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.