Israeli Stealth???

[Kenneth Williams]

Several months ago someone mentioned that the Israelis were developing
some form of secret craft called the "Seraph". What is this- a stealth
aircraft or UCAV?

Did Jane's ever cover it? If so, I missed it :(

Kenneth Williams

[JT]

(Kenneth Williams) wrote in message >...
> Several months ago someone mentioned that the Israelis were developing
> some form of secret craft called the "Seraph". What is this- a stealth
> aircraft or UCAV?
>
> Did Jane's ever cover it? If so, I missed it :(
>
> Kenneth Williams

This is actually a South African project. Here's a good link with
information and pictures.

http://www.invisible-defenders.org/programs/uavs/seraph.htm

-----JT-----

[robert arndt]

(JT) wrote in message >...
> (Kenneth Williams) wrote in message >...
> > Several months ago someone mentioned that the Israelis were developing
> > some form of secret craft called the "Seraph". What is this- a stealth
> > aircraft or UCAV?
> >
> > Did Jane's ever cover it? If so, I missed it :(
> >
> > Kenneth Williams
>
> This is actually a South African project. Here's a good link with
> information and pictures.
>
> http://www.invisible-defenders.org/programs/uavs/seraph.htm
>
> -----JT-----

Actually, it's more complicated than that. South Africa's project is
indeed called "Seraph" and is known by the Israelis. However, the
"Seraph" (Fiery Serpent) the IAF is interested in is an aircraft based
on the German "Firefly II" that supposedly was test-flown in recent
years in South Africa at the Overberg range.
The original MBB Lampyridae (Firefly) was a stealth interceptor
remarkably close in resemblence to the early F-117. Supposedly, the US
found out about the aircraft in 1981 and pressured West Germany to
give it up by 1989- project cancelled. However, as MBB became DASA, DB
Aerospace, and now EADS it is said that the Germans never gave the
project up and it evolved into a highly advanced NATO stealth project
known as "Firefly II"- a tailless medium-size black triangle
(powerplant unknown).
Israeli-German military co-operation is increasing, so it is not that
hard to believe that the Israelis were aware of the Firefly II test
flight at Overberg. The Israelis might have even witnessed it.
Anyway, the IAF "Seraph" is related to a stealth aircraft, not South
Africa's project.

Rob

[Kevin Brooks]

(robert arndt) wrote in message >...
> (JT) wrote in message >...
> > (Kenneth Williams) wrote in message >...
> > > Several months ago someone mentioned that the Israelis were developing
> > > some form of secret craft called the "Seraph". What is this- a stealth
> > > aircraft or UCAV?
> > >
> > > Did Jane's ever cover it? If so, I missed it :(
> > >
> > > Kenneth Williams
> >
> > This is actually a South African project. Here's a good link with
> > information and pictures.
> >
> > http://www.invisible-defenders.org/programs/uavs/seraph.htm
> >
> > -----JT-----
>
> Actually, it's more complicated than that. South Africa's project is
> indeed called "Seraph" and is known by the Israelis. However, the
> "Seraph" (Fiery Serpent) the IAF is interested in is an aircraft based
> on the German "Firefly II" that supposedly was test-flown in recent
> years in South Africa at the Overberg range.
> The original MBB Lampyridae (Firefly) was a stealth interceptor
> remarkably close in resemblence to the early F-117. Supposedly, the US
> found out about the aircraft in 1981 and pressured West Germany to
> give it up by 1989- project cancelled. However, as MBB became DASA, DB
> Aerospace, and now EADS it is said that the Germans never gave the
> project up and it evolved into a highly advanced NATO stealth project
> known as "Firefly II"- a tailless medium-size black triangle
> (powerplant unknown).
> Israeli-German military co-operation is increasing, so it is not that
> hard to believe that the Israelis were aware of the Firefly II test
> flight at Overberg. The Israelis might have even witnessed it.

And the source for this "info" is...?

> Anyway, the IAF "Seraph" is related to a stealth aircraft, not South
> Africa's project.

Uhmmm...the South African project is (was? not a lot of progress
reported of late, the last being in 2001...) also a stealthy design.

Brooks

>
> Rob

[JT]

Rob, do you have any links for this project? Sounds really
interesting. I have seen data on the Lampyridae but this is the first
time I'm hearing of the Firefly II.

Regards,
-----JT-----

(robert arndt) wrote in message >...

> Actually, it's more complicated than that. South Africa's project is
> indeed called "Seraph" and is known by the Israelis. However, the
> "Seraph" (Fiery Serpent) the IAF is interested in is an aircraft based
> on the German "Firefly II" that supposedly was test-flown in recent
> years in South Africa at the Overberg range.
> The original MBB Lampyridae (Firefly) was a stealth interceptor
> remarkably close in resemblence to the early F-117. Supposedly, the US
> found out about the aircraft in 1981 and pressured West Germany to
> give it up by 1989- project cancelled. However, as MBB became DASA, DB
> Aerospace, and now EADS it is said that the Germans never gave the
> project up and it evolved into a highly advanced NATO stealth project
> known as "Firefly II"- a tailless medium-size black triangle
> (powerplant unknown).
> Israeli-German military co-operation is increasing, so it is not that
> hard to believe that the Israelis were aware of the Firefly II test
> flight at Overberg. The Israelis might have even witnessed it.
> Anyway, the IAF "Seraph" is related to a stealth aircraft, not South
> Africa's project.
>
> Rob

[Denyav]

>However, as MBB became DASA, DB
>Aerospace, and now EADS it is said that the Germans never gave the
>project up and it evolved into a highly advanced NATO stealth project
>known as "Firefly II"- a tailless medium-size black triangle
>(powerplant unknown).
>Israeli-German military co-operation is increasing, so it is not that
>hard to believe that the Israelis were aware of the Firefly II test
>flight at Overberg. The Israelis might have even witnessed it.
>Anyway, the IAF "Seraph" is related to a stealth aircraft, not South
>Africa's project.
>
>Rob
>

I think in so called firefly II not only the tail is missing,I would hardly
call it an "airplane".

Cheers
also

[robert arndt]

(JT) wrote in message >...
> Rob, do you have any links for this project? Sounds really
> interesting. I have seen data on the Lampyridae but this is the first
> time I'm hearing of the Firefly II.
>
> Regards,
> -----JT-----

This information surfaced a few years back at the time the Germans
helped Israel test fire a cruise missile from one of the Dolphin-class
SSKs Germany sold Israel. The test firing took place off the coast of
South Africa. In the European military journals of the time was also
mention of Germany secretly testing a stealth design at the South
African Overberg test range and that the two test aircraft were part
of a NATO black budget stealth program called "Firefly II".
It gave the history of the original MBB Lampyridae of 1981-89 (which
even Janes did not report until 1995) and the persistant rumor that
Germany never gave the program up and even expanded its stealth
research into the NATO program.
Details of the craft are hard to come by but it is said to be an
equilateral black triangle, undetectable, near silent with the ability
to hover, and utilizing an underneath light system for visual stealth
at night (similar to the starfield type deception the Lockheed Stealth
Blimp is said to use). Propulsion is non-jet and not in any way
related to the older concept Lampyridae, which would have been a
stealth interceptor in the '80s.
Like all world black budget craft, the Firefly II is in the same class
as the Astra, HALO, etc... leaked, unacknowledged, but flying
somewhere... operational status unknown.

Rob

[Ron]

>Details of the craft are hard to come by but it is said to be an
>equilateral black triangle, undetectable, near silent with the ability
>to hover, and utilizing an underneath light system for visual stealth
>at night (similar to the starfield type deception the Lockheed Stealth
>Blimp is said to use). Propulsion is non-jet and not in any way
>related to the older concept Lampyridae, which would have been a
>stealth interceptor in the '80s.
>Like all world black budget craft, the Firefly II is in the same class
>as the Astra, HALO, etc... leaked, unacknowledged, but flying
>somewhere... operational status unknown.

Well if such concept actually is true, it would probably explain the sightings
over Belgium in the early 90s.



Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

[robert arndt]

(Ron) wrote in message >...
> >Details of the craft are hard to come by but it is said to be an
> >equilateral black triangle, undetectable, near silent with the ability
> >to hover, and utilizing an underneath light system for visual stealth
> >at night (similar to the starfield type deception the Lockheed Stealth
> >Blimp is said to use). Propulsion is non-jet and not in any way
> >related to the older concept Lampyridae, which would have been a
> >stealth interceptor in the '80s.
> >Like all world black budget craft, the Firefly II is in the same class
> >as the Astra, HALO, etc... leaked, unacknowledged, but flying
> >somewhere... operational status unknown.
>
> Well if such concept actually is true, it would probably explain the sightings
> over Belgium in the early 90s.

Comparisons to that effect have been discussed before, but nobody can
confirm what the Belgian Wave craft are except the suspicion of being
terrestrial HUFOs of military origin (they flew in formation).
Again, we could be looking at Astra, a more advanced HALO, or Firefly
II. The breakthrough in non-jet propulsion supposedly came in the late
'80s/early '90s with FFX (Field Effects) but there is still debate
over who invented it- either the British or US. At that time there was
an agreement with the US and Britain not to share stealth technology
with the European continent. Germany and France, however, had
independent stealth programs of their own from Dassault and DASA. If
the Germans could independently design a F-117 type aircraft (MBB
Lampyridae)without the US finding out about it until 1981 then it is
quite possible that the Germans also developed their own FFX
propulsion system. But I tend to rule out the Belgian Wave sightings
because Firefly II didn't fly until recently (at the time of the
Israeli SSK demonstration off South Africa). HALO also seems unlikely
due to the Belgian triangles size, which is easily larger than the
small Hawk-like HALO prototype spotted in the UK at the time. IMO, if
the Belgian Wave craft were terrestrial then they were probably US
Astra craft based in the UK.

Rob
>
>
>
> Ron
> Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

[Kevin Brooks]

(robert arndt) wrote in message >...
> (JT) wrote in message >...
> > Rob, do you have any links for this project? Sounds really
> > interesting. I have seen data on the Lampyridae but this is the first
> > time I'm hearing of the Firefly II.
> >
> > Regards,
> > -----JT-----
>
> This information surfaced a few years back at the time the Germans
> helped Israel test fire a cruise missile from one of the Dolphin-class
> SSKs Germany sold Israel. The test firing took place off the coast of
> South Africa. In the European military journals of the time was also
> mention of Germany secretly testing a stealth design at the South
> African Overberg test range and that the two test aircraft were part
> of a NATO black budget stealth program called "Firefly II".
> It gave the history of the original MBB Lampyridae of 1981-89 (which
> even Janes did not report until 1995) and the persistant rumor that
> Germany never gave the program up and even expanded its stealth
> research into the NATO program.
> Details of the craft are hard to come by but it is said to be an
> equilateral black triangle, undetectable, near silent with the ability
> to hover, and utilizing an underneath light system for visual stealth
> at night (similar to the starfield type deception the Lockheed Stealth
> Blimp is said to use). Propulsion is non-jet and not in any way
> related to the older concept Lampyridae, which would have been a
> stealth interceptor in the '80s.
> Like all world black budget craft, the Firefly II is in the same class
> as the Astra, HALO, etc... leaked, unacknowledged, but flying
> somewhere... operational status unknown.

Gee, another Aurora, huh? I guess based purely upon faith you have
accept that it is flying... Where is the evidence?

Brooks

>
> Rob

[Kenneth Williams]

(JT) wrote in message >...
> Rob, do you have any links for this project? Sounds really
> interesting. I have seen data on the Lampyridae but this is the first
> time I'm hearing of the Firefly II.
>
> Regards,
> -----JT-----
>
> (robert arndt) wrote in message >...
>
> > Actually, it's more complicated than that. South Africa's project is
> > indeed called "Seraph" and is known by the Israelis. However, the
> > "Seraph" (Fiery Serpent) the IAF is interested in is an aircraft based
> > on the German "Firefly II" that supposedly was test-flown in recent
> > years in South Africa at the Overberg range.
> > The original MBB Lampyridae (Firefly) was a stealth interceptor
> > remarkably close in resemblence to the early F-117. Supposedly, the US
> > found out about the aircraft in 1981 and pressured West Germany to
> > give it up by 1989- project cancelled. However, as MBB became DASA, DB
> > Aerospace, and now EADS it is said that the Germans never gave the
> > project up and it evolved into a highly advanced NATO stealth project
> > known as "Firefly II"- a tailless medium-size black triangle
> > (powerplant unknown).
> > Israeli-German military co-operation is increasing, so it is not that
> > hard to believe that the Israelis were aware of the Firefly II test
> > flight at Overberg. The Israelis might have even witnessed it.
> > Anyway, the IAF "Seraph" is related to a stealth aircraft, not South
> > Africa's project.
> >
> > Rob

Fascinating stuff, but I have people e-mailing me with all sorts of
conflicting information.

