate understanding of 4th Gen systems and looking at the F-22 and JSF design features, I see the results of some very massive engineering undertakings that are brilliant in execution.

[@LRRPFco52]

@@EmperorLionflame I thought I heard a Luftwaffe pilot say they had IRST in a recent interview. Even with IRST, you have to LPI data-link if you don't want your Link-16 jammed or detected. Guess how you send directional, narrow beam RF to another aircraft's Data Link receiver? Not broadband if you don't want to be detected. Luftwaffe just got funding for 110 CAPTOR-Es this year either way. The UK has been at the forefront of developing the Typhoon with different tranche upgrades, but even in its latest configuration, the applied physics and their limitations on tactics make it inferior to the initial 2005 combat-coded Raptor in A2A. Once you trigger RF emissions to send theoretical long-range IRST data (on a very cold TGT), you just triggered passive sensors on the F-22 that immediately locate you with an interleaved LPI directional data share, without the F-22 ever needing to violate EMCON with hot emissions from the AESA in your direction. Now you're left vulnerable to an off-axis approach both laterally and vertically. It's simply an unfair cat and mouse game that the F-22 is poised to win no matter what you try to do within the limitations of a 4th Gen airframe and older avionics approach. The premise that you'll get a long rage IR plume is based on a big assumption, while willingly or ignorantly blocking out the reality of IR concealment measures.

[@alimohsin697]

some technical videos r porn fr me..but this maker is an asmrtist fr me..love it..calms me.

[@danielculver2209]

May I suggest watching "AMRAAM in filthy detail" next 😏

[@keithfillinger3182]

They can track stealth planes with certain types of radar (low band). However, the technology is not accurate enough to lock missles onto a plane. IR technology has limited range.

[@wayneronnie7402]

Surely, all you need is a general direction in which to launch your missile and by the time the missile is closer to the target, it's own radar/sensors will guide it..

[@myhometechguy]

You two repliers have all the answers. Why arent you immediately hired by Russia or China to defeat American technology? Meanwhile every country finds the smartest people they can to study and develop a military to defeat everyone else is seeking stealth technology. But Im sure you are just smarter.

[@malokegames]

You don't need to track with a low band radar, it's enought to just detect with it. After knowing the average location it enables you to focus your radar emitions and other sensors to that area (instread of spreading energy) and thus achieving a much earlier track than you would if you were unaware of the stealth figther on that area. Also, as was already mentioned, you can simultaneously launch missiles to that area so they can aquire when getting closer... during this whole situation the stealth already lost its advantage and will probably abort the attack.

[@myhometechguy]

@@malokegames Very Low Observable works at all ranges and against every type of detection. Your views are very simplified and take into account the whole picture. It means its much harder to see than none VLO. This works even when missiles etc are close. Missiles have much smaller radar and must overcome counter measures. Chaff will work much better against a VLO target for example. VLO lower the probability of a kill at all ranges. Think of it like this. Solders fighting in a battle in a forest. One side is wearing camaflouge and the other are wearing orange. Yes you can see and kill the camafloug side but you are at a great disadvantage. The best way to know if stealth is BS or not is look at what militaries are persueing. Everyone wants stealth and they have a lot more information than you or I.

[@malokegames]

@@myhometechguy Did you watch the video?! All you said has been refuted on it in great detail. Oh, and what you descrived with "... look at what...Everyone wants...are persueing...." is a very "Retail Consumer" way of thinking, that does not apply to military fields at all.

[@harkamelrandhawa7125]

This work is awesome

[@cliffordnelson8454]

Thanks so much, one of the must useful videos I have seen. So many people want to beleive then myth of stealth. Reminds me of Trump saying you cannot see the plane. LOL. That you do not get more upvotes tells me that people do not want to hear your message that Stealth is not the magic silver bullet they wish it were. They do not appreciate that you are telling the truth. You probably should have also mentioned that the advantage of stealth is reduced by the square of the distance, so reduce the distance by 50%, stealth is 1/4 as effective. A lot of people that watch these videos do not even know that simple fact.

