How long until current 'stealth' techniques are compromised?

In message , robert
arndt writes
(Denyav) wrote in message
...
It seems alot of importance is put into stealth for aircraft these days,
just wondering who is working on a countering radar system for it?

Germany has its own version of the '90s Czech anti-stealth radar
(which they purchased)as well as EADs developing an anti-stealth
missile that uses multiple seekers to hunt stealth aircraft. One of
the seekers is a plume detector which goes back to WW2 and the
Feuerball weapon (aka Foo Fighter).

Would you mind expanding on your comments on 'Feuerball' and 'Foo
Fighters', Robert?

Mike

"muskau" wrote in message . au...
And if these newer aircraft with their current 'stealth' ability become
compromised, I assume importance would go to who sees who first and how good
long range missile technology has become? If that happens, then which recent
aircraft has the advantage?

Since the Air Force has never put their stealth aircraft into harm's
way without jamming I would think they agree that stealth alone has
never been 100 percent effective.

So they're 100 percent dependent on the Marines.

Which is why Boing just got the contract to develop the Growler.

-HJC

In article ,
"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
In article ,
(robert arndt) wrote:

The strange thing is that our "friends" are
putting more money into anti-stealth than our "enemies"...

You might note that most of Europe still worries about Russia, which has
worked on stealth aircraft in the past.


LOL!

Sure....That must be it....

Yes, it is.

The [often duplicitous] Europeans are pouring significant amounts of money
into anti-stealth radar and weapon systems to counter a hopelessly bankrupt
Russia which cannot even afford fuel for it's current aircraft; and even at
the height of it's power didn't come close to fielding a stealth aircraft.

No, they had some reasonably-stealthy stuff, they just couldn't afford
to make it in large quantities. For enough cash, the old Soviet arms
labs would certainly make something stealthy for pretty much anyone who
has a cash.

Not to mention the fact that Russia has sided with 'Old Europe' far more
often than not lately, and that these Europeans have taken seemingly every
step possible to attempt to thwart any American geopolitical and military
advancement in the last three years. But I'm sure these systems are to
counter all the imaginary Russian stealth aircraft that will never be built.

Sarcasm aside, you have no clue as to why the Europeans have built this
hardware. If they were defending against an American threat, as you
suggest, they'd be building more actual *weapons* like planes and tanks,
instead of a few defensive systems that don't make sense unless you have
a superpower's military to back you up.

Think about it... what is the REAL market for anti-stealth systems? Third
world dictatorships and despots who would like to carry an ace in the hole
against the American forces, and are willing to pay highly to get it (but
cannot develop it on their own). Period.

This has a certain amount of sense to it, but it's a pretty iffy
conclusion. For one, you have to assume that these things *work* versus
stealth planes to a huge degree, and that's definitely debatable.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

"Henry J. Cobb" wrote in message
om...
"muskau" wrote in message
. au...
And if these newer aircraft with their current 'stealth' ability become
compromised, I assume importance would go to who sees who first and how
good
long range missile technology has become? If that happens, then which
recent
aircraft has the advantage?

Since the Air Force has never put their stealth aircraft into harm's
way without jamming I would think they agree that stealth alone has
never been 100 percent effective.

Never? Not sure about that--ISTR that some of the B-2 missions have been
conducted without jamming support.


So they're 100 percent dependent on the Marines.

Uhmmm...only so far. We still have jamming pods for tactical aircraft...and
remember that the USAF contributes crewmen to those EA-6 units (they are the
closest thing to joint units you can find at the tactical level, with the
exception of maybe the E-8 JSTARS crews). And there are other aspects to ECM
as well; i.e., jamming the enemy communications is still primarily a USAF
role, IIRC.

Brooks


Which is why Boing just got the contract to develop the Growler.

-HJC

"Henry J. Cobb" wrote in message
om...

Since the Air Force has never put their stealth aircraft into harm's
way without jamming I would think they agree that stealth alone has
never been 100 percent effective.


