How long until current 'stealth' techniques are compromised?

[muskau]

Hi, I've been browsing the newsgroup archives for the last month and haven't
found a clear answer to this question. I find alot of the subject topics
here tend to go off on to talks about politics.

It seems alot of importance is put into stealth for aircraft these days,
just wondering who is working on a countering radar system for it?

And if these newer aircraft with their current 'stealth' ability become
compromised, I assume importance would go to who sees who first and how good
long range missile technology has become? If that happens, then which recent
aircraft has the advantage?

And what about companies such as MiG who have been rumoured to be working on
a non-standard stealth system? I don't know any details, but I am wondering
if it designed to reflect radar away from the listener or if it absorbs the
radar itself?

Thankyou for your time.

muskau

[John Cook]

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 12:36:38 +1000, "muskau" >
wrote:

>Hi, I've been browsing the newsgroup archives for the last month and haven't
>found a clear answer to this question. I find alot of the subject topics
>here tend to go off on to talks about politics.
>
>It seems alot of importance is put into stealth for aircraft these days,
>just wondering who is working on a countering radar system for it?
>
Roke Manor is looking at a system called Celldar, its probally best
if you read their website.

see:- http://www.roke.co.uk/sensors/stealth/celldar.asp

Cheers

>And if these newer aircraft with their current 'stealth' ability become
>compromised, I assume importance would go to who sees who first and how good
>long range missile technology has become? If that happens, then which recent
>aircraft has the advantage?
>
>And what about companies such as MiG who have been rumoured to be working on
>a non-standard stealth system? I don't know any details, but I am wondering
>if it designed to reflect radar away from the listener or if it absorbs the
>radar itself?
>
>Thankyou for your time.
>
>muskau
>
>

John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

[Emmanuel.Gustin]

muskau > wrote:

: It seems alot of importance is put into stealth for aircraft these days,
: just wondering who is working on a countering radar system for it?

To give a direct answer to the question, stealth is always
compromised... Because designers have to find a compromise
between stealth and aerodynamics, engines, armament, cost,
etc. Stealth is not absolute; designers aim for a small
radar cross-section but they can't reduce it to zero.

For the same reason, "everyone" is working on a countering
radar. A better radar will also by definition more effective
against stealth aircraft. The systems that are marketed as
"anti-stealth" radars are bipolar or multipolar radars that
separate the receive from the transmitter; not a bad idea,
because stealth is designed to reflect radiation away from the
transmitter, but not a very effective solution, because
designers aim to reflect radition in only a few narrow
directions. AFAIK none is capable of more than giving
a general indication that a stealth aircraft is in the area.

The debate is now on where the balance should be. The USAF
appear the believe that it should be heavily towards stealth,
and is willing to accept the penalties for that -- internal
weapons carriage, for example. Outside the USA there is less
emphasis on stealth and more on the 'conventional' combat
aircraft characteristics, in part for cost reasons, in part
because operators believe that stealth will be difficult to
retain 'in the field'. Personally I do think that stealth
has become more fashionable than its tactical importance
will justify. Compare it to the importance attached to
Mach 2+ performance in the 1960s.

: And if these newer aircraft with their current 'stealth' ability become
: compromised, I assume importance would go to who sees who first and how good
: long range missile technology has become? If that happens, then which recent
: aircraft has the advantage?

It hardly depends on the individual aircraft, it depends on
the 'information' environment. In that sense air combat has
not changed since 1940, when radar gave the RAF a vital
advantage. The 'stealth' designs may still have an advantage
in the sense that their designers build them to rely less on
their own radars (which would give their position away) and
provide them with the hard- and software to collect data
from other sources. But less stealthy designs will have those
as well.

--
Emmanuel Gustin

[Jeb Hoge]

"muskau" > wrote in message >...

> And what about companies such as MiG who have been rumoured to be working on
> a non-standard stealth system? I don't know any details, but I am wondering
> if it designed to reflect radar away from the listener or if it absorbs the
> radar itself?

Sounds like "plasma stealth". I don't believe that's been
demonstrated in any shape or fashion past theory level.

Stealth design is part of the overall package. By its lonesome, a
stealthy airframe can be useful just from the reduced signature, sure,
but it's a one-trick pony just flying along, and that one trick is
self-compromising when releasing weapons since a weapon bay door has
to pop open long enough to release. But combine the stealthy airframe
with tactics and operations that take advantage of the reduced
signature at the same time as using various factors against the
adversary, and you've got a force multiplier that will work under a
much wider range of circumstances. The notion of a lone pair of
F-117s coming over the horizon to put iron on a bunker is simplistic.
The reality is much, much more involved.

[Denyav]

>It seems alot of importance is put into stealth for aircraft these days,
>just wondering who is working on a countering radar system for it?
>

I guess nobody working on it now as many developed countries for example US,UK
and Germany have already very capable counter LO multi-statics available.
(West) Germany was the first nation that started with the development of
counter LO systems in post WWII,in 70s german magazine "Stern" published a
small article about (German) government pork and among many others called a
project sponsored by German ministry of Research&Technology a gov't pork as the
energy efficiency of this form of radar was much lower than conventional
radars.
Of course the "stern"authors did know anything about about stealth platforms
when they published this article and critized this radar development as a n
unneccesary development..
More than 30 years after they developed first dedicated counter LO
radar,Germans still have the most capable counter LO system as newest
generation of German counter LO system is capable of extracting target data
from polarisation data.
US and UK systems are also very capable,US system is even capable to produce an
image of target for ATR purposes but their computing power requirements are
much higher than German system and also they could be more easily jammed.