One guy stated that the Seraph was just what the Israelis call the
Longbow Apache helicopter!

Several others mention the South African program or the name of one of
Israel's future missiles.

Now there is this connection to a German/NATO stealth plane?

I get the part about the prototype Lampyridae but like everyone else
just figured the project was cancelled. This new information about a
Firefly II is news to me, although I've read that Bae, Dassault, and
EADs all have their own stealth programs and secret facilities.
Germany with its large population might not be an ideal place to fly
black aircraft- even at night. So, testing a plane in South Africa
might not be out of place.

I did read about the Israeli missile test off South Africa due to the
fact that I find the Dolphin subs quite exciting as I do Germany's
U-31- the first Type 212 sub with AIP.

But I never heard of the Firefly II.

If it exists, what are its dimesions? What powers it? Where else has
it been spotted/reported?

I remember in the '90s all the press about the stealth crash at
Boscome Down, the Bae Warton facility, and the almost near-collision
of the HALO prototype(s) with UK commercial aviation. So, I'm
confident that stealth aircraft really does exist.

But what of the Firefly II? In addition, why exactly would Israel need
such a craft? No AF I know of comes close to challenging the IAF.

Kenneth Williams

[Alan Minyard]

On 10 Oct 2003 20:27:59 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:

(JT) wrote in message >...
>> Rob, do you have any links for this project? Sounds really
>> interesting. I have seen data on the Lampyridae but this is the first
>> time I'm hearing of the Firefly II.
>>
>> Regards,
>> -----JT-----
>
>This information surfaced a few years back at the time the Germans
>helped Israel test fire a cruise missile from one of the Dolphin-class
>SSKs Germany sold Israel. The test firing took place off the coast of
>South Africa. In the European military journals of the time was also
>mention of Germany secretly testing a stealth design at the South
>African Overberg test range and that the two test aircraft were part
>of a NATO black budget stealth program called "Firefly II".
>It gave the history of the original MBB Lampyridae of 1981-89 (which
>even Janes did not report until 1995) and the persistant rumor that
>Germany never gave the program up and even expanded its stealth
>research into the NATO program.
>Details of the craft are hard to come by but it is said to be an
>equilateral black triangle, undetectable, near silent with the ability
>to hover, and utilizing an underneath light system for visual stealth
>at night (similar to the starfield type deception the Lockheed Stealth
>Blimp is said to use). Propulsion is non-jet and not in any way
>related to the older concept Lampyridae, which would have been a
>stealth interceptor in the '80s.
>Like all world black budget craft, the Firefly II is in the same class
>as the Astra, HALO, etc... leaked, unacknowledged, but flying
>somewhere... operational status unknown.
>
>Rob

Not built, not flying, non-existant. NATO research would mean US
research, and we are not giving stealth away. Yet more of your
Ubermench fantasy.

Al Minyard

[Denyav]

>The breakthrough in non-jet propulsion supposedly came in the late
>'80s/early '90s with FFX (Field Effects) but there is still debate
>over who invented it- either the British or US. At that time there was

Actually breakthrough should have come in before April 1945.
The Article appeared in Eighth Army News on 28 August 1945 had following title
"Nazis had 10000 mph Atom plane,in theory".
(Apparently before the start of Cold War such things could appear in official
US military papers).

Surely Brits did some very fruitful work of their own in this subject,I could
remember ground breaking research work carried out by Aviation Studies Ltd and
Gravity Rand Ltd. in 50s,but American efforts were almost entirely based on
German studies and scientists.
US companies like Glenn-Martin ,Clark.Lear Inc,North American,Sperry-Rand all
had secretive departments working on electrogravity and all of them had Germans

(many of them were from Kammlers SS Advanced weapons research)

>But I tend to rule out the Belgian Wave sightings
>because Firefly II didn't fly until recently (at the time of the

I would not be so sure as we know that Germans knew as early as 1945,at least
in theory,properties of "Belgian Triangle?"

[Denyav]

>Gee, another Aurora, huh? I guess based purely upon faith you have
>accept that it is flying... Where is the evidence?
>

May be among the documents that sealed for 75 long years.

[Denyav]

>Germany with its large population might not be an ideal place to fly
>black aircraft- even at night. So, testing a plane in South Africa
>might not be out of place.

Actually South Africa and the seas surronding it were traditional testing
ground for post WWII German advanced weapons.

If you check the news of 70s and 80s,you will find several reports of
unexplainable events taking place in seas off South Africa.

BTW A couple of years ago in very same area an USAF transport plane collided
with a German transport plane.This event was strange enough I guess.

[Denyav]

>Not built, not flying, non-existant. NATO research would mean US
>research, and we are not giving stealth away. Yet more of your
>Ubermench fantasy.

1)Who needs stealth?
2)You cannot give away anything that does not belong to you.
Stealth is a British and German product and stealth in US is gift of Harold
Macmillan to US.

[Ian Craig]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >Not built, not flying, non-existant. NATO research would mean US
> >research, and we are not giving stealth away. Yet more of your
> >Ubermench fantasy.
>
> 1)Who needs stealth?
> 2)You cannot give away anything that does not belong to you.
> Stealth is a British and German product and stealth in US is gift of
Harold
> Macmillan to US.

Which was never recipricated by the US at the time. If I remember correctly
(and this was from 2 Discovery Wings programmes about the speed of sound and
stealth), the Americans asked for the data from our stealth and supersonic
programmes, with the promise of letting the British have information about
new munitions. Needless to say we're still waiting.......

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Alan Minyard
> writes
>Not built, not flying, non-existant. NATO research would mean US
>research, and we are not giving stealth away. Yet more of your
>Ubermench fantasy.

Low-observable isn't a US monopoly, Al, and the US does more
collaboration than you might think (though there are still internal
firewalls; teams working with the US can't then talk to Some Other
Nations or teams working with them...)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[robert arndt]

>
> Not built, not flying, non-existant. NATO research would mean US
> research, and we are not giving stealth away. Yet more of your
> Ubermench fantasy.
>
> Al Minyard

Al, there you go again with your anti-German rhetoric. Germany didn't
need US help when it comes to stealth since the Germans invented it.
In WW2 they had the G0-229 and radar-absorbing paint
(Shornsteinfeger). They also had anti-sonar Alberich covering for
their schnorkels and Type XXI and XXIII subs.
BTW, the US stole the radar defraction design of the F-117 from the
Russians and the first US stealth aircraft wasn't even the F-117- it
was a Windecker Eagle civilian plane covered in RAM back in the early
'70s.
Russia at this time already was working on the Sukhoi T-60S stealth
bomber (which is still active) and by 1981 when the F-117 became
operational the Germans had the MBB Lampyridae program (which would
have been superior to the F-117 in design with better faceting also
faster and armed). You can't tell me the Germans just bowed to US
pressure and gave it up.
Britain, OTOH, is said to have developed FFX propulsion and shared it
with the US... not the other way around. Bae developed HALO which is
an admitted stealth aircraft prototype and from eyewitness accounts of
the BD crash in the '90s Bae haD at least one other stealth aircraft
that was flying in the '90s (similar in appearance to the cancelled
YF-22). Recently we have seen the Replica design too.
Dassault, SAAB, MiG-MAPO, Sukhoi, Tupolev, and EADS all have their own
stealth aircraft programs without US participation or permission. And
to a lesser extent so do China, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Israel,
and Japan.
The US does not have a monopoly on stealth or anti-stealth. Get over
it.
Two German black triangular craft flew at the Overberg range in South
Africa and you can't handle it. Too bad. Europe has stealth too. Too
bad. Whine about it all you like.

Rob

[Kevin Brooks]

(Denyav) wrote in message >...
> >Gee, another Aurora, huh? I guess based purely upon faith you have
> >accept that it is flying... Where is the evidence?
> >
>
> May be among the documents that sealed for 75 long years.

How convenient.

Brooks

[Kevin Brooks]

(Denyav) wrote in message >...
> >Not built, not flying, non-existant. NATO research would mean US
> >research, and we are not giving stealth away. Yet more of your
> >Ubermench fantasy.
>
> 1)Who needs stealth?

Apparently about every major military combat aviation project these
days does. Hence the claims from EADS that Typhoon has some stealthy
qualities, as do the claims from Dassault regarding Rafael, not to
mention the myriad of stealthy UAV's hitting the air these days, or
the plans for both Russian and Chinese advanced aircraft projects to
incoporate as many stealthy features as possible, along with a whole
slew of stealthy warship designs beginning to hit the water of late.
Care to name any advanced combat projects that *don't* incorporate it?

> 2)You cannot give away anything that does not belong to you.
> Stealth is a British and German product and stealth in US is gift of Harold
> Macmillan to US.

Yeah, right... care to puchase a bridge in Brooklyn?

Brooks

[Denyav]

>possible, along with a whole
>slew of stealthy warship designs beginning to hit the water of late.
>Care to name any advanced combat projects that *don't* incorporate it?

TAV (spaceplane).
No airborne stealth platform,current,planned or projected,has a change aganist
multi static systems developed in US,UK and Germany.
BTW land and sea borne platforms are more lucky than their airborne
counterparts as they may need only one non threat sector with a good design

..>eah, right... care to puchase a bridge in Brooklyn?
>
I always wondered why business savvy Brits offered that technology to US free
of charge,
A technology trap maybe?

[Denyav]

>How convenient

Cuts both ways,it should also be very convenient to put 1500 tons of documents
under lock for 75 years and making claims .

[Chad Irby]

(Denyav) wrote:

> No airborne stealth platform,current,planned or projected,has a change aganist
> multi static systems developed in US,UK and Germany.

By "change," you mean "chance?"

Even though some of the people who are selling multistatic systems are
making some pretty strong claims about how well they work against
stealth aircraft, none of them have been able to demonstrate any such
capabilities.

So far, the best anyone's been able to really establish is that, under
some conditions, a good multistatic system can act as a very general
early warning radar against good stealth airframes, but not enough to
manage specific targeting solutions. Mostly due to detecting the
turbulence in the air well after a plane flies by...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Denyav) wrote:

> >How convenient
>
> Cuts both ways,it should also be very convenient to put 1500 tons of documents
> under lock for 75 years and making claims .

It's really much more of a "since we have these superplanes, why didn't
we use them against the Soviets in the 1950s through 1980s?"

All of the evidence says it's just another "Germans/Russians invented
everything first" fantasy by some national supremacists.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Denyav]

>So far, the best anyone's been able to really establish is that, under
>some conditions, a good multistatic system can act as a very general
>early warning radar against good stealth airframes, but not enough to
>manage specific targeting solutions. Mostly due to detecting the
>turbulence in the air well after a plane flies by...

There is absolutely nothing to do with turbulence.(Turbulence story again is
created by the Brits a couple of years ago as part of the disinformation
package to hide capabilities of their own system)
ALL modern multi statics use forward scatterers from target (passive stealth
platforms are designed to eliminate backscatterers and atmosphere is full of
man made EM waves) for target detection,tracking and imaging purposes.

Yes none of them have able to demonstrate such capabilities to public,because
the air force,only official user of stealth platforms in US,showing cold
shoulders to Mitchell style Stealth vs Multistatic demonstration idea.(I think
they already know something about the outcome of a such demo.)

>a good multistatic system can act as a very general
>early warning radar against good stealth airframes, but not enough to
>manage specific targeting solutions. Mostly due to detecting the
>turbulence in the air well after a plane flies by...

A good multistatic is able to detect and track targets
as small as a grain of sand at distances around 600 miles.