[@dennissmith6783]

some stealth is better than no stealth, nothings perfect

[@gilbertponder5307]

Great video, great channel. If you want some added entertainment, turn on English subtitles and compare to what is actually being said. The further into the video, the wronger and funnier the subtitles get ("launch of weapons" becomes "launch of wet ones", "its stealthiness" becomes "it's 13's", "home-on-jam" becomes "ammonium").

[@Pincer88]

Very good analysis and spot on. Stealth is being sold as the silver bullet to guaranteed victory, but very few seem to realize that technological superiority is not a permanent given nor a substitute for sound strategy and tactics.

[@user-di5rm9ee1p]

Can you defeat it? - Me laughing in serbian stealth mode.

[@dranzergigs8333]

It was a one in a billion cosmic fluke - Tony stark.

[@zapszapper9105]

I suppose Nothing is that stealthy when you are on their 6, the trick is getting there without talking to St Peter though.

[@esecallum]

According to Ned Allen, the chief scientist at US defence technology company Lockheed Martin, the idea for a quantum radar was first floated at a meeting between him, his assistant and a professor of quantum information science at the University of Southern California (USC) in 2002 or thereabouts. They decided to suggest it to the strategic technology office of the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa), which commissioned a one-year research project. Both the US and Lockheed-Martin have been working on the technological development of quantum radar ever since - though separately as, ironically, Darpa didn’t commission Lockheed to run the subsequent quantum-sensing programme that spun from the USC team’s initial research. Canada has also invested C$2.7m (£1.93m) into developing quantum radar via an ongoing research project at the University of Waterloo. The UK, through Innovate UK, is funding an ongoing study by Qinetiq into the feasibility of using quantum metrology in radar and lidar systems. Quantum radar technology is based on the principles of quantum illumination and quantum entanglement, though there are other techniques being developed that are not properly quantum. Lockheed is doing experimental work developing a classical radar incorporating components that use quantum principles, for example. A classical radar works by sending out a directional beam of radiation at radio or microwave frequencies, and through a receiver detecting reflections from any objects in the path of the signal, in order to calculate their location and speed. A quantum radar, in simple terms, uses a source of entangled photons that are strongly correlated and have the same inseparable identity and experiences and work as one quantum system, even when separated. To detect an object at distance the beam of photons is split, with one half transmitted and the other retained at the basestation for comparison with the reflections. Sending out entangled quanta or photons instead of classical radiation, in theory, offers several advantages. The first is ‘better’ image resolution without an increase in frequency. “The resolution from any visualisation device is directly proportional to the energy of the photons you use to identify the device, and one of the most interesting things about quantum radar is the behaviour of the radar beam as it is propagated through the atmosphere, because the character of the image beamed back is a function of all the photons added together,” explains Allen. This means it is possible to get a much higher resolution of targets than classical radar but at the same frequency, even if they have been physically minimised by stealth techniques. “There is much ongoing work to raise the frequency of radar, but quantum allows you to do that much more easily and more elegantly,” adds Allen. Furthermore, with entangled photons it should be easier to separate background noise from what is actually being reflected back off an object, says Jonathan Baugh, an associate professor at the University of Waterlooís Institute for Quantum Computing (IQC) and the Department of Chemistry, who is leading a quantum radar research project with three other researchers at IQC and the Waterloo Institute for Nanotechnology. Radar frequencies sometimes suffer because of lots of background noise due to thermal and black body radiation, stray radio signals, or radio noise from things such as solar wind hitting the atmosphere, which can obscure the signal. This is particularly acute in higher altitudes like the Arctic regions. In areas like this, stealth aircraft, which do not reflect back much light, just become part of the background noise. By using a split beam of entangled photons, quantum radar theoretically will allow militaries to boost the radar signal and discard some of the noise, making detection more effective. For example, if an emitted photon came into contact with a target it would be reflected off it and return to the station. At this point it is possible to perform a ‘correlation experiment’ or measurement on both photons to determine if it is in fact the returning photon and not just background noise. “This gives you an advantage because then it’s possible to separate out the ‘real’ photons - the ones known to be sent from the basestation and reflected back - from ambient background noise. That information is useful as it allows you to sift out a small signal buried in noise and can tell you the photon you are detecting is not just random,” Baugh explains. It is part of the “weirdness” of quantum entanglement, says Seth Lloyd, a professor of mechanical engineering and physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, that makes it possible to measure and detect the photon sent out, even in extremely loud and noisy environments. “In those situations, theoretically quantum radar will allow militaries to boost the signal and discard some of the noise, making detection more effective,” adds Lloyd. Furthermore, because quantum gets better results from less power, it would be harder to detect by the enemy. “If planes detect enemy radar they can put jamming on, but it would be a lot harder to detect quantum radar - I think that is one of the main implications,” says Lloyd.

