隱身技術(shù)對戰(zhàn)斗機是否真正有效？

Kruno Rajkovic
Stealth technology works 100%. The problem with it is that people equate stealth with invisibility which is not true. Stealth is simply a way for a fighter jet/ship or any other obxt to be detected at shorter range therefore giving you an opportunity to strike a target beyond its defensive range. The greatest testament to stealth is the fact that Russians and Chinese (although 30 years to late) are investing billions in that technology.
As far as Pierre Spray is concerned, I don't want to waste words on that old quak. He's been dismissed so many times (the last being a great video of him debating a long time Raptor and F-35 pilot who explicitly said that F -35 is a superior airplane to any of our legacy fleet) that me adding something else would be unneeded.

隱身技術(shù)百分之百有效。它的問題在于人們將隱身與不可見等同起來，這是不正確的。隱身只是一種讓戰(zhàn)斗機/船或任何其他物體在較短距離內(nèi)被探測到的方法，因此給您提供了一個機會去攻擊目標而超出其防御范圍。對隱身技術(shù)最大的證明是俄羅斯和中國（雖然晚了30年）正在投資數(shù)十億美元進行研究。至于皮爾?史百瑞，我不想在那個老家伙身上浪費言語。他被解雇了多次（最后一次是他與一位長期飛翔猛禽和F-35飛行員辯論的視頻，后者明確表示F-35比我們的傳統(tǒng)機隊中任何一架飛機都要優(yōu)秀），所以我補充其他內(nèi)容是沒有必要的。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處

Doug Millhoff
Stealth works.
So do countermeasures.
The F-117 indeed had a very small radar profile on the outside, but not on the inside, making it a relatively easy target when the bomb bay was open. That’s how we lost one over Serbia in 1999.
And nature can provide its own countermeasures, like rain. While the materials and paint do a great job of absorbing radar, a veneer of water does not.
And those materials don’t absorb all EM frequencies equally (as demonstrated by the simple fact you can see them with your own eyes). Different stealth materials block some bands of radar more than other bands.
And there are other means of detecting besides radar.
The F-117 and some other designs are designed to hide the heat signature from the jet exhaust, but the skin of the aircraft heats up from air friction, and the faster it flies, the more heat it radiates. Sensitive IR detectors can theoretically target this.
All aircraft make noise. This gives some lead-time for visual targeting, and in theory a missile could have an acoustical tracker.
And sometimes there is the unexpected.
The SR-71 was an early stealth design with a very small radar signature. But it turned out its special fuels produced an exhaust plume was highly visible to radar. The Blackbird’s saving grace was its speed. While enemy radar could see it coming, there just wasn’t enough reaction time to effectively target and launch SAMs. There are numerous accounts of missiles fired, but nothing had sufficient speed and fuel to catch-up and bring down their target. The closest anyone got was a few random pot-shots that flew right by and exploded harmlessly nowhere near their target.
So stealth certainly works, but it is VERY expensive, it has its limits, and there are workarounds.

隱形技術(shù)很有效。 反制措施也是如此。
F-117在外部確實具有非常小的雷達截面，但在內(nèi)部卻沒有，這使其在轟炸艙口打開時相對容易成為目標。這就是我們在1999年在塞爾維亞失去一架的原因。 自然界也可以提供反制措施，比如雨水。雖然材料和油漆能夠很好地吸收雷達信號，但是一層水薄薄的涂層卻不行。
這些材料并不是所有電磁頻率都能平等吸收（正如你用肉眼看得見它們一樣）。不同的隱形材料能夠更有效地阻擋某些雷達波段。
除了雷達之外，還有其他檢測手段。 F-117和一些其他設(shè)計旨在隱藏噴氣發(fā)動機的熱特征，但是飛機的外殼會因空氣摩擦而發(fā)熱，而且飛行速度越快，散發(fā)的熱量就越多。敏感的紅外探測器理論上可以對此進行定位。
所有飛機都會發(fā)出噪音。這給了人們視覺定位的一些提前時間，理論上導(dǎo)彈可以有一個聲波追蹤器。
有時會出現(xiàn)意外情況。 SR-71是一個早期的隱形設(shè)計，具有非常小的雷達截面。但事實證明，其特殊燃料產(chǎn)生的尾氣對雷達非常明顯。Blackbird的救命稻草就是它的速度。雖然敵方雷達可以看到它正在接近，但是反應(yīng)時間不足以有效地進行目標定位和發(fā)射防空導(dǎo)彈。許多導(dǎo)彈被發(fā)射出去，但沒有一個具有足夠的速度和燃料去追上并擊中它們的目標。最接近的一次是一些孤零零的嘗試，它們直接飛過去并毫無用處地在目標附近爆炸了。因此，隱形技術(shù)確實很有效，但非常昂貴，有其局限性，并且存在解決方法。

