• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Stealthy Shapes

Anybody have an opinion on what would constitute a stealthy radar friendly shape in space.

The B2 and F-117 are not good starting points because their shapes must provide lift as a pre-requisite. Also, since they exist in a narrow operational envelope (the atmosphere), radars are always in general coming at them from the sides.

Given that in space no such requirement exists, and anti-grav is assumed for landing anyway, I'm thinking that the ideal shape might be a sphere, in that it consistently presents the lowest perpendicular cross-section to a radar type sensor from any direction.

A flattened disk/sphere could opt to present its edge to a radar having both a tiny radar and optical surface area, but would be weaker if scanned from other angles.

What do you think ?
 
Anybody have an opinion on what would constitute a stealthy radar friendly shape in space.

What do you think ?

What about a shape that focuses it's signature on several narrow points, like a cube with concave sides? From the sweet spot, you could not miss it, but from an average spot your radar ping would not return to you.
 
Seems that a cylinder would provide a good cross-section as long as it wasn't presenting either end to the emitter.

Cone would also work well when facing the emitter but not at other angles.

But as you said, the sphere is best.

There is probably also a difference in the effect of streamlining the hull. Eliminating the bumps and protrusions would also reduce the radar signature I'd presume.
 
I think I understand, although the idea of having a kind of parabolic reflector on each side of the ship sounds a little dangerous, that could be big radar return !
 
Having that big return could be a good thing. How about optimizing a shape to provide the biggest possible return to be used as a unmanned decoy craft?
 
There's a good primer of stealth aircraft concerns here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/xplanes/stea-nf.html

Spacecraft would have different issues though. I think the best solution would involve some form of active stealth countermeasure. A surface coating that absorbed and selectively reflected active sensors and at the same time actively emitted to spoof passive sensors. Hey, it's Sci-Fi, I don't have to actually make a working proof of concept ;)
 
Having that big return could be a good thing. How about optimizing a shape to provide the biggest possible return to be used as a unmanned decoy craft?

This usually comes up in the discussion too. Problem is any decoy that can fool the types of sensors posited in Traveller is likely to be the same size as what it's pretending to be, and to get it to the fight you need the same drives and fuel and crew. In other words, by the time you're done building your "decoy" you might as well put the weapons on it, call it a warship, and go fight with it :)
 
And of course for any stealth to work you have to accept a TU where jump is quiet, at least coming in. Personally that is my preference but I'm in the minority (so it feels) on thinking this is the way it was meant to be. If you accept jump flash then stealth is pointless. Anybody in system that you might be trying to sneak up on all stealthy like already has you plotted and tracked.

Now if you're the defender it's a different story. Stealth might very well help.

The biggest thing to hide in space is heat. You don't want your crew frozen solid and your drives off-line when going into a fight. Stealth in space is likely to be more about how long until they spot you, not if they will spot you.

Another "active" stealth option is to blind the enemy with broad band nuclear explosions. Lots and lots of them. Sure it's expensive, and dangerous, but it should work. And if you have them timed right you can keep your own sensors covered during the flashes and still be able to see the enemy. Until they start their own flashing. The phrase a lot of noise and little substance comes to mind as descriptive of the opening volley for a battle.
 
A last word on the subject from me for the moment. I want stealthy ships, at least a little stealthy. Because it's fun. The cat and mouse sneaking. The running silent and deep. The lying possum on the bottom. The whole thing is just so much more fun for rpging than the realistic "They see you."
 
Point taken.

You could take a relatively small hull, shaped to optimize radar return, and pack it full of power plant to fool passive energy scans, but it would still not fool object-tracing ladar.

Maybe if you build a large wooden Badger...
 
And of course for any stealth to work you have to accept a TU where jump is quiet, at least coming in. Personally that is my preference but I'm in the minority (so it feels) on thinking this is the way it was meant to be. If you accept jump flash then stealth is pointless. Anybody in system that you might be trying to sneak up on all stealthy like already has you plotted and tracked.

I personally prefer the C.J. Cherryh-style universe where jump entry and exit is quiet, but you exit at something close to C and have to use the J-drives to slow yourself down to reasonable maneuver speeds, which is energetically noisy to the surrounding space (this is the method I employ in MTU).

Since sensors work only at the speed of light, and your reentry noise only propagates that the same rate, a ship just sitting out in the dark is relatively "invisible" to anyone at any real distance, but at the same time any ship entering will be "heard" across the system - when the speed of light limit on the signal has the reentry noise arrive.

At the same time, to limit inconsistencies with CT, it's also necessary to fall back into n-space at a fairly large minimum distance from the star, and it's almost compulsory to immediately decel using the J-drives, as inhabited space is a messy place and high velocities make for spectacular collisions with low-V objects.

Active scanning is worthless anyway, as the distances and width of arc make it fairly limited to close range, and as I believe was discussed in another thread, the heat from a fusion plant is fairly hard to conceal against the low temperature of the cosmic background.
 