[@henrikerdland578]

Good explantion. I totally agree with your point of view

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

Glad you think so!

[@KernowekTim]

By Stealth and Guile. deadly in the hands of the elite. Thank you for this most interesting video. Top drawer. Stay safe. Chons da. Peace.

[@myusername3689]

Atleast we’ll get more maneuverable low drag high lift airframes in the future if this anti stealth works.

[@kristianharalambiev7685]

U can get it with stealth

[@letsgobrandon416]

What about sound? When I lived near Norfolk, the F-22s would fly over on occasion. When they would turn such that their exhaust pointed in my direction, even though they were miles away and thousands of feet up, the sounds was uncomfortably loud. Granted that won't catch them entering your airspace, but I have to imagine from the rear, that sound must be really easy to follow to get close enough to use thermal to finish the job.

[@philv3941]

And the sound of a jet fighter is typical. Probably each type has its own sound "signature". Probably easy from a well trained AI with a buch of ground microphones to detect and build a vector of the target, from the ground.

[@Gongolongo]

A few miles is considered very close in terms of air combat. Also, remember these aircraft are moving near the speed of sound so the range at which they hear might be different

[@kingquackie7284]

Ive heard that the Mk1 Eyeball work against any fighter.

[@rohanking1088]

Really nice information .....thank you

[@covikitetamecovid1938]

- What are about the 3 different posters behind you, just sticked on the wall?

[@wiskadjak]

I watched a lecture, on KZbin, by an Indian scientist who discussed the use of networked long wave radars to detect stealth aircraft. Essentially getting better resolution by creating a large aperture detector via interferometry. Comments?

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

It is a possibility, I have heard of it.

[@LRRPFco52]

And where would these large aperture antennae be hidden from cruise missiles and other long-range weapons? The bigger the antennae, the bigger the physical signature.

[@sorennilsson9742]

@@LRRPFco52 You are right but the Russians has already built such a defence around Moscow, the problem is not hiding the radar the problem is providing energy. The Russians has been at this since WWII. They are therefor ahead of the west in this area. The little I know tells me they are trying to create a very small area where they can consentrate targeting radar beams.

[@LRRPFco52]

@@sorennilsson9742 The Russians aren't ahead of the US in OTH-B radars. We had those as part of NORAD dating way back to the 1970s. We've moved on to more advanced sensor networks that integrate Satellite and other systems. Russia has to maintain perimeter defense systems across a massive land area and borders with 16 nations-most of whom have historical disputes with Russia. They simply don't have the budget or resources for it anymore.

[@sorennilsson9742]

@@LRRPFco52 The USA changed systems the Russians have developed them for 50 years after that the USA lost interest in them. Russia and China have a need for them since the USA have more steahlt planes. This is changing since China is now producing steahlt planes with growing capacity.

[@johnrollex680]

Did you mention that it's easier to get a pinpoint on target with low frequency radars if you network them?

