Hacker News Reader

Comment by burfog | Hacker News Reader

Always remember that stealth is not a boolean.

The enemy is constrained by size, cost, power, and heat dissipation. What can be done on the ground is not the same as what can be done in a fighter plane, and that isn't the same as what can be done in a small-diameter missile, and that isn't the same as what can be done in an anti-aircraft shell.

The enemy might be able to briefly detect at close range, reliably track at long range, or anything in between.

Because of this, stealth is not simply defeated, and it does not suddenly become 100% useless.

View on HN

> and that isn't the same as what can be done in a small-diameter missile

Which was the genius idea behind Track-via-Missile in the Patriot SAM

Instead of having the missile work-out the best interception based on what it can detect, it relays its view of the World back to the ground station which returns its recommended geometry. Constantly and at high frequency.

And since the ground station is more powerful and can be upgraded more easily than the missile's electronics, Patriot has made huge improvements since the 1991 Scud incidents.

In an anti-stealth context having each missile 'see' from a different angle and being able to fuse that I to one picture is also useful in defeating shaped reflections. It's like a network of remote, lethal sensors.

> it relays its view of the World back to the ground station which returns its recommended geometry.

Can't the missile jam the signal?

Sure it could. And then the impactor could target the jamming transmitter. Therefore emitting a jamming signal would actually make the missile easier to intercept.

Or the jammer could be separate from the missile.

In this cycle, we see a war of complex resources (produced by logistical wealth) emerge. Those with the most of everything, to produce the greatest fighting flexibility, eventually win. Perhaps pyrrhicly.

That would be awfully nice if it were true. In reality, the opposition to this kind of tech just makes lots and lots of cheap missiles, while your interceptors cost millions each, and drive you bankrupt.

This is happening in Gaza. Hamas cuts down telephone poles and fills them with homemade solid rocket fuel and a 50 KG warhead, which are then called Katyushkas because they superficially resemble the 1940's Grad missiles. These are then intercepted by $100,000 Tamir interceptors.

The worst part is that misfiring telephone poles have killed about as many Gazans as Israelis.

You could attach the jammer to the missile using a wire of some random length.

Aerodynamically this is quite a bad idea. Better to send two missiles, and have one use a jammer and the other not.

I see that you work in software, not hardware.

Wouldn't the latency be a problem in highly dynamic chases. I presume its ok for ballistic missiles.

> Always remember that stealth is not a boolean.

And also it's not just about the technology in the design of the aircraft. It's a combined strategy such as knowing where the radar stations are and flying a path to minimise exposure.

I remember seeing a visualisation of what ISTR was a stealth flightpath into Iraq giving an idea of how they maintained their extremely low visibility. I've just has a search but can't find it at the moment.

The F-117 was retrofitted with the ability to fly a computer generated flight plan, which would not avoid radar sites but also adjust the plane's attitude in order to minimize the radar cross section. [1]

[1] Skunk Works: A Personal Memoir of My Years at Lockheed by Ben R. Rich and Leo Janos (page 101 on my copy)

The relevant Wikipedia article also mentions the system, but in less detail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-117_Nighthawk#Avion...

Great book, just finished the other day. Do you have any other similar suggestions?

I would recommend "Blind Man's Bluff: The Untold Story of American Submarine Espionage"

I would also HIGHLY recommend this book. I've described stories from it to interested colleagues several times.

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/desert-storms-opening-shot...

"Stealth" is a principal, not a technology. There are a handful of radar techs that defeat traditional stealth technologies that seek to limit reflections, but the principal of hiding from radar is still going to be a thing.

Radars, even quantum radars, each have their issues. The most powerful stealth tech isn't defeating a radar but understanding it well enough to leverage its defects in coverage or operating range. The f-117's real trick was the preflight planning based on a deep understanding of the threat environment. A radar avoided need not be defeated.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com