>And what about companies such as MiG who have been rumoured to be working on
>a non-standard stealth system? I don't know any details, but I am wondering
>if it designed to reflect radar away from the listener or if it absorbs the
>radar itself?

In the era of HPM weapons,trying to absorb incoming electromagnetic energy
would be suicidal,you must try to reject as much electromagnetic energy as
possible,if you only could of course!.

[robert arndt]

(Denyav) wrote in message >...
> >It seems alot of importance is put into stealth for aircraft these days,
> >just wondering who is working on a countering radar system for it?

Germany has its own version of the '90s Czech anti-stealth radar
(which they purchased)as well as EADs developing an anti-stealth
missile that uses multiple seekers to hunt stealth aircraft. One of
the seekers is a plume detector which goes back to WW2 and the
Feuerball weapon (aka Foo Fighter).
Europe has a range of cellular radars and France even has an
Ionospherical radar.
Of course, aircraft like the F-117 aren't really invisible. They can
be detected visually, acoustically, with various LO radars, and as
soon as the bomb bay doors are open.
In the first Gulf War one F-117 was targeted and narrowly avoided
being hit by 2 SAMs while one was actually downed in the Kosovo
conflict. I'm sure we would lose a few more if we ever overflew China
or the FSU with them. The strange thing is that our "friends" are
putting more money into anti-stealth than our "enemies"...

Rob

[WaltBJ]

Keep in mind that radar transmitters can be detected much farther out
than they themselves can detect a target. Iraqis found that out.
Walt BJ

[George]

John Cook > wrote in message >...
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 12:36:38 +1000, "muskau" >
> wrote:
>
> >Hi, I've been browsing the newsgroup archives for the last month and haven't
> >found a clear answer to this question. I find alot of the subject topics
> >here tend to go off on to talks about politics.
> >
> >It seems alot of importance is put into stealth for aircraft these days,
> >just wondering who is working on a countering radar system for it?
> >
> Roke Manor is looking at a system called Celldar, its probally best
> if you read their website.
>
> see:- http://www.roke.co.uk/sensors/stealth/celldar.asp
>


I doubt the effectiveness of the Celldar system in the future as
Cell phone energies are getting smaller and smaller as designers try
to increase battery life. Already, digital cell phones using CDMA
technology transmit with energies less than the noise level of the RF
spectrum. This means that any given cell phone is useless for
detection. As the number of cell towers increase, they will also
probably drop in power to avoid any backlash from the EM radiation
they put out. This means with time, Celldar will probably lose
effectiveness.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(robert arndt) wrote:

> The strange thing is that our "friends" are
> putting more money into anti-stealth than our "enemies"...

You might note that most of Europe still worries about Russia, which has
worked on stealth aircraft in the past.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Thomas J. Paladino Jr.]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >,
> (robert arndt) wrote:
>
> > The strange thing is that our "friends" are
> > putting more money into anti-stealth than our "enemies"...
>
> You might note that most of Europe still worries about Russia, which has
> worked on stealth aircraft in the past.
>

LOL!

Sure....That must be it....

The [often duplicitous] Europeans are pouring significant amounts of money
into anti-stealth radar and weapon systems to counter a hopelessly bankrupt
Russia which cannot even afford fuel for it's current aircraft; and even at
the height of it's power didn't come close to fielding a stealth aircraft.
Not to mention the fact that Russia has sided with 'Old Europe' far more
often than not lately, and that these Europeans have taken seemingly every
step possible to attempt to thwart any American geopolitical and military
advancement in the last three years. But I'm sure these systems are to
counter all the imaginary Russian stealth aircraft that will never be built.

Think about it... what is the REAL market for anti-stealth systems? Third
world dictatorships and despots who would like to carry an ace in the hole
against the American forces, and are willing to pay highly to get it (but
cannot develop it on their own). Period.

Not that the Europeans will freely sell these systems on the open market
right away (well, maybe the French), but the mere existance of a proven,
effective anti-stealth system will be an extremely powerful political tool
for the European powers to carry when trying to 'reign in' the USA (and
believe me, that is their only, ultimate, objective). Simply the threat of
providing (or maybe 'leaking') this system to a foreign unfriendly power
may, theoretically, give the US military pause in considering an action, and
give the EU a bigger say in matters the USA chooses to take up (as their
current say is somewhere around zero right now).

Frankly, it has become obvious that while Europe may not (yet) be an all-out
enemy, they are certainly an often hostile adversary, and definiately not an
ally.

[M. J. Powell]

In message >, robert
arndt > writes
(Denyav) wrote in message
>...
>> >It seems alot of importance is put into stealth for aircraft these days,
>> >just wondering who is working on a countering radar system for it?
>
>Germany has its own version of the '90s Czech anti-stealth radar
>(which they purchased)as well as EADs developing an anti-stealth
>missile that uses multiple seekers to hunt stealth aircraft. One of
>the seekers is a plume detector which goes back to WW2 and the
>Feuerball weapon (aka Foo Fighter).

Would you mind expanding on your comments on 'Feuerball' and 'Foo
Fighters', Robert?

Mike

[Henry J. Cobb]

"muskau" > wrote in message >...
> And if these newer aircraft with their current 'stealth' ability become
> compromised, I assume importance would go to who sees who first and how good
> long range missile technology has become? If that happens, then which recent
> aircraft has the advantage?