[Alan Minyard]

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 09:24:02 +0100, "Ian Craig"
> wrote:

>
>"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
>> >Not built, not flying, non-existant. NATO research would mean US
>> >research, and we are not giving stealth away. Yet more of your
>> >Ubermench fantasy.
>>
>> 1)Who needs stealth?
>> 2)You cannot give away anything that does not belong to you.
>> Stealth is a British and German product and stealth in US is gift of
>Harold
>> Macmillan to US.
>
>Which was never recipricated by the US at the time. If I remember correctly
>(and this was from 2 Discovery Wings programmes about the speed of sound and
>stealth), the Americans asked for the data from our stealth and supersonic
>programmes, with the promise of letting the British have information about
>new munitions. Needless to say we're still waiting.......
>
And will be for a very long time. If the Brits, or anyone else, had
stealth technology they would have built stealth aircraft. The don't
and have not.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 16:07:42 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

>In message >, Alan Minyard
> writes
>>Not built, not flying, non-existant. NATO research would mean US
>>research, and we are not giving stealth away. Yet more of your
>>Ubermench fantasy.
>
>Low-observable isn't a US monopoly, Al, and the US does more
>collaboration than you might think (though there are still internal
>firewalls; teams working with the US can't then talk to Some Other
>Nations or teams working with them...)

It may not be a "monopoly", but it is clearly far more developed in
the US than anywhere else.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On 12 Oct 2003 08:14:41 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:

>>
>> Not built, not flying, non-existant. NATO research would mean US
>> research, and we are not giving stealth away. Yet more of your
>> Ubermench fantasy.
>>
>> Al Minyard
>
>Al, there you go again with your anti-German rhetoric. Germany didn't
>need US help when it comes to stealth since the Germans invented it.
>In WW2 they had the G0-229 and radar-absorbing paint
>(Shornsteinfeger). They also had anti-sonar Alberich covering for
>their schnorkels and Type XXI and XXIII subs.
>BTW, the US stole the radar defraction design of the F-117 from the
>Russians and the first US stealth aircraft wasn't even the F-117- it
>was a Windecker Eagle civilian plane covered in RAM back in the early
>'70s.
>Russia at this time already was working on the Sukhoi T-60S stealth
>bomber (which is still active) and by 1981 when the F-117 became
>operational the Germans had the MBB Lampyridae program (which would
>have been superior to the F-117 in design with better faceting also
>faster and armed). You can't tell me the Germans just bowed to US
>pressure and gave it up.
>Britain, OTOH, is said to have developed FFX propulsion and shared it
>with the US... not the other way around. Bae developed HALO which is
>an admitted stealth aircraft prototype and from eyewitness accounts of
>the BD crash in the '90s Bae haD at least one other stealth aircraft
>that was flying in the '90s (similar in appearance to the cancelled
>YF-22). Recently we have seen the Replica design too.
>Dassault, SAAB, MiG-MAPO, Sukhoi, Tupolev, and EADS all have their own
>stealth aircraft programs without US participation or permission. And
>to a lesser extent so do China, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Israel,
>and Japan.
>The US does not have a monopoly on stealth or anti-stealth. Get over
>it.
>Two German black triangular craft flew at the Overberg range in South
>Africa and you can't handle it. Too bad. Europe has stealth too. Too
>bad. Whine about it all you like.
>
>Rob

Utter bullsh**. The "YF-22" has not been canceled, it is in
production, the German "stealth" project was a complete failure, the
RAM on the Nazi's U-Boats was completely in-effective. Having a
"stealth program" and having deployed, active stealth aircraft are two
completely different things. The US did not "steal" anything, we
simply incorporated some open-source calculations in our stealth
program. Germany, and Europe, have no operational stealth aircraft,
get over it.

Al Minyard

[Denyav]

>It may not be a "monopoly", but it is clearly far more developed in
>the US than anywhere else

Didnt you hear something called "technology trap"?

[Denyav]

>Having a
>"stealth program" and having deployed, active stealth aircraft are two
>completely different things. The US did not "steal" anything, we
>simply incorporated some open-source calculations in our

Yeah right,even worst Nazis were in US in fifties.
What they were doing?

[Denyav]

>And will be for a very long time. If the Brits, or anyone else, had
>stealth technology they would have built stealth aircraft. The don't
>and have not.
>

Well,I think nobody,incl.US,is going to build stealth planes like B2 or f117
again,this technology is already a thing of the past.

[Chad Irby]

(Denyav) wrote:

> >So far, the best anyone's been able to really establish is that, under
> >some conditions, a good multistatic system can act as a very general
> >early warning radar against good stealth airframes, but not enough to
> >manage specific targeting solutions. Mostly due to detecting the
> >turbulence in the air well after a plane flies by...
>
> There is absolutely nothing to do with turbulence.(Turbulence story again is
> created by the Brits a couple of years ago as part of the disinformation
> package to hide capabilities of their own system)

No, it's a major advantage of modern radars. If you can't detect the
tiny radar signatures of airplanes, detect the much larger signatures of
the disturbed air in their wake. It's actually an easier solution than
trying to make multistatics work good enough to catch a stealth plane.

> ALL modern multi statics use forward scatterers from target (passive stealth
> platforms are designed to eliminate backscatterers and atmosphere is full of
> man made EM waves) for target detection,tracking and imaging purposes.

But, once again, the physics that makes a good stealth plane (few hot
spots, general radar absorption) makes multistatic radars fairly
useless, except under one or two very specific angles, and only for very
short periods of time.

> Yes none of them have able to demonstrate such capabilities to
> public,because the air force,only official user of stealth platforms
> in US,showing cold shoulders to Mitchell style Stealth vs Multistatic
> demonstration idea.(I think they already know something about the
> outcome of a such demo.)

Yes, they know it won't work very well, and are very happy to have
people like Russia selling fairly useless hardware to every second-rate
dictator on the planet. If they do a public demo and show it won't
work, someone might actually spend some time on a system that would be
more effective.

"Da, Comrade, new radar will detect all new American stealth planes."

"Then what just blew up our command center?"

> >a good multistatic system can act as a very general
> >early warning radar against good stealth airframes, but not enough to
> >manage specific targeting solutions. Mostly due to detecting the
> >turbulence in the air well after a plane flies by...
>
> A good multistatic is able to detect and track targets
> as small as a grain of sand at distances around 600 miles.

Claimed but not actually demonstrated. In the few public tests I've
heard of, they're just not that good. Not to mention that a radar that
detects sand grains will detect, well, sand grains.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Alan Minyard > wrote:

> The "YF-22" has not been canceled, it is in
> production, the German "stealth" project was a complete failure, the
> RAM on the Nazi's U-Boats was completely in-effective.

Note that the German WWII sub coatings *did* work a bit. At least,
until they were exposed to sea water, which deposited a lot of
microscopic material on them which screwed up their stealth properties.
They also didn't "stick" very well.

They also had some stealth coatings for airframes. Which had the
unfortunate tendency to peel off in flight...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Denyav]

>All of the evidence says it's just another "Germans/Russians invented
>everything first" fantasy by some national supremacists.

Unfortunately the current ethnical make-up of faculty and researchers in
prestigious US institutions,inc Ivy League ones,seems to prove the assertions
of those "supremacists".

If you cannot produce your own home grown scientific talent,you have to depend
on stolen technology and imported talent.
period

[Denyav]

>No, it's a major advantage of modern radars. If you can't detect the
>tiny radar signatures of airplanes, detect the much larger signatures of
>the disturbed air in their wake. It's

Well,who needs to detect turbulence if your multistatic is capable of detecting
a grain of sand at 600 miles distance?

Besides,there is much more important reason,even a bit of forward scatterer
from the target carries lots of target information.

It is almost a shame that old fashioned Maxwellian EM waves have been used
almost for one century as a binary detection method,they are much more than
that if you know how to extract info from a bit of signal.

>But, once again, the physics that makes a good stealth plane (few hot
>spots, general radar absorption) makes multistatic radars fairly
>useless, except under one or two very specific angles, and only for very
>short periods of time.

Stealth designers use physics to redirect incoming EM energy and multi static
designers use physics to catch redirected EM energy.

Multistatics could use any kind of emitter,dedicated radar emitters,TV and
radio emitters,cell phone emitters etc and they could even use a method known
as "Track before Detect".

>Yes, they know it won't work very well, and
If they think still so a couple of multistatic radar images of their stealth
showboats would surely help to change their minds.
>ictator on the planet. If they do a public demo and show it won't
>work, someone might actually spend some time on a system that would be

I dont think that Russians have a working multistatic system,surely they know
fundamentals of multistatic systems and probably also know how to solve
coherency problems,but good multistatics are expensive systems and computing
power guzzlers.
Its very doubtful if Russia today has $$$ and the will to develop such costly
systems just to counter a few stealth planes.

>"Then what just blew up our command center?"
Defeating multistatics is much harder,a multistatic could use hundreds of
emitters,if not thousands,and the most important part,receiver/processor unit
might stay always silent,but if you have prior intelligence its becomes a very
easy job.

>Claimed but not actually demonstrated. In the few public tests I've
>heard of, they're just not that good. Not to mention that a radar that
>detects sand grains will detect, well, sand grains.

A multi static that can detect a grain of sand at such distances,can detect any
"projected" stealth platform.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Denyav) wrote:

> >It may not be a "monopoly", but it is clearly far more developed in
> >the US than anywhere else
>
> Didnt you hear something called "technology trap"?

Much less common than something called "a huge technology advantage."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Denyav) wrote:

> >All of the evidence says it's just another "Germans/Russians invented
> >everything first" fantasy by some national supremacists.
>
> Unfortunately the current ethnical make-up of faculty and researchers in
> prestigious US institutions,inc Ivy League ones,seems to prove the assertions
> of those "supremacists".

Well, we *do* allow people in from all over, while still generating a
lot of skilled folks in-country.

On the other hand, folks like Russia are scraping along trying to pay
their researchers, while power companies are cutting off electricity to
military bases for not paying their bills...

> If you cannot produce your own home grown scientific talent,you have to depend
> on stolen technology and imported talent.

Thank heavens we still produce most of the best folks here.

Although I'm sure we could find you a job at a McDonald's, if you ever
decide to immigrate.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Denyav) wrote:

> >No, it's a major advantage of modern radars. If you can't detect the
> >tiny radar signatures of airplanes, detect the much larger signatures of
> >the disturbed air in their wake.
>
> Well,who needs to detect turbulence if your multistatic is capable of
> detecting a grain of sand at 600 miles distance?

For one thing, because you really can't (wavelength considerations alone
make that a ridiculous claim), and even if you could, you'd get a screen
full of noise.

> Besides,there is much more important reason,even a bit of forward scatterer
> from the target carries lots of target information.

*if* you know what you're looking for, and under perfect conditions.
The only demonstrated multistatics have been working on targets
literally a thousand times the size of stealth planes (10 m^2 versus
0.01 m^2).

> Stealth designers use physics to redirect incoming EM energy and multi static
> designers use physics to catch redirected EM energy.

While stealth designers also *absorb* energy, and use those much-reduced
reflections to make ECM much more potent. that's the big weakness of
multistatics, you know... *way* easier to spoof.

> Multistatics could use any kind of emitter,dedicated radar emitters,TV and
> radio emitters,cell phone emitters etc and they could even use a method known
> as "Track before Detect".

They can also use a method known as "getting jammed." Much easier to
jam someone when they're not looking for one particular signal or
frequency. You also have signal strength problems. A thousand
different sources at a fraction of a watt doesn't make up for one big
source at a few kilowatts.

> If they think still so a couple of multistatic radar images of their
> stealth showboats would surely help to change their minds.

Damned shame Russia can't manage that.

> >ictator on the planet. If they do a public demo and show it won't
> >work, someone might actually spend some time on a system that would be
>
> I dont think that Russians have a working multistatic system,surely they know
> fundamentals of multistatic systems and probably also know how to solve
> coherency problems,but good multistatics are expensive systems and computing
> power guzzlers.
> Its very doubtful if Russia today has $$$ and the will to develop such costly
> systems just to counter a few stealth planes.

In other words, this system that you're really sure works and can detect
all American stealth planes doesn't actually exist.

Now you know why.

> >"Then what just blew up our command center?"
> Defeating multistatics is much harder,a multistatic could use
> hundreds of emitters,if not thousands,and the most important
> part,receiver/processor unit might stay always silent,but if you have
> prior intelligence its becomes a very easy job.

The problem is that building such a system would be *insanely* expensive.

> >Claimed but not actually demonstrated. In the few public tests I've
> >heard of, they're just not that good. Not to mention that a radar that
> >detects sand grains will detect, well, sand grains.
>
> A multi static that can detect a grain of sand at such distances,can
> detect any "projected" stealth platform.