Fernando Baptista
Stealth technology is based on a very simple principle: once hit by radar waves, those will be reflected in every possible direction except the direction of the incoming radar waves, i.e. the radar emitter.
In this way, the radar station will receive no reflection, and so the plane will not be detected.
This is a simple principle to understand, but also a simple principle to counter.
You just have to separate the emitter from the receiver, or even have several receivers spread in a wide area, so that at least one of them will get the radar reflection.
All this is old news, and there are already radar networks in place able to detect stealth fighters. The Russians have them.
The situation is worse to an interceptor. It can’t separate the emitter and receiver of its radar.
However, if i have a swarm of planes, all sharing their radar data, they will be able to spot a stealth fighter on their radars.
The F35 was built around this principle. Theoretically, it works. But it remains to be seem whether it works in the real world.
Russia just unveiled its 5th generation fighter, the SU57.
Stealth technology, like any other technological advancement, may give one side a temporary advantage, but sooner or later the other side will counter it.Are the Russians able to detect stealth fighters from its ground stations? Certainly. However, in aerial combat, we can’t know yet.

隱形技術(shù)的基本原理是：一旦被雷達波打到，它們會在除了來自雷達發(fā)射器的方向之外的所有可能方向上反射，也就是說，雷達站不會接收到反射信號，從而無法探測到飛機。這是一個簡單易懂的原理，但也是一個容易被對抗的原理。只需要將發(fā)射器與接收器分開，或者甚至在廣泛的區(qū)域內(nèi)分布多個接收器，這樣至少有一個接收器會接收到雷達反射信號。這一切都是老生常談，已經(jīng)有雷達網(wǎng)絡(luò)可以探測到隱身戰(zhàn)斗機。俄羅斯人已經(jīng)掌握。對于攔截器來說，情況更糟糕。它無法分離雷達的發(fā)射器和接收器。然而，如果我有一群飛機，它們共享雷達數(shù)據(jù)，它們就能夠在雷達上發(fā)現(xiàn)一架隱形戰(zhàn)斗機。F-35是圍繞這個原理構(gòu)建的。從理論上講，它是有效的。但現(xiàn)實是否如此還有待觀察。俄羅斯剛剛推出了其第五代戰(zhàn)斗機Su-57。像任何其他技術(shù)進步一樣，隱形技術(shù)可能給一方帶來暫時的優(yōu)勢，但遲早對方會加以對抗。俄羅斯人能夠從其地面站探測到隱形戰(zhàn)斗機嗎？當(dāng)然可以。然而，在空中戰(zhàn)斗中，我們還不清楚。

Sharan Kalwani
Stealth works if you use it wisely.
The other answers are quite spot on, I am surprised that no one has mentioned the F/A-117 Night Hawk , which was deployed during the first Gulf War and did quite well. Due to the weird shapes, often these types of stealth design aircraft are aerodynamically hard to control, so must have sophisticated fly-by-wire control surfaces and lots of automated computer assisted guidance. I guess that drives up the costs (there are other things which contribute to the cost increases).
Based on what they learned from the initial deployment of the Night Hawk, they improved upon it with the F-22 Raptor. Stealth is perhaps maximal effective as a surprise element and must be backed up with appropriate armament, etc., in order to get the best possible return on the initial surprise. I will hasten to add, mere shapes are not enough, one has to do a few other things to increase the stealth factor, reduce radar cross section to many impinging signals, for example (or reduce the heat signature, air intakes, weapons load profile, and so on). Which is why other countries are taking a fairly long time to field a similar type of craft.
So the USA has a fairly long experience (since 1983?) of flying stealth and have continued to put into practice lessons learned. Other countries only started planning and designing most likely after 1991.