Hey, it's Sci-Fi, I don't have to actually make a working proof of concept ;)

Even if you did, it would probably still be easier than creating a working model for violating Conservation of Momentum with a Reactionless Drive. :)
 
A last word on the subject from me for the moment. I want stealthy ships, at least a little stealthy. Because it's fun. The cat and mouse sneaking. The running silent and deep. The lying possum on the bottom. The whole thing is just so much more fun for rpging than the realistic "They see you."

For a little temporary stealth, there is always the old Black Globe.
 
Remember, the most-used ship-ship detector used in Traveller (CT I know, the others too?) is the gravity-mass detectors... which detect the stress the mass of an object places on the surrounding space-fabric.

How do you stealth that?
 
Remember, the most-used ship-ship detector used in Traveller (CT I know, the others too?) is the gravity-mass detectors... which detect the stress the mass of an object places on the surrounding space-fabric.

How do you stealth that?

Poppy cock! Densinometers(sic?) don't work because of all the arti-g and anti-g and g-thrust fields on the detecting ship and the target ship :p ;)

Er, CT had densinometers? MT maybe but I don't recall them (or any sensor) specified in CT. Unless maybe it was in Striker and you count that.
 
Er, CT had densinometers? MT maybe but I don't recall them (or any sensor) specified in CT. Unless maybe it was in Striker and you count that.
Nope... no specific sensors in CT starship construction. And no densitometers in Striker, AFAIK. MT is another matter entirely. :)
 
My limited understanding is...

Anybody have an opinion on what would constitute a stealthy radar friendly shape in space.

I'm thinking that the ideal shape might be a sphere, in that it consistently presents the lowest perpendicular cross-section to a radar type sensor from any direction.

Hi,

I had originally thought that something like a sphere might be a good idea, but based on my limited understanding of Radar Cross Section (from some of the sources others here have posted links to, etc), as I understand it something like a sphere or cylinder may not be that good, precisely because they always present the same cross section to a viewer.

One way of looking at it is if you have ever seen any ray-traced computer graphics of different shapes where you have a light located at the same point you are viewing from. One thing you'll notice is that round objects always have a hot-spot, where they reflect alot of the light shined on them back to the viewer. If however, you have a box, or some other object made up from flat surfaces, and you shine a light at it, from some angles the hot-spot from the light refelcted back will be much stronger than that for a sphere, but from other angles it will be much less.

Although light and radar don't necessarily act exactly the same, as I understand it, in some ways radar (and probably/possibly other sensors) will behave potentially kind of similarly. As such, my limited understanding is that if you can place these flat plates in such a way that they reflect most of the energy directed at them away from the sender, then you could potentially make it much harder to be detected. Of course in doing so you run the risk that there will be certain angles at which you may reflect alot of energy back to an enemies transmitter, but I suppose that ypu try and avoid facing that way as much as possible.

Anyway, here are some 3D images I quickly threw together for a model of an ocean going ship I got off the internet that might help show what I've tried to explain above.

In all the images, I placed the sun right behind the camera.

In the 1st image, you can see that most of the ship is a medium gray color, but that some of the flat surfaces (like the front of the smokestack in the middle of the ship) are darker, which I believe is because alot of the light from the sun is reflected off at an angle away from the camera. However, towards the front of the ship, you can see that the main gun (which is fairly curved and rounded) is lighter in color, which I believe is because its reflecting alot of light back to the camera.

Additionally, just aft of the gun you can see a structure with relatively flat sides that is also fairly brighly colored. I belive that this is the where the ship's Vertical Launch Missile System (VLS) is located, and I belive that it shows up fairly brighly here because the sides of this structure are at an angle to the sun where alot of light is being reflected back to the camera.

In the 2nd image, I have rotated the ship a little and you can now see that the front of the smokestack is now about the same color as the rest of the ship (which I think indicates that at this angle it is now relfecting more light back to the camera). Additionally, the Missile VLS structure is now darker in color (more similar to the rest of the ship) which I think means at this angle it is no longer reflecting as much light back to the camera as before. Finally though, there is still a hot-spot on the gun where alot of light is reflecting back off it.

In the 3rd image, I rotated the ship the other way, to try and illustrate that at other angles, you can end up with some of the flat surfaces reflecting more light back again. Additionally in this image though you can still see that the gun is also reflecting alot of light back.

As such, although as I noted above, radar and other sensors won't necessarily behave exactly like light does, you can still see that for a structure made up of flat surfaces you can possibly reduce the amount of energy that gets reflected off that surface back to the source of the light/sensor signal if you are careful about how you angle the surfaces and how you maneuver your ship with respect to the incoming sensor signals but that a relatively rounded shape (like the gun turret in this example) could potentially reflect enough energy back to the sensor over a wide range of angles due to its shape.

Of course there are probably alot of other things that need to be considered (including the use of coatings and such) but at least this is part of the reason why I suspect that a shape like a sphere may not be necessarily that good for a spaceship if you are trying to reduce the ability of someone detecting you.

I don't know if any of that makes sense, but I thought I'd pass along my thoughts.

Regards

PF

T23.bmp
T23a.bmp
T23b.bmp
 
Back
Top