So this system that y0ou admit doesn't exist can detect grains of sand?

Nope.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Denyav]

>Well, we *do* allow people in from all over, while still generating a
>lot of skilled folks in-country.

We do allow people in because US system could and would not produce top notch
scientists.
US system is designed to produce scientific counterparts of Henry Ford's
workers,in other words "standardized minds".
Anything beyond "standardized mind" production is too dangerous for the
"establisment".

>On the other hand, folks like Russia are scraping along trying to pay
>their researchers, while power companies are cutting off electricity to
>military bases for not paying thei

Thats true.but at least they were capable of producing top notch scientists.
BTW Nations that could produce top notch classical music composers,not rappers,
could also produce top notch scientists.

>Thank heavens we still produce most of the best folks here.
>
>Although I'm sure we could find you a job at a McDonald's, if you ever
>decide to immigrate.

Interesting,I am here but I unfortunately do not work McDonalds,if you wanna
make a reality check for yourself,please visit a College or hi-tech company
near to you,you will see more Indians,Chinese and East Europeans than Americans
and they the ones that doing something other than producing paperwork.

[Denyav]

>Much less common than something called "a huge technology advantage."
>

Yeah right,like "historical victories"in
Grenada,Panama,Iraq,Serbia,Afghanistan,Micronesia, Zambia,Nowhereia etc.

[Denyav]

>For one thing, because you really can't (wavelength considerations alone
>make that a ridiculous claim), and even if you could, you'd get a screen
>full of noise.

Thats true,but only if you use radar as amplitute based classical binary
detection method (conventional radar).
But if you start to consider radar as a data carrier and process,for example
polarimetric data,you can easily filter out the noise.
Regarding ridiculousness of claim,this claim was the talk of the town last year
somewhere in East Coast.>if* you know what you're looking for, and under
perfect conditions.

>The only demonstrated multistatics have been working on targets
>literally a thousand times the size of stealth planes (10 m^2 versus
>0.01 m^2).

Lets say only sofar,the frontal RCS of both B2 and F22 is 0,0001 sqm but both
of them could be easily detected,tracked (and imaged) by US multistatic
system,which is optimized for the next generation stealthy cruise missiles and
UCAVs.
Why ? Because current RCS definition has a meaning only if you face
backscatterers,if you face multistatics thats different story.

>While stealth designers also *absorb* energy, and use those much-reduced
>reflections to make ECM much more potent. that's the big weakness of
>multistatics, you know... *way* easier to spoof.

As I posted before,for meaningful backscatterer radar detection range
reductions you need an echo reduction at least in order of 10000 whereas the
best RAMs today offer only reduction in order of 100.
RAMs are a stealth designers Band-Aids,they use them only if everything else
fails,the weapon of every passive stealth platform designer is the "Hardbody
Shaping".
Probably you wont see any RAMs,RASs etc in the platforms of future because of
the development of HPM weapons.
If you face HPM weapons the last thing that you may want is to absorb their
energy.
Spoofing? Well it depends,if you know the location receiver lt might be easier.
But do Stealth planes need ECM support like lowly counterparts?

[robert arndt]

Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
> On 12 Oct 2003 08:14:41 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Not built, not flying, non-existant. NATO research would mean US
> >> research, and we are not giving stealth away. Yet more of your
> >> Ubermench fantasy.
> >>
> >> Al Minyard
> >
> >Al, there you go again with your anti-German rhetoric. Germany didn't
> >need US help when it comes to stealth since the Germans invented it.
> >In WW2 they had the G0-229 and radar-absorbing paint
> >(Shornsteinfeger). They also had anti-sonar Alberich covering for
> >their schnorkels and Type XXI and XXIII subs.
> >BTW, the US stole the radar defraction design of the F-117 from the
> >Russians and the first US stealth aircraft wasn't even the F-117- it
> >was a Windecker Eagle civilian plane covered in RAM back in the early
> >'70s.
> >Russia at this time already was working on the Sukhoi T-60S stealth
> >bomber (which is still active) and by 1981 when the F-117 became
> >operational the Germans had the MBB Lampyridae program (which would
> >have been superior to the F-117 in design with better faceting also
> >faster and armed). You can't tell me the Germans just bowed to US
> >pressure and gave it up.
> >Britain, OTOH, is said to have developed FFX propulsion and shared it
> >with the US... not the other way around. Bae developed HALO which is
> >an admitted stealth aircraft prototype and from eyewitness accounts of
> >the BD crash in the '90s Bae haD at least one other stealth aircraft
> >that was flying in the '90s (similar in appearance to the cancelled
> >YF-22). Recently we have seen the Replica design too.
> >Dassault, SAAB, MiG-MAPO, Sukhoi, Tupolev, and EADS all have their own
> >stealth aircraft programs without US participation or permission. And
> >to a lesser extent so do China, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Israel,
> >and Japan.
> >The US does not have a monopoly on stealth or anti-stealth. Get over
> >it.
> >Two German black triangular craft flew at the Overberg range in South
> >Africa and you can't handle it. Too bad. Europe has stealth too. Too
> >bad. Whine about it all you like.
> >
> >Rob
>
> Utter bullsh**. The "YF-22" has not been canceled, it is in
> production, the German "stealth" project was a complete failure, the
> RAM on the Nazi's U-Boats was completely in-effective. Having a
> "stealth program" and having deployed, active stealth aircraft are two
> completely different things. The US did not "steal" anything, we
> simply incorporated some open-source calculations in our stealth
> program. Germany, and Europe, have no operational stealth aircraft,
> get over it.
>
> Al Minyard

A typo, Al. Relax. The line should have read YF-23. Second, the Type
XXI and XXIII U-boats that did employ the Alberich covering were
undetected, so were Type VIIs with the stealth schnorkel raised. The
radar absorbing paint became the basis for the type found on the
latter U-2s and yes, we did steal the entire radar defraction scheme
from a single Russian source.
As for Germany, Europe, or NATO having no operational stealth
aircraft- you simply don't know. What we do know is that non-US
stealth aircraft have been flying over Europe since the '90s and that
all the major nations have black projects too.
If German stealth is utter BS as you claim then please tell me how MBB
designed the Lampyridae independently from the US and without help
from Pyotr Ufimtsev's book? Their aircraft would have been superior to
the F-117 in faceting and much faster, armed with aams too! It must
really **** you off that from scratch the Germans designed such an
aircraft while the US took decades of research and translation to
arrive at the same conclusions!!!
Here's to the Firefly II, may Al live to see it!

Rob

[Keith Willshaw]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> Alan Minyard > wrote in message
>...
> > On 12 Oct 2003 08:14:41 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:
> >

>
> A typo, Al. Relax. The line should have read YF-23. Second, the Type
> XXI and XXIII U-boats that did employ the Alberich covering were
> undetected, so were Type VIIs with the stealth schnorkel raised. The
> radar absorbing paint became the basis for the type found on the
> latter U-2s and yes, we did steal the entire radar defraction scheme
> from a single Russian source.

Well now given that most Type XXI's never left the shipyard I suppose
its accurate to say they werent detected. U-Boats that dont make
operational patrols are rather hard to spot.

Despite the fact that the design was completed in June 1943
and the first boat launched in May 1944 only 2 type XXI's ever
went on war patrol IRC and the first such patrol was on 30th April 1945 !

The Germans never detected any DeHavilland Vampires on radar
either, does that make it a stealth aircraft do you think ?

Keith

[Alan Minyard]

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 00:00:35 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> Alan Minyard > wrote:
>
>> The "YF-22" has not been canceled, it is in
>> production, the German "stealth" project was a complete failure, the
>> RAM on the Nazi's U-Boats was completely in-effective.
>
>Note that the German WWII sub coatings *did* work a bit. At least,
>until they were exposed to sea water, which deposited a lot of
>microscopic material on them which screwed up their stealth properties.
>They also didn't "stick" very well.
>
Well, that sort of supports "completely in-effective" doesn't it :-)


>They also had some stealth coatings for airframes. Which had the
>unfortunate tendency to peel off in flight...

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On 13 Oct 2003 09:43:25 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:

>Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
>> On 12 Oct 2003 08:14:41 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >> Not built, not flying, non-existant. NATO research would mean US
>> >> research, and we are not giving stealth away. Yet more of your
>> >> Ubermench fantasy.
>> >>
>> >> Al Minyard
>> >
>> >Al, there you go again with your anti-German rhetoric. Germany didn't
>> >need US help when it comes to stealth since the Germans invented it.
>> >In WW2 they had the G0-229 and radar-absorbing paint
>> >(Shornsteinfeger). They also had anti-sonar Alberich covering for
>> >their schnorkels and Type XXI and XXIII subs.
>> >BTW, the US stole the radar defraction design of the F-117 from the
>> >Russians and the first US stealth aircraft wasn't even the F-117- it
>> >was a Windecker Eagle civilian plane covered in RAM back in the early
>> >'70s.
>> >Russia at this time already was working on the Sukhoi T-60S stealth
>> >bomber (which is still active) and by 1981 when the F-117 became
>> >operational the Germans had the MBB Lampyridae program (which would
>> >have been superior to the F-117 in design with better faceting also
>> >faster and armed). You can't tell me the Germans just bowed to US
>> >pressure and gave it up.
>> >Britain, OTOH, is said to have developed FFX propulsion and shared it
>> >with the US... not the other way around. Bae developed HALO which is
>> >an admitted stealth aircraft prototype and from eyewitness accounts of
>> >the BD crash in the '90s Bae haD at least one other stealth aircraft
>> >that was flying in the '90s (similar in appearance to the cancelled
>> >YF-22). Recently we have seen the Replica design too.
>> >Dassault, SAAB, MiG-MAPO, Sukhoi, Tupolev, and EADS all have their own
>> >stealth aircraft programs without US participation or permission. And
>> >to a lesser extent so do China, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Israel,
>> >and Japan.
>> >The US does not have a monopoly on stealth or anti-stealth. Get over
>> >it.
>> >Two German black triangular craft flew at the Overberg range in South
>> >Africa and you can't handle it. Too bad. Europe has stealth too. Too
>> >bad. Whine about it all you like.
>> >
>> >Rob
>>
>> Utter bullsh**. The "YF-22" has not been canceled, it is in
>> production, the German "stealth" project was a complete failure, the
>> RAM on the Nazi's U-Boats was completely in-effective. Having a
>> "stealth program" and having deployed, active stealth aircraft are two
>> completely different things. The US did not "steal" anything, we
>> simply incorporated some open-source calculations in our stealth
>> program. Germany, and Europe, have no operational stealth aircraft,
>> get over it.
>>
>> Al Minyard
>
>A typo, Al. Relax. The line should have read YF-23. Second, the Type
>XXI and XXIII U-boats that did employ the Alberich covering were
>undetected, so were Type VIIs with the stealth schnorkel raised. The
>radar absorbing paint became the basis for the type found on the
>latter U-2s and yes, we did steal the entire radar defraction scheme
>from a single Russian source.
>As for Germany, Europe, or NATO having no operational stealth
>aircraft- you simply don't know. What we do know is that non-US
>stealth aircraft have been flying over Europe since the '90s and that
>all the major nations have black projects too.
>If German stealth is utter BS as you claim then please tell me how MBB
>designed the Lampyridae independently from the US and without help
>from Pyotr Ufimtsev's book? Their aircraft would have been superior to
>the F-117 in faceting and much faster, armed with aams too! It must
>really **** you off that from scratch the Germans designed such an
>aircraft while the US took decades of research and translation to
>arrive at the same conclusions!!!
>Here's to the Firefly II, may Al live to see it!
>
>Rob

If the Germans (or anyone else other than the US) has/had stealth that
worked we would have seen it by now. The "firefly" was not built, was
not flown, and was abandoned. Making things up does not make them
true. As to a "firefly II", it will never see the light of day as it
does not exist. The Germans might have designed a prototype scale
model of an aircraft, but they did not design/build/fly one. Get over
it.

Al Minyard

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Denyav) wrote:

> >Well, we *do* allow people in from all over, while still generating a
> >lot of skilled folks in-country.
>
> We do allow people in because US system could and would not produce top notch
> scientists.

Except for the ones we *do* produce, of course. Like the two US-born
and trained scientists who just won the Nobel for chemistry. Or the guy
who shared the prize for medicine for inventing the MRI.