Since the Air Force has never put their stealth aircraft into harm's
way without jamming I would think they agree that stealth alone has
never been 100 percent effective.

So they're 100 percent dependent on the Marines.

Which is why Boing just got the contract to develop the Growler.

-HJC

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> om...
> > In article >,
> > (robert arndt) wrote:
> >
> > > The strange thing is that our "friends" are
> > > putting more money into anti-stealth than our "enemies"...
> >
> > You might note that most of Europe still worries about Russia, which has
> > worked on stealth aircraft in the past.
> >
>
> LOL!
>
> Sure....That must be it....

Yes, it is.

> The [often duplicitous] Europeans are pouring significant amounts of money
> into anti-stealth radar and weapon systems to counter a hopelessly bankrupt
> Russia which cannot even afford fuel for it's current aircraft; and even at
> the height of it's power didn't come close to fielding a stealth aircraft.

No, they had some reasonably-stealthy stuff, they just couldn't afford
to make it in large quantities. For enough cash, the old Soviet arms
labs would certainly make something stealthy for pretty much anyone who
has a cash.

> Not to mention the fact that Russia has sided with 'Old Europe' far more
> often than not lately, and that these Europeans have taken seemingly every
> step possible to attempt to thwart any American geopolitical and military
> advancement in the last three years. But I'm sure these systems are to
> counter all the imaginary Russian stealth aircraft that will never be built.

Sarcasm aside, you have no clue as to why the Europeans have built this
hardware. If they were defending against an American threat, as you
suggest, they'd be building more actual *weapons* like planes and tanks,
instead of a few defensive systems that don't make sense unless you have
a superpower's military to back you up.

> Think about it... what is the REAL market for anti-stealth systems? Third
> world dictatorships and despots who would like to carry an ace in the hole
> against the American forces, and are willing to pay highly to get it (but
> cannot develop it on their own). Period.

This has a certain amount of sense to it, but it's a pretty iffy
conclusion. For one, you have to assume that these things *work* versus
stealth planes to a huge degree, and that's definitely debatable.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Kevin Brooks]

"Henry J. Cobb" > wrote in message
om...
> "muskau" > wrote in message
>...
> > And if these newer aircraft with their current 'stealth' ability become
> > compromised, I assume importance would go to who sees who first and how
good
> > long range missile technology has become? If that happens, then which
recent
> > aircraft has the advantage?
>
> Since the Air Force has never put their stealth aircraft into harm's
> way without jamming I would think they agree that stealth alone has
> never been 100 percent effective.

Never? Not sure about that--ISTR that some of the B-2 missions have been
conducted without jamming support.

>
> So they're 100 percent dependent on the Marines.

Uhmmm...only so far. We still have jamming pods for tactical aircraft...and
remember that the USAF contributes crewmen to those EA-6 units (they are the
closest thing to joint units you can find at the tactical level, with the
exception of maybe the E-8 JSTARS crews). And there are other aspects to ECM
as well; i.e., jamming the enemy communications is still primarily a USAF
role, IIRC.

Brooks

>
> Which is why Boing just got the contract to develop the Growler.
>
> -HJC

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Henry J. Cobb" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Since the Air Force has never put their stealth aircraft into harm's
> way without jamming I would think they agree that stealth alone has
> never been 100 percent effective.
>

The USAF has put stealth aircraft in harm's way without jamming. Jamming
would be counterproductive, as it would indicate an attack is imminent.

[Thomas J. Paladino Jr.]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >,
> "Thomas J. Paladino Jr." > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > In article >,
> > > (robert arndt) wrote:
> > >
> > > > The strange thing is that our "friends" are
> > > > putting more money into anti-stealth than our "enemies"...
> > >
> > > You might note that most of Europe still worries about Russia, which
has
> > > worked on stealth aircraft in the past.
> > >
> >
> > LOL!
> >
> > Sure....That must be it....
>
> Yes, it is.
>
> > The [often duplicitous] Europeans are pouring significant amounts of
money
> > into anti-stealth radar and weapon systems to counter a hopelessly
bankrupt
> > Russia which cannot even afford fuel for it's current aircraft; and even
at
> > the height of it's power didn't come close to fielding a stealth
aircraft.
>
> No, they had some reasonably-stealthy stuff, they just couldn't afford
> to make it in large quantities. For enough cash, the old Soviet arms
> labs would certainly make something stealthy for pretty much anyone who
> has a cash.

Well, thats pretty much the problem; nobody has the cash. As it is now, the
USA can just barely afford stealth, the EU cannot afford it at all, and
Russia is hopeless. Perhaps China, but even that is a long stretch (and
politically, considering the historic paranoia and anxiety that Russia feels
towards it's neighbor, I don't see Russia selling a weapon more advanced
than they are able field for themselves to China). As for the rest of the
world, it simply is not an option at all. As much as the third world despots
may want a stealth capability, it is simply not within their wildest dreams,
unless a major breakthrough is made regarding it's production costs. And nob
ody except the US has the research capability to make such a breakthrough.

The export market for stealth is almost nil. The export market for
anti-stealth, is, however, vast.

>
> > Not to mention the fact that Russia has sided with 'Old Europe' far more
> > often than not lately, and that these Europeans have taken seemingly
every
> > step possible to attempt to thwart any American geopolitical and
military
> > advancement in the last three years. But I'm sure these systems are to
> > counter all the imaginary Russian stealth aircraft that will never be
built.
>
> Sarcasm aside, you have no clue as to why the Europeans have built this
> hardware. If they were defending against an American threat, as you
> suggest, they'd be building more actual *weapons* like planes and tanks,
> instead of a few defensive systems that don't make sense unless you have
> a superpower's military to back you up.