[@spackle9999]

But then you have to get the missile's radar to track the target. During training, European adversaries say they have trouble achieving lock on F-22 even when they're in visual range. You MIGHT be able to achieve track, but achieving lock and actually hitting the plane through its ECM is another story entirely. Not to mention you just broadcast the location of your radars and should be expecting a shipment of cruise missiles and glide bombs.

[@PetrMoses]

You could discuss usability of VERA (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VERA_passive_sensor). Problem of stealth jet over civil aglomeration is there are more transceivers, mainly in GSM bands, which help to locate nearly invisible plane like radars. You could detect reflections of known GSM base stations and then you know that something is in the air.

[@ViceCoin]

Drones can be used as bait, or jam GPS, or multistatic radar networking.

[@alexandriaoccasional-corte1346]

Stealth is like a fart. You can't see it. But you feel the effect.

[@Stazzo82]

I have a question. These are the reasons why stealth aircraft need to operate with awacs? For example we can figurates this warfare situation, there is a awacs airplanes and ahead it there is a stealth aircraft (for example a F22), the awacs behind aim at the opponents and send the data to F22 and this can lauch its own missiles to opponent, without signal his position to the enemy.

[@esecallum]

tealth planes currently go under the radar, figuratively speaking, but maybe the higher definition promised by quantum radars could be used to expose them. Radar technology has become an ever more important tool in warfare since the Second World War, used to monitor the electromagnetic spectrum to detect and track enemy aircraft, missiles, satellites and other systems that in turn have grown more sophisticated in evading detection. Building better, more sensitive and harder-to-detect radar systems remains a key focus for defence manufacturers today, especially since in October 2018 the US Navy designated the electromagnetic spectrum as a warfighting domain on par with sea, land, air, space and cyber. Last year, China’s biggest defence electronics company, state-owned China Electronics Technology Group, announced it had developed a next-generation “quantum radar system” that, it claimed, can detect ballistic missiles and other objects flying “at high speed through space”. Two years previously, the group said it had tested a quantum radar to a range of 100km (60 miles). The expectation is that quantum radar, due to the unique behaviour of quantum entanglement, could, among other things, “un-stealth” aircraft by detecting objects with a greater level of accuracy than conventional radar. Therefore, if China’s announcement is true - and it hasn’t provided any evidence to back its claim - it would be a huge win for both its defence and quantum capabilities.

[@ivanganic3984]

People need to know...stealth is not invisibility, is less visibility. For example normal plane if is visible on 100 km, stealth can be visible on 60 km...so he see him first, he first fire. Even if it is advantage of 10km is still good, because if he shoot fire, you will busy to counter manuver missile, in that time stealth plane have advantage to get in better position over you to shoot second time if he miss first time. One posible way to counter is data link. you turn of your radar and fly low under enemy radar. Over data link you get information from other fighters ,awacs , ground control or passive. You need to know you have passive warning system who tells you if you are on enemy radar too(if you are hit with radars rays) or missile is lunch on you. Is not only IR passive passive system who can detect. Stealth is use on big range, to see enemy first, so he can take manuver to get into better position first, or to fire first. On middle or close range stealth plane is very visible like others planes. This IC system range depends on what high is plane, also from weather, direction of sun etc...

[@richardoakley8800]

A meash low band radar system from 50 years ago will have no problem tracking a stealth aircraft.. downside its not exactly portable..

[@georgemancuso9597]

Perhaps in the future you can discuss how a loyal wing contributes to an integrated stealth environment

[@jonjonsson6323]

Quite easily, it is not a fixed state such as 0 and 1, ie invisible or visible..stealth doesent work like that. It all depends on what radar and angle, but stealth is a low signature measure, not invisible.

