7 ms·
More to the point, detecting a stealth aircraft is very different from shooting at a stealth aircraft. This radar would likely not have the location accuracy o
by JDulin 7y ago
More to the point, detecting a stealth aircraft is very different from shooting at a stealth aircraft.
This radar would likely not have the location accuracy of where exactly the B-2 was to accurately engage it with a missile. Your accuracy would be limited by the rate of RF pings the B-2 is putting off, and then the margin-of-error of these RF waves and receiver.
This is one difference between the B-2 and stealth fighters like the F-22 & F-35: The latter are not necessarily designed to be invisible, only impossible to reliably hit. Their shapes and radar-absorbent paint deflect, diffuse, or absorb the high-frequency bands used in the terminal guidance of missiles. So they are hard to target. But they can be picked up at range by long-distance, long-wavelength VHF and UHF radars. These frequencies, used in early-warning radars, have too low-optical resolution* however to be any good at aiming guns or missiles. The B-2's "flying wing" shape is able to not-interfere with these wavelengths though, and hence hides from them. In that sense, this is somewhat interesting, if neutered for the reasons you mention.
*You can only localize the detection to a few sq hundred meters, even kms.
- jdironman 7y agoAnd also, searching the top speed of a B-2 at 628mph, if detected at 150 miles out only gives them 14 minutes. Which is both a lot, or a little. Depending on how prepared for action someone is.
- ISL 7y agoOr a lot less than that, if the B-2 isn't using gravity munitions.
- sfifs 7y agoWell since there are so few B2 and they are essentially irreplaceable, I imagine standard wartime doctrine for the adversary would be to ignore target protection as a concern and go straight for the plane even at the risk of losing several of yours by flying over territory you don't control. In reality, what would make a difference is coordinating communications and decision making.
- sfifs 7y agoIf you can localize down to the range of a km? Can't you just shoot down optically? A giant dark plane blotting out the stars...
- ummonk 7y agoYup, it seems to me that the optimal missile would use mid-course guidance before doing IR / visual light homing in the terminal phase.
- rtkwe 7y agoAll the stealth craft also included some IR avoidance as a matter of course, IR seeking missiles existed at the time these were designed. It's unclear if a more modern missile would still be sensitive enough to lock on and avoid chasing flares. The techniques they used to decrease the IR visibility are pretty neat. The engine nozzles are over the wings and there are a lot of airflow tricks used to cool it down faster so from below there might not be enough plume to track from a surface launched missile coming, from below at least. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-2_Spirit#Infrared https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-2_Spirit#In...
- yutyut 7y agoConventional IR countermeasures (spatial, spectral etc.) really are becoming a thing of the past. When you’re talking about terminal IR guidance on any modern missile, generally the IRCCM will be so good that the probability of defeat with a flare cocktail is below an acceptable risk threshold. DIRCM is the current answer to this problem and—to tie this in with the parent comment—renders terminal IR guidance much less effective than MMW or other RF guidance. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directional_Infrared_Counter_Measures https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directional_Infrared_Counter...
- baybal2 7y agoFlares don't do much against anything besides mid and short wave infrared. It's impossible to hide from long wave IR sensors, which detect the heat signature of the plane itself, and not its exhaust.