Read my statements more carefully. I never meant to say that the Europeans
are hoping to defend themselves against a military attack from the USA
(which, regardless of political attitudes will just not happen anytime
soon). But that developing these systems could give them negotiating clout
in global matters which the USA may want to act upon in the future, as they
currently have almost no say at all. It's a political objective, not a
military one.

Take, for example the recent Iraq situation. The 'Old Europe' powers were
staunchly against the invasion (for various reasons, none of which are
relevant to this discussion), but the USA was obviously determined to invade
Iraq, regardless of their opinions. The European powers were, essentially,
powerless to protect their interests in Iraq, and had no effective
negotiating clout with the Americans. They were brushed aside and there was
nothing they could do about it.

However, imagine the situation if there was a possibility that, perhaps,
Saddam may be able to purchase (or be 'leaked'), through, say, the French, a
deterrant system capable of rendering our most valued and expensive weapons
systems vulnerable. Suddenly the European point of view on the matter
becomes far more relevant.

> > Think about it... what is the REAL market for anti-stealth systems?
Third
> > world dictatorships and despots who would like to carry an ace in the
hole
> > against the American forces, and are willing to pay highly to get it
(but
> > cannot develop it on their own). Period.
>
> This has a certain amount of sense to it, but it's a pretty iffy
> conclusion. For one, you have to assume that these things *work* versus
> stealth planes to a huge degree, and that's definitely debatable.

Thats true enough, though it is disturbing to me that this research is being
carried on in the first place.

[Thomas Schoene]

Henry J. Cobb wrote:
> Since the Air Force has never put their stealth aircraft into harm's
> way without jamming I would think they agree that stealth alone has
> never been 100 percent effective.

It has been widely reported that USAF F-117s flying into Baghdad were
initally supported with jammers, but that this practice was stopped when the
Stealth pilots complained that the AAA was opening up before they dropped
their bombs. The gunners were apparently being alerted to the impending
attacks by the fact that their radars were being jammed. When the jamming
was stopped, the AAA only began firing reactively *after* the bombs went
off.

> So they're 100 percent dependent on the Marines.

??? The Navy flies most of the EA-6Bs, and they do deploy to land bases from
time to time, as well as from carriers.

> Which is why Boing just got the contract to develop the Growler.

This contract has nothing to do with the Air Force, since the USAF is not
actually planning to get any EA-18s. The Air Force solution appears to be
EB-52s equipped for very powerful stand-off jamming, as wll as fairly masive
hard-kill defense suppression.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Kevin Brooks]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Henry J. Cobb wrote:
> > Since the Air Force has never put their stealth aircraft into harm's
> > way without jamming I would think they agree that stealth alone has
> > never been 100 percent effective.
>
> It has been widely reported that USAF F-117s flying into Baghdad were
> initally supported with jammers, but that this practice was stopped when
the
> Stealth pilots complained that the AAA was opening up before they dropped
> their bombs. The gunners were apparently being alerted to the impending
> attacks by the fact that their radars were being jammed. When the jamming
> was stopped, the AAA only began firing reactively *after* the bombs went
> off.
>
> > So they're 100 percent dependent on the Marines.
>
> ??? The Navy flies most of the EA-6Bs, and they do deploy to land bases
from
> time to time, as well as from carriers.
>
> > Which is why Boing just got the contract to develop the Growler.
>
> This contract has nothing to do with the Air Force, since the USAF is not
> actually planning to get any EA-18s. The Air Force solution appears to be
> EB-52s equipped for very powerful stand-off jamming, as wll as fairly
masive
> hard-kill defense suppression.

Tom, the EB-52 remains in the mythical category, last I knew. The EA-6 is
considered a true joint asset, and the USAF contributes to its manning.

Brooks

[Thomas Schoene]

Kevin Brooks wrote:
> "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...

>> This contract has nothing to do with the Air Force, since the USAF
>> is not actually planning to get any EA-18s. The Air Force solution
>> appears to be EB-52s equipped for very powerful stand-off jamming,
>> as wll as fairly masive hard-kill defense suppression.
>
> Tom, the EB-52 remains in the mythical category, last I knew.

I agree it's not confirmed (hence the "appears to be" in my post). However,
it's looking increasingly likely, IMO.

> The
> EA-6 is considered a true joint asset, and the USAF contributes to
> its manning.

Yes, but this does not contradict my post at all. The EA-18 is apparently
not being bought joint (at least not yet) and the procurement numbers being
discussed seem to be predicated on needing to equip ten carrier airwings
with six aircraft each, without provision for expeditionary squadrons.
Sure it will be tasked jointly; everything is these days. But there
probably won't be any to deploy with Air Force AEFs.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Kevin Brooks]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
> > hlink.net...
>
> >> This contract has nothing to do with the Air Force, since the USAF
> >> is not actually planning to get any EA-18s. The Air Force solution
> >> appears to be EB-52s equipped for very powerful stand-off jamming,
> >> as wll as fairly masive hard-kill defense suppression.
> >
> > Tom, the EB-52 remains in the mythical category, last I knew.
>
> I agree it's not confirmed (hence the "appears to be" in my post).
However,
> it's looking increasingly likely, IMO.

Not too sure about that. I suspect the USAF is more interested in keeping
what remaining heavy bomber capability it enjoys from the remaining B-52's
than it would be in turning a chunk of them into EB's.