About *half* of the Nobel prizes in physics for the last half-century
have gone to guys who were born and raised in the "pitiful" US (or born
elsewhere and raised here).

The Europeans had a big advantage a hundred years ago, but they seem to
have ****ed most of it away.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Denyav) wrote:

> >Much less common than something called "a huge technology advantage."
> >
>
> Yeah right,like "historical victories"in
> Grenada,

Won. Not really much of a fight, though.

> Panama,

Won. Ditto.

> Iraq,

Won (in one of the most lopsided wars ever fought).

Than kgoodness we were fighting a country that used mostly Russian
weapons, it might have been tough.

> Serbia,

Wow - you just don't quit when you're behind, do you?

> Afghanistan,

Again, won. Afghanistan has had a change in government and a 30%
increase in their economy in the last year. More Russians were killed
by Chechens in Moscow than we lost in Afghanistan...

> Micronesia,

Haven't fought there. Yet.

> Zambia,

Ditto.

> Nowhereia etc.

And the list of imaginary "losses" just keeps on rolling.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Denyav) wrote:

> >For one thing, because you really can't (wavelength considerations alone
> >make that a ridiculous claim), and even if you could, you'd get a screen
> >full of noise.
>
> Thats true,but only if you use radar as amplitute based classical binary
> detection method (conventional radar).
> But if you start to consider radar as a data carrier and process,for example
> polarimetric data,you can easily filter out the noise.

Until someone spends a few watts spoofing you out of your shoes.

> Regarding ridiculousness of claim,this claim was the talk of the town
> last year somewhere in East Coast.

Lots of things have been "talk of the town" for a week or so, until
someone did the actual work and found out how silly it was. The "we can
use cell phone signals to find B-2s" story died a quick death last year
after someone did the math on it.

> Lets say only sofar, the frontal RCS of both B2 and F22 is 0,0001 sqm
> but both of them could be easily detected,tracked (and imaged) by US
> multistatic system,which is optimized for the next generation
> stealthy cruise missiles and UCAVs.

Actually, the current multistatic has only worked (at all) on targets of
about ten thousand times the size of modern stealth planes, and only
under controlled circumstances. And it's not the "look at noise and
decode it" system you're touting - it's a multiple-emitter *active*
radar system.

> Why ? Because current RCS definition has a meaning only if you face
> backscatterers,if you face multistatics thats different story.

There's no real evidence to support this. Just more handwaving.

> As I posted before,for meaningful backscatterer radar detection range
> reductions you need an echo reduction at least in order of 10000
> whereas the best RAMs today offer only reduction in order of 100.
> RAMs are a stealth designers Band-Aids,they use them only if
> everything else fails,the weapon of every passive stealth platform
> designer is the "Hardbody Shaping".

Nope. It's a *system* approach, since no body can be 100% "correctly"
shaped, and since good radar absorbing materials can give huge
advantages in and of themselves.

> Probably you wont see any RAMs,RASs etc in the platforms of future
> because of the development of HPM weapons.

That's exactly the opposite of what *everyone* says.

> If you face HPM weapons the last thing that you may want is to absorb their
> energy.

Even a 98% effective "reflector" would get vaporized at high enough
power levels.

HPMs aren't going to be big antiair systems, anyway. For line of sight,
you need plain old lasers.

> Spoofing? Well it depends,if you know the location receiver lt might be
> easier.
> But do Stealth planes need ECM support like lowly counterparts?

Absolutely. Even the best of stealth has *some* return. A lot RCS
gives you a *huge* defensive ECM advantage. For one, you can use very
low power transmitters (and a lot more of them). And since you're
looking at odd reflection angles, you can pretty much idsappear in the
noise.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Alan Minyard > wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 00:00:35 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> >Note that the German WWII sub coatings *did* work a bit. At least,
> >until they were exposed to sea water, which deposited a lot of
> >microscopic material on them which screwed up their stealth properties.
> >They also didn't "stick" very well.
>
> Well, that sort of supports "completely in-effective" doesn't it :-)

It worked fine. As long as you kept it in pure fresh water...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Michael Williamson]

Chad Irby wrote:
> In article >,
> Alan Minyard > wrote:
>
>
>>On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 00:00:35 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Note that the German WWII sub coatings *did* work a bit. At least,
>>>until they were exposed to sea water, which deposited a lot of
>>>microscopic material on them which screwed up their stealth properties.
>>>They also didn't "stick" very well.
>>
>>Well, that sort of supports "completely in-effective" doesn't it :-)
>
>
> It worked fine. As long as you kept it in pure fresh water...
>

Which contributes to its being useless for an ocean-going vessel.

Mike

[robert arndt]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Alan Minyard > wrote in message
> >...
> > > On 12 Oct 2003 08:14:41 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:
> > >
>
> >
> > A typo, Al. Relax. The line should have read YF-23. Second, the Type
> > XXI and XXIII U-boats that did employ the Alberich covering were
> > undetected, so were Type VIIs with the stealth schnorkel raised. The
> > radar absorbing paint became the basis for the type found on the
> > latter U-2s and yes, we did steal the entire radar defraction scheme
> > from a single Russian source.
>
> Well now given that most Type XXI's never left the shipyard I suppose
> its accurate to say they werent detected. U-Boats that dont make
> operational patrols are rather hard to spot.
>
> Despite the fact that the design was completed in June 1943
> and the first boat launched in May 1944 only 2 type XXI's ever
> went on war patrol IRC and the first such patrol was on 30th April 1945 !
>
> The Germans never detected any DeHavilland Vampires on radar
> either, does that make it a stealth aircraft do you think ?
>
> Keith

U-2511 and U-3008 both went out on patrols with U-2511 passing
undetected under a HMS Suffolk and carrying out a mock attack (under
strict orders not to engage). He returned to base where 12 other Type
XXIs were fully ready for operation, with another 30 boats in the
stages of trial and training. One thousand more were under
construction. The Type XXIII had 6 operational patrols with none
detected and the last U-boat victory of two British freighters sunk
May 7, 1945. 59 more were launched by wars end. Over 900 Type XIIIs
were under construction.
After WW2, the USN heavily tested the Type XXI boat (as did the
British, French, and Russians) and found the design quite stealthy.
The Type XXI also was fitted with a silent V-belt drive system in
addition to the Alberich covering.
The problem with Alberich was not the covering itself but the adhesive
used to attach it to the boats. Early Alberich trials resulted in
seperated sheets of the material coming loose. This was later remedied
by the time the coating was applied to the Type XIII, U-4709 being the
first to recieve the new adhesive.
Had these boats been produced in number and launched a year earlier
the Allies would have had a tough time countering them.

Rob

[robert arndt]

Chad Irby > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> Alan Minyard > wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 00:00:35 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
> >
> > >Note that the German WWII sub coatings *did* work a bit. At least,
> > >until they were exposed to sea water, which deposited a lot of
> > >microscopic material on them which screwed up their stealth properties.
> > >They also didn't "stick" very well.
> >
> > Well, that sort of supports "completely in-effective" doesn't it :-)
>
> It worked fine. As long as you kept it in pure fresh water...

Chad,

Alberich's problem was not the material itself but the adhesive
applied to the sub to attach the sheets. This problem was fixed by the
time Alberich was applied to the Type XIII Boats in Feb '45.
If you are talking about the stealth schnorkels then that was another
material Tarnmatte...
In addition to Alberich the Type XXI also had a stealth V-belt silent
drive. Using the belt drive the Type XXI could achieve 6 knots
underwater in silence. This was proven when the USN testing U-2513 in
late 1946 could not detect the boat reliably even when it was at a
range of only 220m.
A photo of the V-belt drive can be seen in the book "The Type XXI
U-Boat" by Fritz Kohl & Eberhard Rossler (Naval Institute Press, 1991)
on page 44.

Rob

[Keith Willshaw]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
> > "robert arndt" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Alan Minyard > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > On 12 Oct 2003 08:14:41 -0700, (robert arndt)
wrote:
> > > >
> >
> > >
> > > A typo, Al. Relax. The line should have read YF-23. Second, the Type
> > > XXI and XXIII U-boats that did employ the Alberich covering were
> > > undetected, so were Type VIIs with the stealth schnorkel raised. The
> > > radar absorbing paint became the basis for the type found on the
> > > latter U-2s and yes, we did steal the entire radar defraction scheme
> > > from a single Russian source.
> >
> > Well now given that most Type XXI's never left the shipyard I suppose
> > its accurate to say they werent detected. U-Boats that dont make
> > operational patrols are rather hard to spot.
> >
> > Despite the fact that the design was completed in June 1943
> > and the first boat launched in May 1944 only 2 type XXI's ever
> > went on war patrol IRC and the first such patrol was on 30th April 1945
!
> >
> > The Germans never detected any DeHavilland Vampires on radar
> > either, does that make it a stealth aircraft do you think ?
> >
> > Keith
>
> U-2511 and U-3008 both went out on patrols with U-2511 passing
> undetected under a HMS Suffolk and carrying out a mock attack (under
> strict orders not to engage). He returned to base where 12 other Type
> XXIs were fully ready for operation, with another 30 boats in the
> stages of trial and training.

Yep thats 2 count em 2 war patrols.

> One thousand more were under
> construction.

No sir. A block of numbers from U-3000 to U-4000 had
been assigned but most of those are simply marked
as projected.

> The Type XXIII had 6 operational patrols with none
> detected and the last U-boat victory of two British freighters sunk
> May 7, 1945. 59 more were launched by wars end. Over 900 Type XIIIs
> were under construction.

Again you are incorrect as a simple thought would tell you.
There's not enough shipyard capacity in the whole of europe
to build 1600 boats suimulataneously

> After WW2, the USN heavily tested the Type XXI boat (as did the
> British, French, and Russians) and found the design quite stealthy.
> The Type XXI also was fitted with a silent V-belt drive system in
> addition to the Alberich covering.

But all adopted different designs and none selected a v-belt drive.

> The problem with Alberich was not the covering itself but the adhesive
> used to attach it to the boats. Early Alberich trials resulted in
> seperated sheets of the material coming loose. This was later remedied
> by the time the coating was applied to the Type XIII, U-4709 being the
> first to recieve the new adhesive.

U-4709 was bombed while being built

> Had these boats been produced in number and launched a year earlier
> the Allies would have had a tough time countering them.
>

Over a 100 type XXI's HAD been launched, the Germans couldnt
make em work. Boats that dont work and adhesive that doesnt
stick arent war winning weapons.

Keith

[Denyav]

>Until someone spends a few watts spoofing you out of your shoes.

If someone could spoof your radar even a B17 could do the job,but Air Forces
showboats supposed to be a little bit different than them.
Besides,spofing a system that does not use amplitute based binary detection is
not easy all,you need to know all properties of forward scatterer wave
,including polarimetric data,which is much harder to accomplish than analysing
emissionss of back scatterers.
Only viable form of spoofing is possibly the saturation of processing unit,but
that would make an attacker very visible to other forms of detection.

>Lots of things have been "talk of the town" for a week or so, until
>someone did the actual work and found out how silly it was. The "we can
>use cell phone signals to find B-2s" story died a quick death last year
>after someone did the math on it.

Cell Phone story did not die it well and alive,emissions from cell phone base
stations are excellent for multistatic use.
There currently three competing systems from three different countries and all
of them utilize cell phone emissions succesfully.
Regarding math,radio-astronomers are working with much weaker signals for
decades.


>Actually, the current multistatic has only worked (at all) on targets of

>about ten thousand times the size of modern stealth planes, and only
>under controlled circumstances. And it's not the "look at noise and
>decode it" system you're touting - it's a multiple-emitter *active*
>radar system.

I think you are referring to the previous version of US system,which needed a
direct "calibration" signal from the emitters ,but it was then now US system
too,like British and German counterparts does not need it anymore.
I think the calling a multistatic system that could utilize signals from
hundreds or thousand emitters is a stretch.
If if you take out 20 or 50 of such emitters it wont degrade System
performance,emitters are not critical part of the system,its receiver and its
silent.

>There's no real evidence to support this. Just more handwaving.

Thats the key of whole multistatic development.

>Nope. It's a *system* approach, since no body can be 100% "correctly"
>shaped, and since good radar absorbing materials can give huge
>advantages in and of themselves.
>

RAMs are only used in places where "system" requirements do not allow proper
body shaping,they are Band-Aids of stealth designer.