[@ivanganic2700]

Stealth fighters are visible to all radars...is a myth they are invisible to some type of radars. Example if no stealth plane can be spoted on 120km, stealth plane be visible something like 70km or less(rough example). Stealth purpose is to cut range of radars, that's how stealth works. The more plane stealth or not is closer to radar, he more give radar waves back. Cuting range is "I first see you with my radar, and I can lock you before you lock me with missiles". If you turn on radar, or radio you brake stealth, because sensor on other planes, on ground can detect you, you can have guidence from ground radar t air fighters, awacs, you losing stelth when weapon bay is open etc...so they will go to counter this with tactics. For example Rafal engage F-22 into close fight thanks to tactic -turn off radars, using IC mica-s(he can use them like irst) to search sky, flying low to be undetect to raptors. Anyway stealth is good advantage still until they dont make good passive system for search...radar warning system still have limitation, to give presision, IRST have problem with range, depends of weather condition etc...Also is important to say is cutting range of active radar seeking missiles. Maybe they will lost lock on bigger range. The most stealth plane was F-117 night hawk with his geometry, materials, who work in total radio-silence, with engines who emited just enough power to fly, only with passive FLIR system, and who was strike plane.

[@zabairrasheed8253]

Answer is YES from: ng-technologies LTD

[@stephenfowler4115]

Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely? No.

[@saltyroe3179]

Use BiStatic radar or radar satellite with imaging to determine general location, direct missiles their which use IR and visual for terminal guidance

[@Dr.Westside]

Still not accurate enough . IRST and visual terminal only can see a few degrees of sky at the speed missiles travel . At best . The best counter stealth requires AWACS with said technologies . That poses it own set of problems though .

[@saltyroe3179]

@@Dr.Westside the idea is not mine. I was told by an expert in 1998 that the satellite based imaging radar then available would let you see the radar non return against the ground would give a good location, speed and direction. At close distances 1998 sensors could burn through the radar stealth and IR stealth. The current visual imaging is good enough to target the aircraft at all aspects. The biggest expense is lifting the imaging satellites and the command and control systems as well as the SAM coverage. The F117 shoot down was done with lots of missles

[@naughtyUphillboy]

Thanks.......

[@SlayerBG93]

I dont get why the search radar not providing a close enough track is still a persistent myth. If I lob an old missile at you, sure, since it needs to get to a few hundread feet of the plane to destroy it but all modern long range missiles have active guidence. I dont care how crude the radar on the S-400 long range missile is. If I get it within 5km of the stealth plane it will absolutely aquire it.

[@myhometechguy]

No expert has said stealth renders planes invicible. It is an advantage. In the best cases when tactics are combined it has proven to be very difficult to detect. When technology and advasery tactics begin to render stealth visible it still remains an advantage. It doesn't cease to work just because you know generally where they are. It greatly increases detection ranges so stealth acraft will see and acquire weapons grade tracking and lock long before none stealth. The very small radars on missiles will struggle to track and be much more susceptible to counter measures. Think of it this way. Stealth and none stealth is equivalent to solders fighting in a jungle where one side is wearing bright orange and the other is wearing camaflouge. The camaflouge doesn't make the soldiers invisible but makes detection much harder giving them a tremendous advantage. While naysayers are bshing the F35 every nation is investing tremendous amounts of money seeking similar technology.

[@muhammadomer5301]

Can u make an analysis on solar concentration satellites as weapon systems. As it sounds too simple then why its not a reality yet. Thanx

[@thomaseriksson6256]

Can you use a IR laser to scan?

[@annag5458]

You show the complexity of stealth technology well . The big question of course is if you tune an aircraft to absorb a range of used frequencies, why are those frequencies used in the fist place, why are they optimal, what is to stop a defender using higher or lower frequencies ( accuracy / range ?? ) .... More please ,thank you

[@daryll4645]

You can just rig up a mic to detect sonic booms or high altitude disturbances and use AI to vector in a missile well BVR. Radar is so 1940's

[@shaider1982]

Yeah, but this can be distorted by the atmosphere and is slower than the plane.

[@yelectric1893]

Wow

[@Elios0000]

still would like to know more about that F-117 that was shot down iirc late 90's

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

I suppose we can have one of the short videos covering it, sometimes. Good idea.