>
> > The
> > EA-6 is considered a true joint asset, and the USAF contributes to
> > its manning.
>
> Yes, but this does not contradict my post at all. The EA-18 is apparently
> not being bought joint (at least not yet) and the procurement numbers
being
> discussed seem to be predicated on needing to equip ten carrier airwings
> with six aircraft each, without provision for expeditionary squadrons.
> Sure it will be tasked jointly; everything is these days. But there
> probably won't be any to deploy with Air Force AEFs.

And the EA-18 would also be jointly manned, and jointly used. Ten CAW's
worth provides a few left ashore, which is the way they currently handle the
support of the AEF's with EA-6's. Granted there has been talk of wanting
more capability, but there has also been talk of using UAV's for this role
as well.

Brooks

>
> --
> Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
> "If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
> special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)
>
>
>
>

[robert arndt]

> > > The [often duplicitous] Europeans are pouring significant amounts of
> money
> > > into anti-stealth radar and weapon systems to counter a hopelessly
> bankrupt
> > > Russia which cannot even afford fuel for it's current aircraft; and even
> at
> > > the height of it's power didn't come close to fielding a stealth
> aircraft.
> >
> > No, they had some reasonably-stealthy stuff, they just couldn't afford
> > to make it in large quantities. For enough cash, the old Soviet arms
> > labs would certainly make something stealthy for pretty much anyone who
> > has a cash.

That's correct. The FSU was engaged in the T-60S bomber project which
is still active as well as several stealth configurations put forth
from the design bereaus of MiG and Sukhoi. Then there's plasma stealth
research and anti-stealth missile systems of which one type is
operational.
>
> Well, thats pretty much the problem; nobody has the cash. As it is now, the
> USA can just barely afford stealth, the EU cannot afford it at all, and
> Russia is hopeless.

Wrong. The UK (Bae), France (Dassault) and Germany (EADS) all have
stealth aircraft and missile research on-going. The British HALO and
German Firefly II might even be operational by now. EADS is moving
forward with its stealth cruise missile and anti-stealth missile
systems. Bae has several proposals for a wide range of stealth
aircraft and missiles (formerly from AVPRO, now open to others)as well
as the stealth ship SeaWraith. France has Dassault and the AVE which
may be either a UAV, UCAV, or piloted aircraft in the final design.

And nobody except the US has the research capability to make such a
breakthrough.

Total BS. Germany had visual stealth in WW1 with the Taube, a stealth
aircraft in WW2 (Go-229 with radar-absorbing paint), and independently
came up with the MBB Lampyridae (Firefly) stealth interceptor by 1981.
Like the Canadian CF-105 Arrow, however, the US Govt. exerted extreme
pressure on Germany to drop the program which would have been superior
to the F-117 as it was an armed interceptor. MBB, which became part of
DASA, DB Aerospace, then EADS never gave up the program. It has been
suggested that the program survived as a European multinational effort
since two German stealth triangles (Firefly II) were spotted over
South Africa's Overberg Test Range a few years back. Germany alone is
pioneering the anti-stealth missile and has designs for a metamorphic
aircraft beyond anything the US has planned for the same time of IOC
of 2020+
>
> The export market for stealth is almost nil. The export market for
> anti-stealth, is, however, vast.

True, but independent stealth capability is active. China, India,
South Africa, and Israel all are working on either stealth aircraft
projects, missiles, or both.

> > > Not to mention the fact that Russia has sided with 'Old Europe' far more
> > > often than not lately, and that these Europeans have taken seemingly
> every
> > > step possible to attempt to thwart any American geopolitical and
> military
> > > advancement in the last three years. But I'm sure these systems are to
> > > counter all the imaginary Russian stealth aircraft that will never be
> built.
> >
> > Sarcasm aside, you have no clue as to why the Europeans have built this
> > hardware. If they were defending against an American threat, as you
> > suggest, they'd be building more actual *weapons* like planes and tanks,
> > instead of a few defensive systems that don't make sense unless you have
> > a superpower's military to back you up.
>
They are, according to the European military journals, responding to
the US attempts to keep stealth out of the hands of everyone,
including their friends. The UK was the first to break this agreement
by collaborating with Dassault on stealth development. The Germans of
course continued on without any agreement with the US. Russia still
has active projects but is strapped for cash. China is actively trying
to develop a stealth aircraft- the JXX. South Africa and Sweden both
have stealth missiles and ships under development.

> Read my statements more carefully. I never meant to say that the Europeans
> are hoping to defend themselves against a military attack from the USA
> (which, regardless of political attitudes will just not happen anytime
> soon). But that developing these systems could give them negotiating clout
> in global matters which the USA may want to act upon in the future, as they
> currently have almost no say at all. It's a political objective, not a
> military one.
>
> Take, for example the recent Iraq situation. The 'Old Europe' powers were
> staunchly against the invasion (for various reasons, none of which are
> relevant to this discussion), but the USA was obviously determined to invade
> Iraq, regardless of their opinions. The European powers were, essentially,
> powerless to protect their interests in Iraq, and had no effective
> negotiating clout with the Americans. They were brushed aside and there was
> nothing they could do about it.