如果明智地使用，隱身技術(shù)可以發(fā)揮作用。 其他答案都相當(dāng)準確，我很驚訝沒有人提到F/A-117“夜鷹”戰(zhàn)斗機，在第一次海灣戰(zhàn)爭中表現(xiàn)出色。由于奇怪的形狀，這些隱形設(shè)計飛機通常在空氣動力學(xué)上很難控制，因此必須具備復(fù)雜的電傳飛控系統(tǒng)和大量的計算機輔助導(dǎo)航。我想這會增加成本（還有其他一些因素也會導(dǎo)致成本增加）。 基于他們從最初部署“夜鷹”時所學(xué)到的經(jīng)驗，他們改進了F-22“猛禽”戰(zhàn)斗機。隱身可以說是最大效應(yīng)作為一個驚喜元素，并且必須配備適當(dāng)?shù)奈溲b等，以獲得初始驚喜的最佳回報。我要趕緊補充一點，僅憑形狀是不夠的，還必須做一些其他事情來增加隱身因素，例如減少雷達反射截面、減少熱簽名、減少進氣道、武器負載配置等。這就是為什么其他國家需要相當(dāng)長的時間才能推出類似的飛行器。 因此，美國擁有相當(dāng)長的經(jīng)驗（自1983年以來？）在隱形飛行方面，并不斷付諸實踐所學(xué)到的經(jīng)驗。其他國家很可能只在1991年之后開始計劃和設(shè)計。

George Gonzalez
The answer is extremely complicated.
Basically, stealth does "work", but one has to make severe changes to the aircraft, its bombs, its range, its reliability, its flight envelope, and its life, and its cost.
It's not evident that with all the compromises, you end up with an aircraft that is can do more missions and deliver more pounds of munitions per buck. In the case of the F-22 and F-35, you end up with a VERY expensive aircraft that might end up, in some wartime scenarios, being far less capable than your basic F-18's.
The case against stealth gets even stronger if you consider the cost. There is no way another generation of stealth can even be planned, as the cost has been going up exponentially. The next generation, no country could afford more than one stealth plane.
Or you end up with the B-2 bombers, which have to live in special shelters and end up being deployed from the USA every time.
In the end it all depends on what scenarios you throw at it. Which gets complicated, as the scenarios tend to be the ones encountered in the LAST war, or the theoretical ones dreamed up at the war colleges, not the actual situations in the next war.
For instance several generations of fighters were developed based on the idea that all the missions would involve dogfighting with missiles beyond visual range and no ground attack, so the planes were optimized to be hung with missiles and no guns. Then, surprise, in the gulf wars there were no dogfights and few missiles were launched but they sure could have used more guns like on the A-10's.

答案非常復(fù)雜。 基本上，隱身確實“起作用”，但必須對飛機、其炸彈、射程、可靠性、飛行包線、壽命和成本進行嚴格的改變。 很難說通過所有妥協(xié)，你最終會得到一架可以執(zhí)行更多任務(wù)并以更少的成本投放更多的軍火的飛機。在F-22和F-35的情況下，你最終得到了一架非常昂貴的飛機，在某些戰(zhàn)爭情景下，其能力可能遠不如基本的F-18。
如果考慮成本，反對隱形技術(shù)的理由甚至更加強烈。沒有辦法規(guī)劃另一代隱形技術(shù)，因為成本呈指數(shù)級增長。下一代，沒有國家能夠承擔(dān)超過一架隱形飛機的成本。或者你最終得到B-2轟炸機，它們必須居住在特殊的避難所，并且每次都要從美國部署。
最終一切取決于你所遇到的情景。這變得復(fù)雜起來，因為情景往往是在上一場戰(zhàn)爭中遇到的，或者是在戰(zhàn)爭學(xué)院中設(shè)想的理論情況，而不是在下一場戰(zhàn)爭中實際遇到的情況。例如，有幾代戰(zhàn)斗機是基于這樣的想法開發(fā)的：所有任務(wù)都涉及超視距導(dǎo)彈的飛行對抗和沒有地面攻擊，因此這些飛機被優(yōu)化為裝有導(dǎo)彈但沒有機關(guān)槍。然后，讓人驚訝的是，在海灣戰(zhàn)爭中沒有空戰(zhàn)，也只發(fā)射了少量導(dǎo)彈，但他們確實可以使用像A-10這樣的更多機關(guān)槍。

Jack Menendez
The combination of the AIM-9X and stealth will change everything. The missile’s long range and ability to lock after launch is reminiscent of the Mk-48 torpedo used by stealthy U.S. submarines. The F-35 can use the stealthy submarine tactic to basically engage enemy aircraft within a 100 mile radius with IR missiles while remaining invisible and BVR because they don’t have to approach and lock the missiles onto the opponent. This means everything without stealth becomes a target for the AIM-9X and these targets can’t shoot back. U.S. submariners have a saying, there are two kinds of ships, submarines and targets. Now there will be two kinds of aircraft, stealth and targets.
Imagine if the AIM-9X also had the option to actively home like the AIM-120 or passively home like the AIM-9X or even be directed by another aircraft depending on a choice made by the pilot at launch or anytime after! This may be why the F-35 is the only option for the future.