>That's exactly the opposite of what *everyone* says.
RAMs RASs etc by definition "absorb" energy,I would not recommend anybody to
try to absorb GW or TW level energy in a small structure like an aircraft.

>Even a 98% effective "reflector" would get vaporized at high enough
>power levels.
>
Imagine what would happen if it "absorbed"
GW level or more energy?.

>HPMs aren't going to be big antiair systems, anyway. For line of sight,
>you need plain old lasers.

No "some" HPMs are "currently" only systems that you theoretically could hit a
submerged submarine off Australia with an HPM "misille" launcher located in
New Mexico.
Call it "line of sight".



>Absolutely. Even the best of stealth has *some* return. A lot RCS
>gives you a *huge* defensive ECM advantage. For one, you can use very

Even the best stealth has some BACKSCATTERER return,
Better stealth means LESS back scatterer and MORE forward scatterer,that means
multistatics could detect stealth planes easier than convantional ones,thats
make them perfect for stealth detection.

[Denyav]

>About *half* of the Nobel prizes in physics for the last half-century
>have gone to guys who were born and raised in the "pitiful" US (or born
>elsewhere and raised here).

True and thats the reason why last half 0f 20th Century is called the Ice Age
of physics.
Among crowd of US Nobel laurates (technicians according to Hawking) only Murray
Gell Mann is in the same league with the all time starts of physics.

Strange, in spite of plenty of US nobel laurates we still use theories
developed by some others almost one hundred years ago.
(BTW many of US nobel laurates are the experimentalists that proved the
theories of others were correct)

There is quality and quantity issue even in Nobel prizes,US excels everywhere
when you judge only by quantity.


>The Europeans had a big advantage a hundred years ago, but they seem to
>have ****ed most of it away.

They are back big time again,they are going to rewrite century old laws of
physics,after they do it our technicians can continue to collect Nobel prizes
by proving that they are right.

[robert arndt]

> > U-2511 and U-3008 both went out on patrols with U-2511 passing
> > undetected under a HMS Suffolk and carrying out a mock attack (under
> > strict orders not to engage). He returned to base where 12 other Type
> > XXIs were fully ready for operation, with another 30 boats in the
> > stages of trial and training.
>
> Yep thats 2 count em 2 war patrols.

And both were undetected, carrying out mock attacks on a cruiser and
British convoys.


> > After WW2, the USN heavily tested the Type XXI boat (as did the
> > British, French, and Russians) and found the design quite stealthy.
> > The Type XXI also was fitted with a silent V-belt drive system in
> > addition to the Alberich covering.
>
> But all adopted different designs and none selected a v-belt drive.

All the major foreign navies tested the Type XXI completely from 1945
into the '50s. A summary:

U-2513 US, tested and scrapped in 1956
U-2518 France, served as Roland Millirot
U-2529 British N27 until 1947, handed over to Russia
U-2540 Germany, scuttled, raised in 1957, recommissioned as Wilhelm
Bauer, restoed at Maritime Museum at Bremerhaven
U-3008 US, tested until 1955
U-3017 British N41, scrapped 1950
U-3035 British N28 until 1948, handed over to Russia
U-3041 British N29 until 1948, handed over to Russia
U-3525 British N30 until 1948, handed over to Russia
>
> > The problem with Alberich was not the covering itself but the adhesive
> > used to attach it to the boats. Early Alberich trials resulted in
> > seperated sheets of the material coming loose. This was later remedied
> > by the time the coating was applied to the Type XIII, U-4709 being the
> > first to recieve the new adhesive.
>
> U-4709 was bombed while being built

No, it was scrapped on May 4, 1945.
>
> > Had these boats been produced in number and launched a year earlier
> > the Allies would have had a tough time countering them.
> >
>
> Over a 100 type XXI's HAD been launched, the Germans couldnt
> make em work. Boats that dont work and adhesive that doesnt
> stick arent war winning weapons.
>
> Keith

Not true. The Type XXIs were revolutionary for their time and had the
normal teething troubles. Prefabrication and transportation
difficulties added to the problem. Alberich was not a problem, the
adhesive was and that (as already explained) had been corrected by Feb
1945. No Type XXI was destroyed due to Alberich failure and even those
without the covering were still stealthy with the V-belt drive as
PROVEN by postwar Allied tests.
The Type XXI was a truly remarkable machine for the time, better than
anything the Allies had.

Rob

[Ian Craig]

You seem very sure that the UK doesnt have a stealth aircraft - how come?
Know something we dont? Just cos we havent got a batwing or f117 doesnt mean
we dont have stealthy aircraft?

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 09:24:02 +0100, "Ian Craig"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Denyav" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >Not built, not flying, non-existant. NATO research would mean US
> >> >research, and we are not giving stealth away. Yet more of your
> >> >Ubermench fantasy.
> >>
> >> 1)Who needs stealth?
> >> 2)You cannot give away anything that does not belong to you.
> >> Stealth is a British and German product and stealth in US is gift of
> >Harold
> >> Macmillan to US.
> >
> >Which was never recipricated by the US at the time. If I remember
correctly
> >(and this was from 2 Discovery Wings programmes about the speed of sound
and
> >stealth), the Americans asked for the data from our stealth and
supersonic
> >programmes, with the promise of letting the British have information
about
> >new munitions. Needless to say we're still waiting.......
> >
> And will be for a very long time. If the Brits, or anyone else, had
> stealth technology they would have built stealth aircraft. The don't
> and have not.
>
> Al Minyard

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Ian Craig
> writes
>You seem very sure that the UK doesnt have a stealth aircraft - how come?
>Know something we dont? Just cos we havent got a batwing or f117 doesnt mean
>we dont have stealthy aircraft?

We know the technology and have done a fair bit of work, particularly on
RCS reduction of existing and future platform.

We don't have any admitted LO aircraft, quite likely for the same four
reasons we only have four leased C-17s: money, cash, moolah and dinero.

If we're up against the sort of quality opposition that _needs_ stealth
aircraft, the US has them and is on our side; if not, the money's better
spent on enhancing more conventional capabilities (like, getting Link-16
so that we're at least on the same network and can swap data properly)
than on buying a handful of F-117-a-likes.

Then you get into the operational analysis issues like "just when does
stealth actually provide a clear benefit anyway?" and that's when the
punch-ups usually start: it's a controversial question. (Sure, stealth
lets you fly through enemy IADS alone (sort of) and unafraid (well,
mostly)... but then the USAF can do that today and tomorrow anyway)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Keith Willshaw]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...

> >
> > U-4709 was bombed while being built
>
> No, it was scrapped on May 4, 1945.

My source has it bombed in the shipyard, either way it never went to sea.

> >
> > > Had these boats been produced in number and launched a year earlier
> > > the Allies would have had a tough time countering them.
> > >
> >
> > Over a 100 type XXI's HAD been launched, the Germans couldnt
> > make em work. Boats that dont work and adhesive that doesnt
> > stick arent war winning weapons.
> >
> > Keith
>
> Not true. The Type XXIs were revolutionary for their time and had the
> normal teething troubles. Prefabrication and transportation
> difficulties added to the problem.

2 Operational patrols when a pool of 118 boats was available
is WAY beyond normal teething troubles.

My sources also indicate the Alberich coating was primarily
for sound deadening and was used on at least one type VIIc
boat (U-1105)

> Alberich was not a problem, the
> adhesive was and that (as already explained) had been corrected by Feb
> 1945. No Type XXI was destroyed due to Alberich failure and even those
> without the covering were still stealthy with the V-belt drive as
> PROVEN by postwar Allied tests.

Given that the Alberich coatings were succesfully used on the humble type
VIIC and that a v-drive belt seems to have been a developmental dead
end your assertion looks a little weak.

> The Type XXI was a truly remarkable machine for the time, better than
> anything the Allies had.
>

IF it had worked it might have been however the less revolutionary
fleet boats the USN built while less advanced were actually able
to go to sea and sink large numbers of enemy ships.

The Germans would have done much better to make a modest
improvement to the type IXC by removing its deck gun,
streamlining the hull a little better and fitting larger batteries.
As it was the type VII and type IX boats had to soldier on
while the defective type XXI's swung at anchor.

Note that its hardly accurate to characterise type XXI's as
undetectable unsinkable super weapons since the folowing were
lost at sea

U-2503 - badly damaged by RAF aircraft - scuttled
U-2521 - sunk by RAF aircraft
U-2524 - badly damaged by RAF aircraft - scuttled
U-3519 - sunk by mine
U-3520 - sunk by mine

So we have 2 successful boats and 5 losses, U-boat men didnt have
very good odds, even in a type XXI

Keith

[Alan Minyard]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 00:23:52 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> Alan Minyard > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 00:00:35 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>>
>> >Note that the German WWII sub coatings *did* work a bit. At least,
>> >until they were exposed to sea water, which deposited a lot of
>> >microscopic material on them which screwed up their stealth properties.
>> >They also didn't "stick" very well.
>>
>> Well, that sort of supports "completely in-effective" doesn't it :-)
>
>It worked fine. As long as you kept it in pure fresh water...

Yes, but not a terribly target rich environment. :-)

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On 14 Oct 2003 09:48:30 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:

>> > U-2511 and U-3008 both went out on patrols with U-2511 passing
>> > undetected under a HMS Suffolk and carrying out a mock attack (under
>> > strict orders not to engage). He returned to base where 12 other Type
>> > XXIs were fully ready for operation, with another 30 boats in the
>> > stages of trial and training.
>>
>> Yep thats 2 count em 2 war patrols.
>
>And both were undetected, carrying out mock attacks on a cruiser and
>British convoys.
>
>
>> > After WW2, the USN heavily tested the Type XXI boat (as did the
>> > British, French, and Russians) and found the design quite stealthy.
>> > The Type XXI also was fitted with a silent V-belt drive system in
>> > addition to the Alberich covering.
>>
>> But all adopted different designs and none selected a v-belt drive.
>
>All the major foreign navies tested the Type XXI completely from 1945
>into the '50s. A summary:
>
>U-2513 US, tested and scrapped in 1956
>U-2518 France, served as Roland Millirot
>U-2529 British N27 until 1947, handed over to Russia
>U-2540 Germany, scuttled, raised in 1957, recommissioned as Wilhelm
>Bauer, restoed at Maritime Museum at Bremerhaven
>U-3008 US, tested until 1955
>U-3017 British N41, scrapped 1950
>U-3035 British N28 until 1948, handed over to Russia
>U-3041 British N29 until 1948, handed over to Russia
>U-3525 British N30 until 1948, handed over to Russia
>>
>> > The problem with Alberich was not the covering itself but the adhesive
>> > used to attach it to the boats. Early Alberich trials resulted in
>> > seperated sheets of the material coming loose. This was later remedied
>> > by the time the coating was applied to the Type XIII, U-4709 being the
>> > first to recieve the new adhesive.
>>
>> U-4709 was bombed while being built
>
>No, it was scrapped on May 4, 1945.
>>
>> > Had these boats been produced in number and launched a year earlier
>> > the Allies would have had a tough time countering them.
>> >
>>
>> Over a 100 type XXI's HAD been launched, the Germans couldnt
>> make em work. Boats that dont work and adhesive that doesnt
>> stick arent war winning weapons.
>>
>> Keith
>
>Not true. The Type XXIs were revolutionary for their time and had the
>normal teething troubles. Prefabrication and transportation
>difficulties added to the problem. Alberich was not a problem, the
>adhesive was and that (as already explained) had been corrected by Feb
>1945. No Type XXI was destroyed due to Alberich failure and even those
>without the covering were still stealthy with the V-belt drive as
>PROVEN by postwar Allied tests.
>The Type XXI was a truly remarkable machine for the time, better than
>anything the Allies had.
>
>Rob

If it was so wonderful, why did none of the countries that received
Type XIIIs copy them? Because they were death traps that offered no
better performance or protection than contemporary US Boats! If the
"v-belt drive" was so superior, where are the Russian, British and US
boats that use the design?

Germany lost, get over it.

Al Minyard

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Denyav) wrote:

> >Until someone spends a few watts spoofing you out of your shoes.
>
> If someone could spoof your radar even a B17 could do the job,but Air Forces
> showboats supposed to be a little bit different than them.
> Besides,spofing a system that does not use amplitute based binary detection is
> not easy all,you need to know all properties of forward scatterer wave
> ,including polarimetric data,which is much harder to accomplish than analysing
> emissionss of back scatterers.