Except of course not send the US any troops to aid in the
reconstruction of Iraq. As a direct result our military is
overstretched and in danger of not being able to wage two seperate
wars should one break out in the East. Our soldiers are dying daily
and Iraq will be an election year issue that might cost President Bush
a second term. Going it alone is only good in the short run as we have
no clear exit strategy and stuck in a financial quagmire that
irritates the American citizen paying for this "adventure".
>
> However, imagine the situation if there was a possibility that, perhaps,
> Saddam may be able to purchase (or be 'leaked'), through, say, the French, a
> deterrant system capable of rendering our most valued and expensive weapons
> systems vulnerable. Suddenly the European point of view on the matter
> becomes far more relevant.
>
> > > Think about it... what is the REAL market for anti-stealth systems?
> Third
> > > world dictatorships and despots who would like to carry an ace in the
> hole
> > > against the American forces, and are willing to pay highly to get it
> (but
> > > cannot develop it on their own). Period.
> >
> > This has a certain amount of sense to it, but it's a pretty iffy
> > conclusion. For one, you have to assume that these things *work* versus
> > stealth planes to a huge degree, and that's definitely debatable.
>
> Thats true enough, though it is disturbing to me that this research is being
> carried on in the first place.

The detection systems alone do not render stealth aircraft useless...
but link it to the German anti-stealth seeking missile and it is an
effective counter.

Rob

[Denyav]

>Keep in mind that radar transmitters can be detected much farther out
>than they themselves can detect a target. Iraqis found that out.

Yes,Iraqis found that out,probably
Iranians,Syrians,Somalians,Zambians,Micronesians and all Backwardistanians
will find out the same thing.

[Denyav]

>he USAF has put stealth aircraft in harm's way without jamming. Jamming
>would be counterproductive, as it would indicate an attack is imminent.

Really? During Balkan conflict no US aircraft,stealth or not,flew without
Jammer support.
Two f117 were hit ,one lost,the other safely returned,both because of jammer
failures.

The originator of now famous saying "Jammers are like American Express never
leave home without them" is a f117 "driver".period.

[Denyav]

>or the FSU with them. The strange thing is that our "friends" are
>putting more money into anti-stealth than our "enemies"...
>
>Rob

A small but interesting note,German post WWII counter LO work started short
time after Harold Macmillan transferred British and seized German stealth
technology to US.

[Denyav]

>The detection systems alone do not render stealth aircraft useless...
>but link it to the German anti-stealth seeking missile and it is an
>effective counter.

But who needs missiles?
You dont even need exotic weapons like EM missiles,a multi static system
designed to detect stealth platforms might be turned into a "kill" system
instantly if you can keep frequencies and phases of several powerful emitters
under control,a kind of poor mans HPM weapon.

[Denyav]

>Take, for example the recent Iraq situation. The 'Old Europe' powers were
>staunchly against the invasion (for various reasons, none of which are
>relevant to this discussion), but the USA was obviously determined to invade
>Iraq, regardless of their opinions. The European powers were,

Both US and Europeans were and are aware of next paradigm shift ,Europeans
simply want to wait,on contrary US got to act before it takes place no matter
what.

As I said before,I think the most powerful weapon in US arsenal is the
Greenback.
The most likely peer competitors of US are also the biggest lenders of US (and
US is the biggest borrower of them),that offers US a unique chance to
destabilize likely peer competitors by devaluating Dollar.

As Nixon said long time ago"Dollar is our currency,but your problem"

[phil hunt]

On 02 Jan 2004 06:06:59 GMT, Denyav > wrote:
>>Take, for example the recent Iraq situation. The 'Old Europe' powers were
>>staunchly against the invasion (for various reasons, none of which are
>>relevant to this discussion), but the USA was obviously determined to invade
>>Iraq, regardless of their opinions. The European powers were,
>
>Both US and Europeans were and are aware of next paradigm shift ,Europeans
>simply want to wait,on contrary US got to act before it takes place no matter
>what.
>
>As I said before,I think the most powerful weapon in US arsenal is the
>Greenback.
>The most likely peer competitors of US are also the biggest lenders of US (and
>US is the biggest borrower of them),that offers US a unique chance to
>destabilize likely peer competitors by devaluating Dollar.
>
>As Nixon said long time ago"Dollar is our currency,but your problem"

I suspect the days of the dollar as international reserve currency
are numbered:

<http://www.cabalamat.org/weblog/art_145.html>

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[robert arndt]

(Denyav) wrote in message >...
> >The detection systems alone do not render stealth aircraft useless...
> >but link it to the German anti-stealth seeking missile and it is an
> >effective counter.
>
> But who needs missiles?
> You dont even need exotic weapons like EM missiles,a multi static system
> designed to detect stealth platforms might be turned into a "kill" system
> instantly if you can keep frequencies and phases of several powerful emitters
> under control,a kind of poor mans HPM weapon.

Yes, you are talking about a theoretical ADW "aerial denial weapon"
that would knock aircraft out of the sky without knocking out powered
systems on the ground.
Trouble is, like the German situation in WW2, you would have to drop
such a weapon ABOVE the attacking force. German fighters did this near
the end of the war. Instead of fighting bombers traditionally, they
climbed above them and bombed them!
But US and coalition aircraft strikes today are seldom that
concentrated; rather, they operate in waves of aircraft or pockets. A
ground system would be better but then presents itself as a priority
target to knock out. Second problem would be the power required to
sustain these emitters.
The EADS anti-stealth missile has a multiple seeker system that is
initially launched into the path of the stealth aircraft. As it closes
rapidly it starts looking visually for the aircraft while sniffing out
the exhaust with the plume detector. Once located no manner of
aircraft defensive aids would prevent the missile from striking.