AIM-9X導(dǎo)彈與隱身技術(shù)的結(jié)合將改變一切。該導(dǎo)彈的遠程射程和發(fā)射后鎖定能力讓人想起了隱身美國潛艇使用的Mk-48魚雷。F-35可以使用隱形潛艇戰(zhàn)術(shù)，基本上在半徑100英里范圍內(nèi)使用紅外導(dǎo)彈攻擊敵方飛機，同時保持隱形和BVR（超視距空戰(zhàn)），因為他們不必靠近并鎖定導(dǎo)彈到對手身上。這意味著沒有隱身技術(shù)的一切都成為AIM-9X導(dǎo)彈的目標，而這些目標無法還擊。美國潛艇水手有句話，有兩種船只，潛艇和目標。現(xiàn)在將有兩種飛機，隱身和目標。 想象一下，如果AIM-9X導(dǎo)彈也有主動制導(dǎo)（像AIM-120）、被動制導(dǎo)（像AIM-9X）或根據(jù)飛行員在發(fā)射后或任何時候做出的選擇由另一架飛機引導(dǎo)的選項，那會怎樣！這可能是為什么F-35是未來的唯一選擇。

Filip Vidinovski
Look... this Pierre Sprey BS has to stop alreday!
1. He is NOT "the designer of the f-16" or whatnot. He's been advocating certain fighter design principles in aviation circles. He hasn't been involved in any aircraft design project.
2. His deepest fighter design beliefs have been proven practically and spectacularly wrong many times already.
He's merely exploiting the pre-existing negative sentiment about the F-35, with the ultimate goal of attracting attention to himself. And, one has to acknowledge, quite successfully so! That's how we even know about this salesman of musical equipment.

看，這個皮爾?史百瑞的胡言亂語必須停止！ 1.他根本不是“F-16設(shè)計者”或者類似的人物。他一直在航空界倡導(dǎo)某些戰(zhàn)斗機設(shè)計原則，但他沒有參與任何飛機設(shè)計項目。 2.他最深刻的戰(zhàn)斗機設(shè)計信仰已經(jīng)被反復(fù)證明是錯誤的。 他只是利用了人們對F-35的負面情緒，最終目的是吸引人們關(guān)注他自己。不得不承認，他相當(dāng)成功地做到了！這就是我們知道這個售賣音樂設(shè)備的推銷員的原因。

Kim Bergstr?m
Stealth is a scale. Aircraft (for example) can be more or less stealthy. It’s not “stealthy or not stealthy”. Stealth is also a countermeasure, so if you change the “measure”, such as the frequency of radars, you change the stealth balance. So of course it “works”. It’s also a moving target, and a matter of where the one building or ordering the aircraft decide the sweet spot for cost and effectiveness lies. So there isn’t, ever, a correct answer to this.

隱身是一個量化的概念。飛機（例如）可以更多或者更少地隱身。它不是“隱形或不隱形”。隱身也是一種對策，所以如果你改變“對策”，比如雷達的頻率，你就改變了隱身的平衡。所以當(dāng)然它“有效”。這也是一個移動的目標，并且取決于建造或訂購飛機的人決定成本和效果的最佳平衡點在哪里。因此，沒有一個正確的答案來回答這個問題。

Paul A Allcock
Sprey is both correct and incorrect.Stealth does work, but, like he said, it can be countered.
Stealth was never a "be-all, end-all" solution [1] it was (and still is) just one more tool in the bag.In other words to combat stealth the enemy has to spend more money/ technology/ manpower on counter-measures.It's part of a spectrum of military technology.To argue that "stealth is a waste" is nearly on a par with arguing that "combat aircraft are a waste because they can be shot down".
Sprey's antipathy for the F-35 [2] (and hi-tech "solutions" in general) tends to fuel much of his rhetoric.
1 It has only been touted as such by (largely uninformed) press releases and fan boys.
2 Which is nearly matched by my own.

