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.