In the future radar and signal processing will improve to the extent that electronic warfare will be the (best/only) defence. 'Stealth' as we know it today will be short lived.
Fighter aircraft may stop being:
1. Small manoeuvrable aircraft
2. Manned
We will probably see aircraft the size of an F111 or maybe B1, full with radar, offensive / defensive ECM and computing power. They will launch manoeuvrable weapons or even drones to do the fighting for them.
Autonomous drones will take over much of the work from modern fighter aircraft and aerial attrition battles based on production / cost effectiveness will come to the fore.
Is this a fair assessment?
>>29761531
in the future the op will always be a faggot
is this a fair assessment?
>>29761553
Funny and original
thats planned for
won't happen for decades
6th gen planes won't rely on stealth to defend themselves
I always imagined future warfare being like it was in Fahrenheit 451.
Gif unrelated
>>29761609
not read it, explain ?
>>29761682
It's been a few years since I read it, and they were extremely vague in describing the war. Essentially some type of jets/bombers flying at incredible speeds destroying entire cities with single bombs was how it was fought mainly if I recall correctly.
>>29761531
>>29761573
>Stealth will be rendered useless
You can't ignore the laws of physics, shitbirds.
>>29761977
The laws of physics that say nothing can be a perfect mirror ?
There will always be returned energy, devices just have to be sensitive enough to detect it and we are perfectly capable of building computers than can distinguish a target from background noise.
Please quote the laws of physics you think are on your side. Unless of course you dropped the "hurr basic physics" line without knowing what you're talking about ?
>>29762143
You're not going to magically increase the amount of radar returned from a stealth aircraft. You're not going to magically increase what the antennas can pick up. And to "better signal processing", I say this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwnI0RS6J5A
Low band radars are worthless because the resolution's too low. Ideal freq radars are relatively easy to scatter in every direction but back at the transmitter. And you're ignoring the most important element of all: sensors and tactics combined to evade detection working in concert with the physical stealth aspects.
>>29762275
Who said anything about low frequency radar ?
High frequency radar still gets a return from EVERY stealth aircraft, it's just this return is so small it is not evaluated.
A large boost in transmit / receive modules combined with signal processing that can distinguish an insect from a 400kmph object with the same radar return will invalidate stealth.
Since it is impossible to create a perfect mirror the next step would be to overwhelm the radar with so many false positives that it cant get a precise location on the target that matters.
Sorry if you thought 'stealth' was some magic advantage that would last forever. in the 60's you probably would of thought the U2 was impossible to shoot down.
>>29762374
>Sorry if you thought 'stealth' was some magic advantage that would last forever.
If anything its gotten better.
>>29762394
In 10 / 20 years ?
Your think combat wont evolve ?
Some people can only memorise facts while others can actually use those facts to see how things will develop.
>>29762374
You have zero idea how LO aircraft or radars work. I suggest you stop posting immediately until you know more.
>>29762434
>Anything you said
>Facts
So do tell me how exactly you're going to invalidate stealth since you have so many facts at your disposal.
>>29762434
I think that the lag time on new technology is greater than a decade or two, yes.
I also think that "stealth" (cute you still call it that) is a necessity. High RCS return just isn't something you can get away with anymore.
>>29761569
Nigga, it's hilarious and original you dumb faggot. Get your memes right fucker.
>>29762444
>You have zero idea how LO aircraft or radars work
You sure told me with those facts you like so much. You're an inch away from calling me'kid' and posting a troll face aren't you ?
There is no such thing as a perfect mirror - prove me wrong.
>So do tell me how exactly you're going to invalidate stealth since you have so many facts at your disposal.
Already answered in >>29762374
LRN2 read the thread.
>>29762646
Not that anon, but what the fuck are you talking about a "perfect mirror" for
>>29762646
Your original point:
> 'Stealth' as we know it today will be short lived
No matter how many elements you have on a radar and the amount of signal processing you can use, LO aircraft will always give you a significantly lower radar return than conventional aircraft. "Stealth" as we know it today is used to greatly reduce the range at which aircraft can be tracked. Do keep in mind that you're always going to be dealing with background noise, attenuation, and your radar horizon.
Your reasoning is then handwaved with
>A large boost in transmit / receive modules combined with signal processing that can distinguish an insect from a 400kmph object with the same radar return will invalidate stealth.
That's like saying that you can make a more fuel efficient car by adding a more fuel efficient engine and a better ECU. It's a extremely simplified description of a solution, and I sincerely doubt you have even rudimentary knowledge of how RF works.
>>29762673
Because to make an aircraft theoretically invisible to all radar you have to reflect and disperse ALL energy. This is something the laws of physics wont allow.
The energy you reflect can be detected, it's purely a matter of creating a radar capable of doing so.
>>29762719
So you think an aircraft can be hidden purely with angles an RAM ?
TR modules increase the solution of your radar. If you increase this to the point where you are getting returns on pretty much anything solid in front of you, then all you need to do is process this data.
Building low RCS aircraft that still have meaningful size will be pointless in the future. While the techniques used today will still be applied, a much greater emphasis will be placed on O/DECM.
You're acting like you know a lot but really you're lagging behind.
>>29762818
You still haven't gone past overly simplified solutions.
There's much more to radio signals than the amount of gain your antenna has, and there's much more to radars than having a return.
>>29762723
>>29762818
YOU. DON'T. HAVE. TO. BE. PERFECTLY. INVISIBLE.
That has never been what stealth is about. You just need to deflect enough away that you can't be detected at the range you are flying from the emitter. And then you plan your flight to minimize chance of detection. None of your magical fairyland theories about making stealth useless apply to the real world, Pierre.