You have a very shallow knowledge of how radar jamming works in the
years after World War II. What you describe is pretty much first
chapter "ECM 101," and has nothing to do with methods in current use.

> Only viable form of spoofing is possibly the saturation of processing unit,but
> that would make an attacker very visible to other forms of detection.

Nope. You're assuming again.

> >Lots of things have been "talk of the town" for a week or so, until
> >someone did the actual work and found out how silly it was. The "we can
> >use cell phone signals to find B-2s" story died a quick death last year
> >after someone did the math on it.
>
> Cell Phone story did not die it well and alive,emissions from cell phone base
> stations are excellent for multistatic use.

....against large, obvious targets that aren't fighting back. The
"celldar" systems have some extremely big caveats, like "can't handle
targets below a certain size."

> There currently three competing systems from three different countries and all
> of them utilize cell phone emissions succesfully.
> Regarding math,radio-astronomers are working with much weaker signals for
> decades.

But they know what they're looking for, and are using *very* directional
antennas to do so.

Exactly the oposite problem with celldar.

> >There's no real evidence to support this. Just more handwaving.
>
> Thats the key of whole multistatic development.

Yep. Handwaving. Like I said.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Denyav) wrote:

> >About *half* of the Nobel prizes in physics for the last half-century
> >have gone to guys who were born and raised in the "pitiful" US (or born
> >elsewhere and raised here).
>
> True and thats the reason why last half 0f 20th Century is called the Ice Age
> of physics.

....because the reat of the world is being frozen out, of course.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chris Manteuffel]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message >...

> Then you get into the operational analysis issues like "just when does
> stealth actually provide a clear benefit anyway?" and that's when the
> punch-ups usually start: it's a controversial question. (Sure, stealth
> lets you fly through enemy IADS alone (sort of) and unafraid (well,
> mostly)... but then the USAF can do that today and tomorrow anyway)

April 2, 1982.

Chris Manteuffel

[Denyav]

>You have a very shallow knowledge of how radar jamming works in the
>years after World War II. What you describe is pretty much first
>chapter "ECM 101," and has nothing to do with methods in current use.

Well,can you tell me which,past,current or projected,ECM/ESM sytem analyses
forward scatterers?
None.period.
Every ECM effort requires the knowledge of emitter signal properties,Modern ECM
equipment could analyse intercepted backscatterer radar signal in real time and
activate counter measures.

In case of backscatterers, the signal that you must intercept and analyse for
ECM purposes is the signal that hostile radar emits,but in case of multistatics
it is NOT the signal that you must intercept and analyse,in other words you
must intercept and analyse forward scatterer for effective jamming which is
,altough theoretically possible,very diffucult in real life.
Even if you intercepted the forward scatetered signal you have to deal always
with the signals with diferent polarizations,even if the signal originates from
the same emitter.(Thats how some multistatics track the targets even before a
binary detection!)

>Nope. You're assuming again.
>

I am not assuming anything,simply put multistatics are much more than eye
catches or something aganist stealth platforms,their detection and tracking
methods have nothing in common with familiar back scatterers.>...against large,
obvious targets that aren't fighting back. The

>"celldar" systems have some extremely big caveats, like "can't handle
>targets below a certain size."

Sure,for example less than an insect size.

>But they know what they're looking for, and are using *very* directional
>antennas to do so.
>

Multistatic antennas are very directional too and they know what they are
looking too.

xactly the oposite problem with celldar.
>

See above.

>ep. Handwaving. Like I said.

Then I wonder why Air Force dodges all requests for a realistic demonstration
involving Their showboats vs. US Multi static system.
Such a demonstration would settle this dispute for good.

[Denyav]

>Germany lost, get over it.
>

Well,if Mike Tyson started a fight with 14 ordinary guys like you and me,I am
pretty sure he would end up as a loser.

[Daryl Hunt]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >Germany lost, get over it.
> >
>
> Well,if Mike Tyson started a fight with 14 ordinary guys like you and me,I
am
> pretty sure he would end up as a loser.

That wouldn't be the problem. The Problem would be picking a fight with 14
ordinary guys willing to die taking him down.

[Alan Minyard]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 20:23:23 +0100, "Ian Craig"
> wrote:

>You seem very sure that the UK doesnt have a stealth aircraft - how come?
>Know something we dont? Just cos we havent got a batwing or f117 doesnt mean
>we dont have stealthy aircraft?

The UK does not have an operational "stealth" aircraft.


Al Minyard

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Chris
Manteuffel > writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
>...
>> Then you get into the operational analysis issues like "just when does
>> stealth actually provide a clear benefit anyway?" and that's when the
>> punch-ups usually start: it's a controversial question. (Sure, stealth
>> lets you fly through enemy IADS alone (sort of) and unafraid (well,
>> mostly)... but then the USAF can do that today and tomorrow anyway)
>
>April 2, 1982.

What does stealth get you on Day 1 of the Falklands? A F-117-a-like
doesn't have the range, a B-2 is gross overkill (and lacks the targeting
data: sure, it can get down there and drop bombs, but on what?) Also,
there's a distinct lack of air defence for a stealth aircraft to have to
hide from.

If you had to choose, would a small squadron of F-117-type aircraft be
more or less useful than (for example) AEW Sea Kings deployed and worked
up; CIWS fitted to at least the carriers, amphibs and Type 42s; better
boots; and more Chinooks?

That's what I mean by the analysis: where does stealth get you more
benefits than costs, and what scenarios do you gain in by pursuing that
option to the exclusion of others?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Ian Craig]

Sorry - typo on my part. I meant a stealthy aircraft. Like the other posts
are saying stealth still isnt the be all and end all. I don't think true
stealth will ever exist (at least not within affordable costs)

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 20:23:23 +0100, "Ian Craig"
> > wrote:
>
> >You seem very sure that the UK doesnt have a stealth aircraft - how come?
> >Know something we dont? Just cos we havent got a batwing or f117 doesnt
mean
> >we dont have stealthy aircraft?
>
> The UK does not have an operational "stealth" aircraft.
>
>
> Al Minyard
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Roman J. Rohleder]

(Denyav) schrieb:

>BTW A couple of years ago in very same area an USAF transport plane collided
>with a German transport plane.This event was strange enough I guess.

What was strange with this midair collision?

The german Luftwaffe plane was a Tu154M (taken from the GDR), the US
plane a C141 Starlifter. The german crew was on tour to South Africa -
the pax consisted of Bundeswehr officers and their spouses who wanted
to take place in a sailing race in Kapstadt on the 75th anniversary of
the south african navy. The C141 brought anti-land mine equipment to
Namibia.

The german crew prepared a flight plan for the route, but the algerian
pilots didn´t pass it along to their counterparts in Windhuk(according
to Der Spiegel, 22.09.1997).

Both planes lacked a TCAS, one crew chose the wrong height. The
Luftwaffe crew set a usual international radio frequency, while (as
Der Spiegel claims) the Air Force crew used a "private" one.

According to US Air Mobility Command, the Starlifter wasn´t even
equipped with a transponder.

Gruss, Roman

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

> What does stealth get you on Day 1 of the Falklands?

Day 1? It's gets the Argentinians occupying the islands.

Day 29? It gets you the first serious British attacks...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Denyav) wrote:

> >You have a very shallow knowledge of how radar jamming works in the
> >years after World War II. What you describe is pretty much first
> >chapter "ECM 101," and has nothing to do with methods in current use.
>
> Well,can you tell me which,past,current or projected,ECM/ESM sytem analyses
> forward scatterers?
> None.period.

That you know of.

But spoofing and jamming are pretty universal, and forward-scatter
radars are going to be more vulnerable to some types than others.

Chaff will make a big comeback, for example.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Denyav]

>But spoofing and jamming are pretty universal, and forward-scatter
>radars are going to be more vulnerable to some types than others.
>
>Chaff will make a big comeback,

Thats true, but chaff laying B2s?
That supposed not to happen according to what they told us only one decade ago.

[Denyav]

>What was strange with this midair collision?

Do planeful Luftwaffe or Bundeswehr officers usually take part in sailing
events in other parts of the Globe?.

[Chris Manteuffel]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message >...
> In message >, Chris
> Manteuffel > writes
> >"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
> >...
> >> Then you get into the operational analysis issues like "just when does
> >> stealth actually provide a clear benefit anyway?" and that's when the
> >> punch-ups usually start: it's a controversial question. (Sure, stealth
> >> lets you fly through enemy IADS alone (sort of) and unafraid (well,
> >> mostly)... but then the USAF can do that today and tomorrow anyway)
> >
> >April 2, 1982.
>
> What does stealth get you on Day 1 of the Falklands? A F-117-a-like
> doesn't have the range, a B-2 is gross overkill (and lacks the targeting
> data: sure, it can get down there and drop bombs, but on what?) Also,
> there's a distinct lack of air defence for a stealth aircraft to have to
> hide from.

I realize this. You are right that the money for new stealth bombers
just isn't there, and that the best that you can get is LO planes. I
was just arguing (in a minimalist way) that your statements about how
the RAF/FAA don't need stealth because the USAF can do that already
seem to me to be the same sort of thinking that British Exchequers
have made for 50 years, and which aren't really true.

Incidentally, what kind of investments are RAF/Army putting into
drones? I honestly don't know, I don't recall reading much about their
programs, but the push to graduation has meant that I'm rather out of
the loop on development programs.

Chris Manteuffel

[Alan Minyard]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 19:39:17 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:

>In message >, Chris
>Manteuffel > writes
>>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
>...
>>> Then you get into the operational analysis issues like "just when does
>>> stealth actually provide a clear benefit anyway?" and that's when the
>>> punch-ups usually start: it's a controversial question. (Sure, stealth
>>> lets you fly through enemy IADS alone (sort of) and unafraid (well,
>>> mostly)... but then the USAF can do that today and tomorrow anyway)
>>
>>April 2, 1982.
>
>What does stealth get you on Day 1 of the Falklands? A F-117-a-like
>doesn't have the range, a B-2 is gross overkill (and lacks the targeting
>data: sure, it can get down there and drop bombs, but on what?) Also,
>there's a distinct lack of air defence for a stealth aircraft to have to
>hide from.
>
>If you had to choose, would a small squadron of F-117-type aircraft be
>more or less useful than (for example) AEW Sea Kings deployed and worked
>up; CIWS fitted to at least the carriers, amphibs and Type 42s; better
>boots; and more Chinooks?
>
>That's what I mean by the analysis: where does stealth get you more
>benefits than costs, and what scenarios do you gain in by pursuing that
>option to the exclusion of others?

Well, the US has plenty of helos, boots, etc. We don't really give up
anything to get stealth. I can certainly understand that this would be
an issue for others.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 22:31:56 +0100, "Ian Craig"
> wrote:

>Sorry - typo on my part. I meant a stealthy aircraft. Like the other posts
>are saying stealth still isnt the be all and end all. I don't think true
>stealth will ever exist (at least not within affordable costs)
>
>"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 20:23:23 +0100, "Ian Craig"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >You seem very sure that the UK doesnt have a stealth aircraft - how come?
>> >Know something we dont? Just cos we havent got a batwing or f117 doesnt
>mean
>> >we dont have stealthy aircraft?
>>
>> The UK does not have an operational "stealth" aircraft.
>>
>>
>> Al Minyard

The B-2, F-22 and F35 are certainly close enough :-)

Al Minyard

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Denyav) wrote:

> >But spoofing and jamming are pretty universal, and forward-scatter
> >radars are going to be more vulnerable to some types than others.
> >
> >Chaff will make a big comeback,
>
> Thats true, but chaff laying B2s?

Probably not. One small missile with a load of a couple of pounds of
chaff, spread over a wide area.

> That supposed not to happen according to what they told us only one decade
> ago.

"They" who?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Denyav]

>They" who?

Who claimed that stealth planes would make ECM assets unneccesary.

[Denyav]

>The B-2, F-22 and F35 are certainly close enough :-)

Yeah right,0,0001 sqm frontal RCS and still detected,tracked and imaged very
easily.(not by your fathers radars though)

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Denyav) wrote:

> >They" who?
>
> Who claimed that stealth planes would make ECM assets unneccesary.

