Why is Stealth So Important?

Stealth is used today to "knock down the door" and the rest of
the stuff does the grunt work. The B-2 and other stealth assets
are used to knock down the electronic systems (radar,

Yeah right,It proved its abilities,albeit under full ECM support aganist
defences of Panama,Afghanistan,Iraq,Serbia etc.
(In Balkans two ECM failures meant two f117 damages,but nevermind)
I wonder how they would fare against US ,UK or German counter LO systems?

Today you can detect and track a LO aircraft even more easily than conventional
aircraft with multistatics.
The stealty airborne platforms have only a PR value today,and thats the reason
why Air Force put them on display on every occasion,even though the passive
stealth is an extremely "sight-sensitive" technology !.

"Denyav" wrote

Stealth is used today to "knock down the door" and the rest of
the stuff does the grunt work. The B-2 and other stealth assets
are used to knock down the electronic systems (radar,

Yeah right,It proved its abilities,albeit under full ECM support aganist
defences of Panama,Afghanistan,Iraq,Serbia etc.
(In Balkans two ECM failures meant two f117 damages,but nevermind)


The US Military uses ECM and decoys. They would use them whether
or not stealth aircraft existed.

I wonder how they would fare against US ,UK or German counter LO systems?

I don't know what UK and German "counter LO" systems are deployed and
integrated into their air defense system, or even if it exists.

Today you can detect and track a LO aircraft even more easily than conventional
aircraft with multistatics.

Your sentence doesn't make sense, so I'm assuming that English isn't your native
language, and will leave it at that.

The stealty airborne platforms have only a PR value today,and thats the reason
why Air Force put them on display on every occasion,even though the passive
stealth is an extremely "sight-sensitive" technology !.

Fine, Fine. Whatever...

I don't know what UK and German "counter LO" systems are deployed and
integrated into their air defense system, or even if it exists.

But probably you know that an US system exists,so a Mitchell style
demonstration would be very useful to settle differences.

Your sentence doesn't make sense, so I'm assuming that English isn't your
native
language, and will leave it at that.

It makes excellent sense for the ones who want to understand but a
clarification for you,multi static designers love everything that stealth
designers do to reduce backscatter.

Fine, Fine. Whatever...


Spending hundreds of taxpayer billions for an obsolete technology is not fine,I
guess.

"Denyav" wrote in message
...

Spending hundreds of taxpayer billions for an obsolete technology is not
fine,I
guess.


What do you care if US taxpayers spend billions on obsolete technology?

What do you care if US taxpayers spend billions on obsolete technology?

Because its my money and I have every right to say how things should be done in
this country,even if you disagree with my views.

"Denyav" wrote in message
...

Because its my money and I have every right to say how things should be
done in
this country,even if you disagree with my views.


It's US citizens' money.

It's US citizens' money.


Exactly,so its my money too.
Fair enough?

In article ,
(Denyav) wrote:

Stealth is used today to "knock down the door" and the rest of
the stuff does the grunt work. The B-2 and other stealth assets
are used to knock down the electronic systems (radar,

Yeah right,It proved its abilities,albeit under full ECM support aganist
defences of Panama,Afghanistan,Iraq,Serbia etc.

Actually, over Baghdad, they didn't use active jamming for the F-117
sorties. It would have warned the defenses that an attack was coming.
Since there were well over a thousand sorties over Baghdad, with zero
losses and zero damage, it's amazing that you keep trying to suggest
this silly theory of yours.

(In Balkans two ECM failures meant two f117 damages,but nevermind)
I wonder how they would fare against US ,UK or German counter LO systems?

Today you can detect and track a LO aircraft even more easily than
conventional aircraft with multistatics.

Nope. That's just something the less-honest multistatic guys are
suggesting as a sales method. They still haven't gotten the system to
work that well against any aircraft, and certainly not good enough to
track and target any of the stealth aircraft.

The stealty airborne platforms have only a PR value today,and thats
the reason why Air Force put them on display on every occasion,

Except for that whole "flying them on combat missions" thing, not to
mention the "buying more of them" bit. Since everyone in the world
who's building combat planes is doing *some* stealth and low-observable
design, it's odd that they haven't gotten the message yet.

even though the passive stealth is an extremely "sight-sensitive"
technology !.