The USAF has put stealth aircraft in harm's way without jamming. Jamming
would be counterproductive, as it would indicate an attack is imminent.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
In article ,
"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
In article ,
(robert arndt) wrote:

The strange thing is that our "friends" are
putting more money into anti-stealth than our "enemies"...

You might note that most of Europe still worries about Russia, which
has
worked on stealth aircraft in the past.


LOL!

Sure....That must be it....

Yes, it is.

The [often duplicitous] Europeans are pouring significant amounts of
money
into anti-stealth radar and weapon systems to counter a hopelessly
bankrupt
Russia which cannot even afford fuel for it's current aircraft; and even
at
the height of it's power didn't come close to fielding a stealth
aircraft.

No, they had some reasonably-stealthy stuff, they just couldn't afford
to make it in large quantities. For enough cash, the old Soviet arms
labs would certainly make something stealthy for pretty much anyone who
has a cash.

Well, thats pretty much the problem; nobody has the cash. As it is now, the
USA can just barely afford stealth, the EU cannot afford it at all, and
Russia is hopeless. Perhaps China, but even that is a long stretch (and
politically, considering the historic paranoia and anxiety that Russia feels
towards it's neighbor, I don't see Russia selling a weapon more advanced
than they are able field for themselves to China). As for the rest of the
world, it simply is not an option at all. As much as the third world despots
may want a stealth capability, it is simply not within their wildest dreams,
unless a major breakthrough is made regarding it's production costs. And nob
ody except the US has the research capability to make such a breakthrough.

The export market for stealth is almost nil. The export market for
anti-stealth, is, however, vast.


Not to mention the fact that Russia has sided with 'Old Europe' far more
often than not lately, and that these Europeans have taken seemingly
every
step possible to attempt to thwart any American geopolitical and
military
advancement in the last three years. But I'm sure these systems are to
counter all the imaginary Russian stealth aircraft that will never be
built.

Sarcasm aside, you have no clue as to why the Europeans have built this
hardware. If they were defending against an American threat, as you
suggest, they'd be building more actual *weapons* like planes and tanks,
instead of a few defensive systems that don't make sense unless you have
a superpower's military to back you up.

Read my statements more carefully. I never meant to say that the Europeans
are hoping to defend themselves against a military attack from the USA
(which, regardless of political attitudes will just not happen anytime
soon). But that developing these systems could give them negotiating clout
in global matters which the USA may want to act upon in the future, as they
currently have almost no say at all. It's a political objective, not a
military one.

Take, for example the recent Iraq situation. The 'Old Europe' powers were
staunchly against the invasion (for various reasons, none of which are
relevant to this discussion), but the USA was obviously determined to invade
Iraq, regardless of their opinions. The European powers were, essentially,
powerless to protect their interests in Iraq, and had no effective
negotiating clout with the Americans. They were brushed aside and there was
nothing they could do about it.

However, imagine the situation if there was a possibility that, perhaps,
Saddam may be able to purchase (or be 'leaked'), through, say, the French, a
deterrant system capable of rendering our most valued and expensive weapons
systems vulnerable. Suddenly the European point of view on the matter
becomes far more relevant.

Think about it... what is the REAL market for anti-stealth systems?
Third
world dictatorships and despots who would like to carry an ace in the
hole
against the American forces, and are willing to pay highly to get it
(but
cannot develop it on their own). Period.

This has a certain amount of sense to it, but it's a pretty iffy
conclusion. For one, you have to assume that these things *work* versus
stealth planes to a huge degree, and that's definitely debatable.

Thats true enough, though it is disturbing to me that this research is being
carried on in the first place.

Henry J. Cobb wrote:
Since the Air Force has never put their stealth aircraft into harm's
way without jamming I would think they agree that stealth alone has
never been 100 percent effective.

It has been widely reported that USAF F-117s flying into Baghdad were
initally supported with jammers, but that this practice was stopped when the
Stealth pilots complained that the AAA was opening up before they dropped
their bombs. The gunners were apparently being alerted to the impending
attacks by the fact that their radars were being jammed. When the jamming
was stopped, the AAA only began firing reactively *after* the bombs went
off.