[@Elios0000]

@@Millennium7HistoryTech or even just a video on the F-117 and Have Blue in general and its gen 1 stealth old "Wobbly Goblin" doesnt get much love any more en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Have_Blue

[@slippulter8053]

Shot down 1999, Kosovo Serbia war, over serbia.

[@gerrya4818]

short version, they took stealth for granted and got complacent.they flew same route everyday(assuming they visibly saw it multiple times). they set up a sam right underneath . even the best stealth have a cross-section of like a golf ball,so if you use a radar wavelength that can resolve a golf ball you can see a stealth. downsize is you cant differentiate the plane from a bird so is useless 99.9% of the time. so basically they knew exactly where the plane would be and waited for it to fly over,probably had spotters uprange. so they scanned air in that specific place for a golf ball .they got lucky that the plane "tested" its bomb door,which apparently was standard procedure before their bomb run,made the golf ball size object a bit larger for a few seconds,long enough for them to pick out the golf ball from the birds and they fired..

[@llamudos9809]

Never leave the doors open on a stealth jet!!

[@debapratimdhara1385]

Is stealth dependent on polarization of incoming wave? Can you please comment?

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

Not much. RAM usually scatter, and the geometry just reflects away.

[@spartan-s013]

i have got a question: at 02:04 you show a sketch of SU-57 with weapon bay, but i thought it has no weapons bay. It is a future model or present representation?

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

It has weapon bays in the current configuration.

[@spartan-s013]

@@Millennium7HistoryTech this si something i didn't know, and this is why i cherrish your channel, thank you

[@LRRPFco52]

At 7:00 in the video, the statement is made that maneuvering relative to ground-based radars can increase the RCS. The converse is also true here, where maneuvering can control aspect based on RCS reduction. The IR sensor photos are from close range ground-based platforms taken during an F-22A airshow demo with the engines in full afterburner, not at long range. Extensive work has been done to reduce the IR signature of the F-22 and JSF variants, with cool air flowing over and around the jet exhaust plumes. As to Low Frequency radar emitters generating general area intercept profiles for fighter/interceptors, this is assuming the low freq radars are still standing after cruise missile and PGM barrages, bad weather, and other long range strike weapons, with zero networked ECM efforts from the 5th Gen fighters, no baiting from the attackers, and no deceptive tactics incorporated with 5th Gen fighters. we speak, without even applying the full capabilities of ATF or JSF in those theaters.

[@tucanman9775]

big radar with a big gun and high rpm

[@tucanman9775]

its just a matter if time heat can be tracked why not sound

[@wikilcontainments]

It’s a good question. I’m not qualified to to say I am correct, but my short answer is that the detection of the sound source would be too late to acquire and fire a sound seeking weapon. Radar and infrared tracking is almost instant. Seay safe.

[@tucanman9775]

@@wikilcontainments i was thinking sound enhanced seeking in the final stage maybe a proximity trigger for a burst at high DB

[@tucanman9775]

also the energy beam can have the size of antenna length to fire on stealth

[@ghostindamachine]

Would quantum radar defeat stealth?

[@LRRPFco52]

Quantum computers need large liquid nitrogen cooling tanks that fill up portions of rooms, weighing thousands of pounds, with large volume displacement. No way could you fit them into fighters. There is some theoretical discussion of room temperature super conductors on the horizon, and the US is at the forefront of this research and materials science.

[@sorennilsson9742]

@@LRRPFco52 You are right that the quantum radar will be large, as such it would today be a ground based radar, today such radars are in early development, the Chinese claimed they had a working prototype that had detected a plane at a distance of 40 km. I am doubtful, if a nation managed to construct one that radar would have no problem lem seing everything.

[@hrvojemikulcic7074]

Čovjek kada pogleda F 22 i SU 57 koji su u biti ista ili slicna kopija aviona poput F 35 i Yak141 sto nam govori smijesnu tvrdnja da se možda 2 aviona ne vide međusobno na radaru i u zraku jer su gradena da smanje vidljivost na radaru, a nose rakete dometa oko 60 km!?