皮爾?史百瑞在某些方面是正確的，但也有不正確的地方。隱形確實有效，但就像他所說，它可以被反制。隱形從來不是“萬無一失”的解決方案[1]，它只是一個工具箱中的另一個工具（現(xiàn)在仍然是如此）。換句話說，為了對抗隱形，敵人必須在反制措施上花費更多的經(jīng)費、技術(shù)和人力。這是軍事技術(shù)光譜的一部分。爭論“隱形是浪費”幾乎與爭論“戰(zhàn)斗機是浪費，因為它們可以被擊落”一樣荒謬。
皮爾?史百瑞對F-35（以及高科技“解決方案”）的反感往往推動了他的言論。1.它只是（在很大程度上無知的）新聞發(fā)布和粉絲的吹噓。2這幾乎和我的反感程度一樣。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處

David Arbelo
Stealth DOES work…the F35 problem is having to design a triservice plane. Same problem as in the 60s with the F-111 A and B…they couldnt have a fleet defence interceptor and a bomber in the same airfrx. Period. Eventually they got the excellent F-14 and F-111. If the F-35 was to be designed only as originally planned, a cheap F22 to replace the F-16…it wouldnt have encountered so many problems. It cant be a stealthy Falcon, Fairchild, Harrier and Hornet…and still be simple and cheap.

隱身技術(shù)確實是有效的……F35的問題在于必須設(shè)計一架三軍服役的飛機。這與20世紀60年代的F-111A和B存在相同的問題，即不能將防空攔截機和轟炸機設(shè)計在同一架飛機上。最終他們獲得了優(yōu)秀的F-14和F-111。如果最初F-35僅按原計劃設(shè)計為便宜的F22來替換F-16，那么它就不會遇到這么多問題。它不能既具備隱身性，又像獵鷹、費爾德、鷂式和黃蜂一樣簡單而便宜。

Jonathan David
I’m gonna explain Radar detection in simple terms. Here we go
Radar uses Radio waves of certain wavelength. Most airplanes body reflect these wavelengths and get detected. Simple?
Now how does stealth work? The above said idea seems pretty solid right.
2 Things
1.Aerodynamics: The wing foliage is changed so perfectly that the cutting angles and all trailing edges of a plane reflect radar waves towards the air. So no detection.
2.Material science: Materials that absorb radio waves have made a huge breakthrough in stealth.
Just like how the Radar principle had flaws, the Stealth system too has flaws.
Remember we talked about wavelengths?
Aerodynamics cannot help reflect all wavelengths. Today’s stealth planes are invisible on long waves (High wavelength radar). So in simpler terms, Short waves can see STEALTH planes. Tada there’s your answer.
Material sciences cannot absorb all wavelengths. And temperature of a material affects Wave absorption. We cannot put up a material on the body and say absorb all waves that fall on you.
So yes, Stealth is not so stealth.
So why are countries spending so much on it?
Simply because, Short wave radar is hard to use. Time between pings is large enough that a stealth plane would have changed position by vast multiples by the time the radar informs us.
This time window is large enough for a stealth bomber to bomb and leave.
So stealth is a worthy investment until all countries puts ups numerous short wave Radars with multiple pings (SW radars are very costly and consume heavy power). The evolution of Radar is a wonderful story by itself, another day.

我來簡單解釋一下雷達探測。老套路，我們開始吧。雷達使用某一特定波長的無線電波。大多數(shù)飛機的機身會反射這些波長并被探測到。簡單吧？那么隱形是如何運作的呢？上述的想法似乎很有說服力。
兩個因素：
1.空氣動力學(xué)：機翼和葉片的切割角度被完美地改變，以至于反射雷達波的所有尾跡都指向了大氣層，所以不會被探測到。2.材料科學(xué)：一些材料能夠吸收無線電波，這在隱形技術(shù)上有了重大突破。
就像雷達原理存在缺陷一樣，隱形系統(tǒng)也存在缺陷。
記得我們之前談過波長嗎？空氣動力學(xué)不能幫助反射所有波長。今天的隱形飛機對長波（高波長雷達）是難以隱形的。所以簡而言之，短波可以看到隱形飛機?！@就是答案。材料科學(xué)不能吸收所有波長。而且材料的溫度會影響波的吸收。我們不能把一種材料放在機身上并說吸收所有落在上面的波。 是的，隱形并不完全隱形。
那么為什么國家要花這么多錢來研發(fā)隱形技術(shù)呢？
簡單來說，短波雷達很難使用。雷達發(fā)送信號之間的時間間隔足夠長，以至于隱形飛機在雷達通知我們之前已經(jīng)改變了位置。
這個時間窗口足夠大，足以讓隱形轟炸機投下炸彈后迅速離開。
因此，直到所有國家都部署了大量的短波雷達并進行多次探測（短波雷達非常昂貴且消耗大量能源），隱形技術(shù)仍然是一項值得投資的技術(shù)。雷達的演化本身就是一個奇妙的故事，這是另一回事了，我們可以在其他時間討論。