That's a "what," not a who.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Chris
Manteuffel > writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
>...
>> What does stealth get you on Day 1 of the Falklands? A F-117-a-like
>> doesn't have the range, a B-2 is gross overkill (and lacks the targeting
>> data: sure, it can get down there and drop bombs, but on what?) Also,
>> there's a distinct lack of air defence for a stealth aircraft to have to
>> hide from.
>
>I realize this. You are right that the money for new stealth bombers
>just isn't there, and that the best that you can get is LO planes. I
>was just arguing (in a minimalist way) that your statements about how
>the RAF/FAA don't need stealth because the USAF can do that already
>seem to me to be the same sort of thinking that British Exchequers
>have made for 50 years, and which aren't really true.

"True enough" for the equipment programme. Who are we credibly going to
fight, that has the sort of air defences that make stealth aircraft
_essential_, and why are we going into that fight alone? (If they're
really that good, _can_ we fight them alone?)

Also, is stealth _really_ the only option, or can the problem be
addresed by other means that are comparatively suboptimal for this
scenario but are more generally cost-effective across the potential
threats and missions?

If there was spare cash kicking around, it would be very nice to have:
but there's no driver to force it: and there are many more credible
capability gaps to fill.


Also, it would not completely amaze me that if such a contingency _did_
arise, we'd beg and plead to investigate some sort of short-notice lease
plus crash training program of four or six F-117s.

>Incidentally, what kind of investments are RAF/Army putting into
>drones? I honestly don't know, I don't recall reading much about their
>programs, but the push to graduation has meant that I'm rather out of
>the loop on development programs.

There's a rather busy office next door to mine that's working on naval
UAV concepts and possibilities (FSC or mid-lifing the 23s are the likely
hosts, if not CV/LPH); the Army has the Watchkeeper project underway to
replace Phoenix; don't know about the RAF.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Alan Minyard]

>>Incidentally, what kind of investments are RAF/Army putting into
>>drones? I honestly don't know, I don't recall reading much about their
>>programs, but the push to graduation has meant that I'm rather out of
>>the loop on development programs.
>
>There's a rather busy office next door to mine that's working on naval
>UAV concepts and possibilities (FSC or mid-lifing the 23s are the likely
>hosts, if not CV/LPH); the Army has the Watchkeeper project underway to
>replace Phoenix; don't know about the RAF.

I thought that you folks were getting the F-35, has that changed?


Al Minyard

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Alan Minyard
> writes
>>There's a rather busy office next door to mine that's working on naval
>>UAV concepts and possibilities (FSC or mid-lifing the 23s are the likely
>>hosts, if not CV/LPH); the Army has the Watchkeeper project underway to
>>replace Phoenix; don't know about the RAF.
>
>I thought that you folks were getting the F-35, has that changed?

The F-35 has an onboard office, thus denying it UAV status :)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[phil hunt]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 21:02:29 +0100, Paul J. Adam > wrote:
>In message >, Chris
>Manteuffel > writes
>>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message
>...
>>> What does stealth get you on Day 1 of the Falklands? A F-117-a-like
>>> doesn't have the range, a B-2 is gross overkill (and lacks the targeting
>>> data: sure, it can get down there and drop bombs, but on what?) Also,
>>> there's a distinct lack of air defence for a stealth aircraft to have to
>>> hide from.
>>
>>I realize this. You are right that the money for new stealth bombers
>>just isn't there, and that the best that you can get is LO planes. I
>>was just arguing (in a minimalist way) that your statements about how
>>the RAF/FAA don't need stealth because the USAF can do that already
>>seem to me to be the same sort of thinking that British Exchequers
>>have made for 50 years, and which aren't really true.
>
>"True enough" for the equipment programme. Who are we credibly going to
>fight, that has the sort of air defences that make stealth aircraft
>_essential_, and why are we going into that fight alone? (If they're
>really that good, _can_ we fight them alone?)

That's actually a whole host of questions: Who do we mean by "we"?
What defense (and associated foreign policy) posture should we have?
How much better are stealth aircraft, compared to unstealth
aircraft, against SAMs / stealth aircraft / unstealth aircraft? Do
stealth aircraft have other benefits? Is it better to go for lots of
cheap systems, or a few expensive systems? How big a priority is it
to minimise own casualties?

>If there was spare cash kicking around, it would be very nice to have:
>but there's no driver to force it: and there are many more credible
>capability gaps to fill.

Which, IYO?

>Also, it would not completely amaze me that if such a contingency _did_
>arise, we'd beg and plead to investigate some sort of short-notice lease
>plus crash training program of four or six F-117s.

Hmmm. The F-117 is yesterday's aircraft; I'm not sure its an optimum
solution to future problems.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[phil hunt]

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 02:35:47 +0100, phil hunt > wrote:
>On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 21:02:29 +0100, Paul J. Adam > wrote:
>>
>>"True enough" for the equipment programme. Who are we credibly going to
>>fight, that has the sort of air defences that make stealth aircraft
>>_essential_, and why are we going into that fight alone? (If they're
>>really that good, _can_ we fight them alone?)
>
>That's actually a whole host of questions: Who do we mean by "we"?
>What defense (and associated foreign policy) posture should we have?
>How much better are stealth aircraft, compared to unstealth
>aircraft, against SAMs / stealth aircraft / unstealth aircraft? Do
>stealth aircraft have other benefits? Is it better to go for lots of
>cheap systems, or a few expensive systems? How big a priority is it
>to minimise own casualties?

Having asked all these questions, I'll have a go at answering them.

Firstly, who is "we"? The UK has three options for foreign policy
alignment: on its own, with the EU or with the USA. This is a not
uncontroversial issue! Britian's relations with the EU (and by
implication with the USA) split the Labour party in the 1980s,
caused the Heseltine resignation (and thus the eventual toppling of
Thatcher), and split the Conservatives in the 1990s. No wonder the
current UK policy is to never have to choose between the EU and USA.

On its own, the UK has about 5% of world GDP; the EU and USA each
have around a quarter of the total, with the USA in the lead,
although the EU's growth by adding new members may change that.

The real difference is the UK is a part of the EU, but not of the
USA: consequently, Britain has more votes (and therefore influence)
in the European Parliament or Council of Ministers than in the US
Congress or cabinet. So (until such time as the USA offers Britain
membership) the decision essentially makes itself: "we" is the
European Union.

What defense posture, then, should the EU have? I prefer somrethin g
like the Swedish or Finnish posture: armed to the teeth, and totally
non-threatening. (Britain currently has very small armed forces
compared to its population or meny it spends of defense; size up the
Swedish or Finnish armed forces relative to the British population,
then compare how big they are.) The EU should have a smallish
professional army, armed with the latest kit, backed up by units
tasked for peacekeeping, and a very large reserve force (200+
divisions). Note that this needn't cost much more than it does
already. In the air, a reasonable objective would be the ability to
gain air supremacy over the combined air forces in Europe's near
abroad (roughly, Eurasia west of the Urals-Afghanistan-Pakistan, and
Africa north of the Sahel)[1]. Note that these countries include
ones with very sophisticated aircraft and SAM capability, ones that
are very primitive, and ones in between.

How useful is stealth? In the future, warfare will be about
detecting the other guy before he detects you -- the first to be
detected loses. More primitive nations, with more primitive radars,
will be the most badly affected by a stealth adversary, because they
won't be able to detect stealth aircraft but would be able to detect
unstealthed ones. (The most primitive countries, with little
anti-aircraft capabilities, with be unaffected by whether their
adfversaries use stealth). Against more technologically capable
opponents, whether they are using stealth thremselves or not, the
use of stealth would probably help to gain a technological edge,
though not necessarily a bit one. So stealth is useful versus a wide
variety of potential adversaries.

(One must also consider exports: would anyone the EU might want to
influence by supplying arms to, have a need or desire for stealth
aircraft? I think the answer is clearly yes).

Current EU aircraft are unstealthed, and designing new ones takes
some time. But aircraft increasingly don't have a wetware control
system, and UAVs (including UCAVs and cruise missiles) are an
increasingly attractive option (I expect the UK's FOAS to be all or
mostly UAV), and the EU is increasingly stealthing them (such as the
SCALP family of cruise missiles). This is sensible and should
continue. The UK (and other EU nations, such as the Netherlands) are
also considering buying the stealthed F-35; this is sensible since
it gives some manned stealth capability.

UAVs should be made as cheap as possible. Defence electronics are
sophisticated and often expensive; consumer electronics are more
sophisticated, and often cheap. Mostly this is due to the value
networks[2] of the respective defence and consumer electronic
industries.

Cheap UAVs would overload the enemy's defences, and minimise own
casulaties.


[1] Not that that means they are considered enemies; indeed some
will probably join the EU at some point. It's a matter of countering
capability.

[2] _The Innovator's Dilemma_ has a good discussion on value
networks (and is an excellent book in general).

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[Chris Manteuffel]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in message >...

> "True enough" for the equipment programme. Who are we credibly going to
> fight, that has the sort of air defences that make stealth aircraft
> _essential_, and why are we going into that fight alone? (If they're
> really that good, _can_ we fight them alone?)

In the next six months? I don't see Britain fighting anyone alone in
the next year. But then again, who saw the Malvinas war in Jan 1982?
(I certainly didn't; then again, I wasn't born until March.)

> Also, is stealth _really_ the only option, or can the problem be
> addresed by other means that are comparatively suboptimal for this
> scenario but are more generally cost-effective across the potential
> threats and missions?

And assess the value of aircraft lost (plus trained pilots and
prestige possibilities) in operations that would have been saved with
stealth ones for the most dangerous missions. (Comparing loss rates
over recent operations doesn't apply because the available stealth
planes handled classes of missions which in this hypothetical war
would have to be handled by less capable planes.)

> If there was spare cash kicking around, it would be very nice to have:
> but there's no driver to force it: and there are many more credible
> capability gaps to fill.

Always more capability gaps to fill.

> Also, it would not completely amaze me that if such a contingency _did_
> arise, we'd beg and plead to investigate some sort of short-notice lease
> plus crash training program of four or six F-117s.

How easily would they fit into the RAF logistical train? I'm told that
the Black Jets are real hanger queens, and normally only forward
deploy to specially prepared airfields. No detailed knowledge,
obviously, but I wonder whether you could create all that on the fly
while at the same time getting up to speed on the airframe itself.

> There's a rather busy office next door to mine that's working on naval
> UAV concepts and possibilities (FSC or mid-lifing the 23s are the likely
> hosts, if not CV/LPH); the Army has the Watchkeeper project underway to
> replace Phoenix; don't know about the RAF.

Okay. I tend to think that drones providing recon are the most
important element to the next generation of warfighting, but I'm a
network geek, so of course I'll skew that way. I'm not quite sold on
this whole revolution in military affairs, but I like some of its
parts.

Chris Manteuffel

[Matthew G. Saroff]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

>
>Low-observable isn't a US monopoly, Al, and the US does more
>collaboration than you might think (though there are still internal
>firewalls; teams working with the US can't then talk to Some Other
>Nations or teams working with them...)
Heck, the theory was developed by the Russians, and
released publically about 30 years ago.

--
Matthew Saroff

Does anyone else out there strongly feel that the folks at the TV
Networks who have censored out Daffy's beak getting blown off (Shoot
Me NOW!) deserve to be stripped naked, tied face down over a chair,
covered with moose musk, and set in the migratory path of a large
moose herd?
Comments to (remove the numbers to reply)
Check http://www.pobox.com/~msaroff, including The Bad Hair Web Page

[Denyav]

>Heck, the theory was developed by the Russians, and
>released publically about 30 years ago.

Actually more than half century ago by Germans and Brits.

[Matthew G. Saroff]

(Denyav) wrote:

>>Heck, the theory was developed by the Russians, and
>>released publically about 30 years ago.
>
>Actually more than half century ago by Germans and Brits.
I'm referring to the mathematics, which are fairly
obscure physics.
The difficulty in low RCS designs has always been
predicting the RCS, and it a Russian mathematician who came up
with basic equations (derived from Maxwell's equations IIRC).
--
--Matthew Saroff
Shrub stole the election, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt
http://www.pobox.com/~msaroff/liar

[Denyav]

>I'm referring to the mathematics, which are fairly
>obscure physics.
> The difficulty in low RCS designs has always been
>predicting the RCS, and it a Russian mathematician who came up
>with basic equations (derived from Maxwell's equations IIRC).

You are right then.(He is now a faculty member in sunny California as far as
know).
Interestingly the powerful mathematics and advances in computing power that
made designing of practical stealth airborne platforms possible,meant also the
end of them.

Cheers.