You keep using that "sight-sensitive" phrase, and it's still wrong.

....and if Russia could build a useful stealth plane, you'd be telling us
how wonderful it would be.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Actually, over Baghdad, they didn't use active jamming for the F-117
sorties. It would have warned the defenses that an attack was coming.
Since there were well over a thousand sorties over Baghdad, with zero
losses and zero damage, it's amazing that you keep trying to

I am talking about DS I,not DSII,During DSI several guided launches aganist
f117 have been detected and spoofed by jammers.
If Jammers failed during DS I,you would not have to wait till Balkan Conflict
for f117 losses.
About a year ago I posted some data about f117 performance during DS I,they
were under ECM protection all the way/
A quote from DS I f117 driver explains all "Jammers are like American
Express,never leave home without them"

Nope. That's just something the less-honest multistatic guys are
suggesting as a sales method. They still haven't gotten the system to
work that well against any aircraft, and certainly not good enough to
track and target any of the stealth aircraft.

They are doing exactly that almost on daily basis,plus they can also image
stealth aircraft with their multistatics.(they can even find out the type of
skin material)

Except for that whole "flying them on combat missions" thing, not to
mention the "buying more of them" bit. Since everyone in the world
who's building combat planes is doing *some* stealth and low-observable
design, it's odd that they haven't gotten the message yet.

Most of "new" stealth projects involve some kind of active stealth which is a
completely different animal.

You keep using that "sight-sensitive" phrase, and it's still wrong.

Thats the truth ,passive stealth is an extremely "sight-sensitive" techonology
and in 70s and 80s you definitely needed to know the hardbody shape to counter
it,thanks to rasant development of multi statics and UWB radars thats not the
case anymore.

In article ,
(Denyav) wrote:

Actually, over Baghdad, they didn't use active jamming for the F-117
sorties. It would have warned the defenses that an attack was coming.
Since there were well over a thousand sorties over Baghdad, with zero
losses and zero damage, it's amazing that you keep trying to

I am talking about DS I,not DSII,During DSI several guided launches aganist
f117 have been detected and spoofed by jammers.

....and while that might have been so, there were about a hundred times
as many sorties where the Iraqis didn't know they were in trouble until
the bombs started to hit.

A quote from DS I f117 driver explains all "Jammers are like American
Express,never leave home without them"

Jammers are what you use *after* they get a lock on you. Firing up
active countermeasures when there's no radar pointed at you is like
lighting a match in a dark room. Stealth planes use jammers as a last
resort, when they've been actively painted by a radar.

Nope. That's just something the less-honest multistatic guys are
suggesting as a sales method. They still haven't gotten the system to
work that well against any aircraft, and certainly not good enough to
track and target any of the stealth aircraft.

They are doing exactly that almost on daily basis,plus they can also
image stealth aircraft with their multistatics.(they can even find
out the type of skin material)

Well, *you* claim they can, but so far, nobody has actually demonstrated
this. It ranks right up with some of the silliest claims by Soviet
techs back in the Cold War.

Except for that whole "flying them on combat missions" thing, not to
mention the "buying more of them" bit. Since everyone in the world
who's building combat planes is doing *some* stealth and low-observable
design, it's odd that they haven't gotten the message yet.

Most of "new" stealth projects involve some kind of active stealth
which is a completely different animal.

....and also pretty much theoretical, like those multistatics you keep
hoping someone will build.

You keep using that "sight-sensitive" phrase, and it's still wrong.

Thats the truth ,passive stealth is an extremely "sight-sensitive" techonology

Only to the point where you can look at a plane and see where it's
biggest returns will be, it doesn't give you a magical key to let you
detect it. Radars have had fifteen years to develop to the point where
they could reliably track stealth planes, and they still *can't*, at
anything other than point-blank range.

and in 70s and 80s you definitely needed to know the hardbody shape
to counter it,thanks to rasant development of multi statics and UWB
radars thats not the case anymore.

Yeah, the new multistatics and ultra wideband radars can't see them in
very different ways than the old radars couldn't see them.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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