So they're 100 percent dependent on the Marines.

??? The Navy flies most of the EA-6Bs, and they do deploy to land bases from
time to time, as well as from carriers.

Which is why Boing just got the contract to develop the Growler.

This contract has nothing to do with the Air Force, since the USAF is not
actually planning to get any EA-18s. The Air Force solution appears to be
EB-52s equipped for very powerful stand-off jamming, as wll as fairly masive
hard-kill defense suppression.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Henry J. Cobb wrote:
Since the Air Force has never put their stealth aircraft into harm's
way without jamming I would think they agree that stealth alone has
never been 100 percent effective.

It has been widely reported that USAF F-117s flying into Baghdad were
initally supported with jammers, but that this practice was stopped when
the
Stealth pilots complained that the AAA was opening up before they dropped
their bombs. The gunners were apparently being alerted to the impending
attacks by the fact that their radars were being jammed. When the jamming
was stopped, the AAA only began firing reactively *after* the bombs went
off.

So they're 100 percent dependent on the Marines.

??? The Navy flies most of the EA-6Bs, and they do deploy to land bases
from
time to time, as well as from carriers.

Which is why Boing just got the contract to develop the Growler.

This contract has nothing to do with the Air Force, since the USAF is not
actually planning to get any EA-18s. The Air Force solution appears to be
EB-52s equipped for very powerful stand-off jamming, as wll as fairly
masive
hard-kill defense suppression.

Tom, the EB-52 remains in the mythical category, last I knew. The EA-6 is
considered a true joint asset, and the USAF contributes to its manning.

Brooks

Kevin Brooks wrote:
"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
hlink.net...

This contract has nothing to do with the Air Force, since the USAF
is not actually planning to get any EA-18s. The Air Force solution
appears to be EB-52s equipped for very powerful stand-off jamming,
as wll as fairly masive hard-kill defense suppression.

Tom, the EB-52 remains in the mythical category, last I knew.

I agree it's not confirmed (hence the "appears to be" in my post). However,
it's looking increasingly likely, IMO.

The
EA-6 is considered a true joint asset, and the USAF contributes to
its manning.

Yes, but this does not contradict my post at all. The EA-18 is apparently
not being bought joint (at least not yet) and the procurement numbers being
discussed seem to be predicated on needing to equip ten carrier airwings
with six aircraft each, without provision for expeditionary squadrons.
Sure it will be tasked jointly; everything is these days. But there
probably won't be any to deploy with Air Force AEFs.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
hlink.net...

This contract has nothing to do with the Air Force, since the USAF
is not actually planning to get any EA-18s. The Air Force solution
appears to be EB-52s equipped for very powerful stand-off jamming,
as wll as fairly masive hard-kill defense suppression.

Tom, the EB-52 remains in the mythical category, last I knew.

I agree it's not confirmed (hence the "appears to be" in my post).
However,
it's looking increasingly likely, IMO.

Not too sure about that. I suspect the USAF is more interested in keeping
what remaining heavy bomber capability it enjoys from the remaining B-52's
than it would be in turning a chunk of them into EB's.


The
EA-6 is considered a true joint asset, and the USAF contributes to
its manning.

Yes, but this does not contradict my post at all. The EA-18 is apparently
not being bought joint (at least not yet) and the procurement numbers
being
discussed seem to be predicated on needing to equip ten carrier airwings
with six aircraft each, without provision for expeditionary squadrons.
Sure it will be tasked jointly; everything is these days. But there
probably won't be any to deploy with Air Force AEFs.

And the EA-18 would also be jointly manned, and jointly used. Ten CAW's
worth provides a few left ashore, which is the way they currently handle the
support of the AEF's with EA-6's. Granted there has been talk of wanting
more capability, but there has also been talk of using UAV's for this role
as well.

Brooks


--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)