Rob

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Denyav) wrote:

> But who needs missiles?
> You dont even need exotic weapons like EM missiles,a multi static system
> designed to detect stealth platforms might be turned into a "kill" system
> instantly if you can keep frequencies and phases of several powerful emitters
> under control,a kind of poor mans HPM weapon.

....after you increase their output by a few orders of magnitude.

Not going to happen.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[robert arndt]

"M. J. Powell" > wrote in message >...
> In message >, robert
> arndt > writes
> (Denyav) wrote in message
> >...
> >> >It seems alot of importance is put into stealth for aircraft these days,
> >> >just wondering who is working on a countering radar system for it?
> >
> >Germany has its own version of the '90s Czech anti-stealth radar
> >(which they purchased)as well as EADs developing an anti-stealth
> >missile that uses multiple seekers to hunt stealth aircraft. One of
> >the seekers is a plume detector which goes back to WW2 and the
> >Feuerball weapon (aka Foo Fighter).
>
> Would you mind expanding on your comments on 'Feuerball' and 'Foo
> Fighters', Robert?
>
> Mike


Sure, but as soon as I do a whole bunch of anti-German RAM regulars
are going to try to discredit what I say.
Anyway, it is believed by some people that the mysterious burning
balls of fire nicknamed "Foo Fighters" by US pilots that followed
their aircraft were either:

a) unknown aerial phenomenon
b) alien/UFO craft
c) German secret weapon

Most RAM regulars will just put this subject in the A category and
file it under unknown.
However, what these people fail to do is tell you that the Foo Fighter
sightings were heavily documented by the 415th NFS, caught on film,
and reported as a German secret weapon in 3 world newspapers in Dec
'44/Jan '45.
They only appeared over GERMAN HELD TERRITORY in the period from 11/44
to 4/45 and they came from THE GROUND, not the air which discredits
the UFO fanatics.
After Germany surrendered the ETO sightings stopped... only to resume
briefly in 8/45 over Japan- Germany's ally. It is now known that
secret U-boat technology transfers were going on and at the end the
Germans gave the Japanese all their most secret stuff which included:
jet and rocket engines, designs for jet and rocket aircraft, guided
missiles, proximity fuses, and uranium for their atomic bomb project.
It is logical that among the technology transferred was the Feuerball
(Fireball) weapon.
The Feuerball was an SS project and can be accurately described as a
flattened disc powered by an advanced engine that was used as a
psychological weapon against the bomber aircraft. At Messerschmitt's
Oberammergau facility an electrical field device with a range of a few
hundred feet was built. It is believed that that device was
incorporated into the Feuerball. When the weapon, launched off a
modified Enzian launcher, got into the air it used an advanced plume
sensor to home in on the bomber aircraft's engines. Then when it
closed to a few hundred feet sent out a damaging electrical field that
caused the bomber engines to malfunction/stop.
Those who are critical of this description fail to tell others that
the bombers that did come into CLOSE contact with the Feuerball became
DISABLED. The field effect is DOCUMENTED by the 415th NFS, 9th AF, and
others.
Quite often the gunners onboard fired at the strange burning objects
but they sped away at high speed (triggered by a trip mechanism under
the Feuerball's armor plate). The information here is partly from the
415th NFS documentation, newspaper reports, and Renato Vesco's books
on the subject.
The problem with identifying this weapon is that it is an SS project
and involves disc technology that is still kept classified. The USAAF
heaviliy documented the "Foo Fighters" by never offered any clear
explanation for them.
The origin of this weapon is also believed to have been initiated by
the Italian scientist Belluzzo which was working on the big SS disc
aircraft. During the war Belluzzo came up with the idea of an Italian
jet-powered round bomb called a "Turboproietta". When he was placed
under SS control and worked on the Schriever disc enlargement along
with Miethe and Habermohl the Feuerball project also came to life.
The burning halo effect of these objects has never been precisely
explained. One theory is that they match the Turboproietta which looks
like a round jet wheel with four exhausts. Trouble is no known German
jet engine could fit the dimensions of the Feuerball, let alone four.
Another theory is that the Feuerball was an aerial flakmine with eight
rotors, four of which held Pabst ramjets which produced the fire halo
in flight sort of like what the Fw Triebflugel would have looked like
in combat. Only problem with that theory is that there never were any
descriptions of rotors on these objects nor engines. The entire body
was engulfed in flame. Furthermore a flakmine was meant to carry an
amatol warhead and explode in the bomber stream. No Feuerball
exploded- ever.
So, we are left with Vesco's description which matches what was
encountered in flight. The electrical field weapon was captured at
Oberammergau along with the Me P.1101... but no Feuerball. These were
constructed by the FFO of Wiener Neustadt and launched from forest
airstrips where the Messerschmitt Enzian was tested, hence the use of
the modified launcher.
Anyway, I hope this information is not too confusing. All SS projects
concerning disc craft of the E-4 Unit are still highly classified. In
past threads I have documented the sight dates, location, etc as well
as provided the newpapers reported and dates and reference sources.

Rob

p.s. the fact that both German and Japanese pilots saw the craft to
and didn't know what they were is irrelevent. Unless they had a need
to know they wouldn't just like one of our F-16 pilots spotting a
black project aircraft in the air wouldn't be able to identify it
either. Please use common sense in evaluating the above. No aerial
phenomenon targets US bombers at random and alien UFOs don't come from
the ground in German-held territory. The weapon was reported as a
German one and from all accounts is.

[Denyav]

>Yes, you are talking about a theoretical ADW "aerial denial weapon"
>that would knock aircraft out of the sky without knocking out powered
>systems on the ground.

