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.