Why is Stealth So Important?

"Denyav" wrote in message
...

Exactly,so its my money too.
Fair enough?


You're pretty unfamiliar with the US for a US citizen.

You're pretty unfamiliar with the US for a US citizen.

You are dangerously underestimating US citizens.

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.

"Denyav" wrote
You're pretty unfamiliar with the US for a US citizen.

You are dangerously underestimating US citizens.

So you're saying you're one of the dumb ones?

Pete

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:19:16 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 09:50:55 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


I think we can pretty well know the iris on the J-75 was taking out 1% of
the F-105s.

Are you referring to the turbine Christmas tree? Failures of the
Christmas tree which held the three stages of turbine blades caused a
number of unexplained losses. I mention the bailout of Joe Vojir on
takeoff at Korat as well as the loss of Buzz Bullock and Dain Milliman
in takeoff accidents caused by turbine failure in When Thunder Rolled.

The AB nozzle (iris) didn't cause any accidents that I know about.
And, the nozzle is not synonymous with the speed brake petals or
pizzas (which were removed in '65).

When Ed posted here that the F-105's brakes could not hold the
airplane in AB, I could see that iris stuck open/closed/half way between.

No afterburner equipped aircraft that I know about can be held by
wheel brakes in AB.

I remember reading somewhere that an F-111 could do it. (Not the Fs
though)

...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.


I think you will have to revise your claim significantly downward after reading
Air Forces own intelligence reports.

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.

Not neccesarly,you can try to blind hostile radars or try to inject false data
even before an attack starts,if your artillery or special forces could destroy
them before attack even better.(I think that was the defining moment of DS
I,but we love to forget it)

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.

For a demonstration you need the support of Air Force,only official operator of
airborne stealth platforms and they are of course not very supportive.
To make things even more complicated,the corporate entity that devoloped US
counter LO system is also producer of major US stealth platforms.
So such a competition is harmful for corporate profits,if multistatic wins the
corporation will probably lose stealth business,if stealth wins company will
lose a next generation product and its projected sales.
So,smart corporate strategy seems to be "keep a low profile in multi statics
till all projected stealth sales realized,then start high profile multistatics
campaign".

This a result of defense industry consolidations in 90s.



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

Unlike multistatics,they are still experimental.
In multistatics issue there is nothing experimantal they are here.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

Either you mean only backscatterer type radars when you use the term "radar" or
you call 600 miles "point blank" distance.
Yeah, the new multistatics and ultra wideband radars can't see them in
very different ways than the old radars couldn't see them.

Actually even old radars could see many things that they usually dont see only
if air defense community and radar developers stopped considering them as a
binary detection method,but its hard to change almost a hundred years old
customs overnight.

If multistatic radar was deployed and operational, then how come the
US, NATO, France, UK, Japan, and Saudi Arabia invest so much
money in maintaining a "monostatic" AWACS fleet?

Why does the US, Europe, Asia, and especially India and Pakistan,
invest so much money in "monostatic" mobile radars?

That information alone should tell you how significant multistatic radar
has been integrated into defense systems. I can appreciate one transmitter,
multiple receivers, but using it to shoot down aircraft and track them
through the national airspace has not been so successful that very
expensive weapon systems have been rotating into the boneyard.

I think your either dreaming, or incorrectly extrapolating what you
read in Aviation Week, or Time magazine.

So you're saying you're one of the dumb ones?

The opposite of the recipient of my messages,so I must be one of them.

Cheers,

In DS the initial F-117 and cruise missiles went in cold. After the F-117 were
RTB, the Navy and USAF began massive decoy flights which included
ECM drones. The drones themselves were firing-off chaff and flares, and
the Iraqi air defense units were getting a number of kills on the drones.
While they were killing the drones the first two strike packages came up
through the corridors left open and performed the first toss-bomb strikes.
I believe one F-16 got hit during egress. Each of these packages had an
EF-111 in it for ecm support against SAM, LRR, and AI assets.

ECM and decoys are a part of every modern air battle. It doesn't have
anything to do with stealth.

I know for a fact the B-2 and AWACS were the only two assets up, on
the night we took down the big bridge in Serbia. The NATO guys first
knew of the operation when their status boards lit-up. It was a weather
down day, and NATO was taking a nap.

No multistatics detected the B-2 and engaged it.

In article ,
(Denyav) wrote:

...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.

I think you will have to revise your claim significantly downward
after reading Air Forces own intelligence reports.

Then post them, and we can judge. Until that point, it's just more of
your silly "American tech sucks, Russian tech rules" propaganda.

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.

Not neccesarly,you can try to blind hostile radars or try to inject
false data even before an attack starts

You *can*, when you're doing large operations, but for stealth fighers,
it's a really bad tactic.

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.

For a demonstration you need the support of Air Force,only official
operator of airborne stealth platforms and they are of course not
very supportive.

In other words, the claim you made (about showing a working
stealth-detecting radar) was a lie.

(Silly "American corporations are covering up anti-stealth radars to
sell more planes" conspiracy deleted)

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

Unlike multistatics,they are still experimental.
In multistatics issue there is nothing experimantal they are here.

They're here, they're just not that good.

Either you mean only backscatterer type radars when you use the term
"radar" or you call 600 miles "point blank" distance.

Still holding on to the multistatic radar fantasy, eh?

If someone had such a technology that worked, they'd be selling them by
the shipload to every penny-ante dictator on the planet, and the US
would be losing stealth planes on a regular basis.

Since that hasn't happened, it's just another of your silly little
Russian superiority vs US inferiority dreams.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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