Actually I was talking about something much different.
Lets consider a multi static system using hundreds or thousands of commercial
emitters and only a dozen or so powerful dedicated military emitters.If you can
detect and track a stealth platform (or any platform) , these military emitters
could be used as frequency and phase controlled combined devices to produce
much higher levels of energy at the target area.
Problem is phase locking but seemingly solved.
Such a device will not be able to engage targets at exotic ranges,wont be able
to recover GW or TW levels energy at target like EM Missilles and they are
strictly line sight type devices, but they will severely degrade the any
adversaries ability to attack.
And most importantly they are very cheap in comparison to "real" HPM weapons.

[Denyav]

>..after you increase their output by a few orders of magnitude.
>
>Not going to happen.

If you can keep the frequencies AND phases under control,then you have no
problem.

[Denyav]

>I suspect the days of the dollar as international reserve currency
>are numbered:

I strongly suspect both Europeans and Japsen will fight to keep Dollar as an
international reserve currency,We are their biggest debtor and they are our
biggest lenders,and we are going to pay off our foreign debt in Dollars not in
Euros or Yens.
Wouldn't be nice if you were able to pay off your mortgage in worthless papers?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
>
> Really?
>

Really.


>
> During Balkan conflict no US aircraft,stealth or not,flew without
> Jammer support.
>

Nope. Sending jammers along with stealth aircraft would be
counterproductive. The jammers would be a signal that an attack is
imminent.


>
> Two f117 were hit ,one lost,the other safely returned,both because of
jammer
> failures.
>

Nope.


>
> The originator of now famous saying "Jammers are like American Express
never
> leave home without them" is a f117 "driver".period.
>

Nope.

[Johnny Bravo]

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 06:13:57 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>> During Balkan conflict no US aircraft,stealth or not,flew without
>> Jammer support.
>>
>
>Nope. Sending jammers along with stealth aircraft would be
>counterproductive. The jammers would be a signal that an attack is
>imminent.

LOL. And what exactly does that do for them? Without jamming they
can track and shoot down stealth aircraft that get close enough to a
radar. When you are getting that close you start jamming otherwise
they are going to see you and blow you out of the sky. See below.

>> Two f117 were hit ,one lost,the other safely returned,both because of
>jammer
>> failures.
>>
>
>Nope.

March 29, 1999 8:38, the stealth F-117 bomber, flown by Capt Dale
Zelco, was shoot down near the village Budjanovci, 64 km from
Belgrade. They broadcast footage of the wreckage on TV. The USAF
attributed the shootdown to three factors. 1) Yugoslav defenses
adpating to the airstrikes and finding ways to work around their
limitations. 2) US forces got too predictable in their routing and
multiple SAM units were moved into the path of the F-117 and brought
it down with a salvo of missiles. 3) EA-6B jamming aircraft assigned
to protect the F-117 was too distant to provide effective jamming. As
a result the F-117 was more visible to radar than usual. (source: Air
Forces Monthly, No.138 September 1999)

Read #3 as many times as it takes to sink in.

April 30 1999 An F-117A of the 49th FW was damaged during strike
mission by a nearby explosion of an SA-3 SAM, "...causing loss of part
of the tail section, but the aircraft was able to return safely to
Spangdahlem air base, Germany." (source: Air Forces Monthly, July
1999, p. 75)

Your repeated denial of reality is noted.

--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft

[M. J. Powell]

In message >, robert
arndt > writes
>"M. J. Powell" > wrote in message
>...

Snip

>> >Feuerball weapon (aka Foo Fighter).
>>
>> Would you mind expanding on your comments on 'Feuerball' and 'Foo
>> Fighters', Robert?
>>
>> Mike
>
>
>Sure, but as soon as I do a whole bunch of anti-German RAM regulars
>are going to try to discredit what I say.
>Anyway, it is believed by some people that the mysterious burning
>balls of fire nicknamed "Foo Fighters" by US pilots that followed
>their aircraft were either:
>
>a) unknown aerial phenomenon
>b) alien/UFO craft
>c) German secret weapon

Big snip

Thank very much, Robert. It expands what little I have read about it.

The bit about veering away from gunfire seems a little suspect. It would
be hard to accomplish today.

But they were never used at night against the RAF? The 'Blue Master
Searchlight' was another rumour.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Denyav) wrote:

> >..after you increase their output by a few orders of magnitude.
> >
> >Not going to happen.
>
> If you can keep the frequencies AND phases under control,then you have no
> problem.

Which, of course, you can't, with a large number of commercial emitters.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Denyav]

>Nope. Sending jammers along with stealth aircraft would be
>counterproductive. The jammers would be a signal that an attack is
>imminent.

Still better than losing stealth aircraft,I guess.

>> Two f117 were hit ,one lost,the other safely returned,both because of
>jammer
>> failures.
>>
>
>Nope.
>
Unfortunately true.

> The originator of now famous saying "Jammers are like American Express
>never
>> leave home without them" is a f117 "driver".period.
>>
>
>Nope.
>

Unfortunately true too,Moreover,it originated during DS not Balkan
conflict,even in DS F117s had no easy time,Balkan conflict was only worse.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Denyav) wrote:

> Unfortunately true too,Moreover,it originated during DS not Balkan
> conflict,even in DS F117s had no easy time,Balkan conflict was only worse.

So the 1200+ sorties that the F-117s flew over Iraq during Desert Storm
with zero losses were a "hard" time?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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