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

Weapons range is for non-stealth targets.

[@esecallum]

QUANTUM RADAR CANCELS ALL STEALTH.

[@TheLegendInYou]

Counter Counter Countermeasures

[@TheLegendInYou]

This is called Electronic Warfare.

[@tucanman9775]

with visual ID required to engage the stelth advantage is gone already

[@stevem2323]

Ha? Come again? 🤣🤣🤣

[@tucanman9775]

@@stevem2323 you have to fly into visual range to ID the bandit to get launch approval once the bandit has visual contact its guns guns guns on your les agile f-35

[@stevem2323]

@@tucanman9775 Less agile, then who?

[@tucanman9775]

are you new a mig 21 is faster

[@tucanman9775]

@@stevem2323 f-35 doesnt supercruse dont tell

[@phoneticau]

VHF radar can detect its dialectric signuture

[@AvroBellow]

EXPLANATION OF IRS-T: Su-30 Pilot: When did the Earth get two suns? Su-30 WSO: It didn't, the one on the right is the exhaust plume of an F-35.

[@LRRPFco52]

Nope. Look more closely at the junction between the JSF engine nozzle and the airframe. There is a large air gap, which high volume cold air passes through and around the exhaust plume of engine, and the exhaust plume is generated into a spiral vortex due to the RF diffusing orientation of the afterburner flame-holder. Effective detection range of airborne IRST is therefore extremely limited, to the extent that even more advanced and much larger IR sensors on the F-15E, with better cooling and higher processing power, were unable to detect the JSF at any meaningful distance, while the F-15Es were targets for considerable distances beforehand. The most overlooked aspect of VLO technology on the F-117A, B-2A, F-22A, and JSF variants are the significant efforts that have been taken to reduce the IR signatures with various concealment and diffusive measures. The JSF then brings with it a far more advanced fused architecture of multiple IR and RF sensors that ensure first-look from greater distances than any existing fighter-based airborne IR detection system in the world, which is currently being replaced with an even more capable set of IR sensors and higher-speed central processor cards in the quad bank CPU brain. It's more like: Su-30 Pilot: "See anything yet?" Wingman: "Nothing, but we know they're in the air." Warning light panel and audible tones go off like a 5-alarm fire while flames pour out of the aircraft, parts flying off like confetti. "Eject, EJECT!" As they descend from the fiery ball of scrap metal, they see their wingman's plane in the same condition, maybe with chutes or not. The end. JSF EOTS/DAS has far greater detection and tracking range, with exquisite Positive ID capabilities interleaved with their wingmen for multiple angles and track data, to the point of being able to count weapons and external stores on the aircraft from well beyond visual range. OLS-30 has none of this.

[@riccccccardo]

It’s an irony the USA learnt about stealth from a Russian 🙈

[@alimohsin697]

that book had knowledge frm germans who already started working on defeating radar.

[@llamudos9809]

That is total rubbish. Stealth was figured out after RADAR was invented (By the UK) The first stealth jet was German horton ho229. So your logic that stealth was a Russian invention is innacurate. You may be thinking of the yak141 for VTOL? which again is innacurate as the YAK was flawed and the Harrierr was based on this rather than the f35B. If we want to get more accurate a French man invented VTOL before even the wright brothers had their first flight.

[@bjornnordstrom]

I also heard this a long time ago. A doctoral thesis at a Russian technical university sometime very long ago. In order to get your "doctors hat" the report must be published in internationally in a science magazine. Still works the same way today.

[@mhorasail]

Is this not too sophisticated..

[@SMayedAli]

V

[@stefanaleksic4113]

Serbians shot down F117 and B2

[@gabrielrubin676]

You're only talking about this in this Era? US now have a stealth plasma, "radar stealth" is obsolete. next UFOs hahaha... good luck

[@simulatedpilot3441]

Plasma stealth is 50 years old