Why is Stealth So Important?

In article 6IMLb.9902$6l1.8365@okepread03,
"Gene Storey" wrote:

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?

Because multistatic radars, while interesting in theory, are a complete
failure in actual operation.

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

Because they actually work, compared to multistatics.

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.

Denyav's dreaming, hoping for a nationalistic resurrection of Great
Mother Russia.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

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 "monostat

Every monostatic radar could be part of a multi static system,alongside TV
,radio and phone emitters.You dont even need your own or friendly radars,even
hostile emitters too will do the job.
What you need is only atmosphere filled with EM waves.
But they have shortcomings too,they might be more vulnerable to some ECM
methods,their low altitude performance might be poorer than convantionel
radars.(Even though US counter LO system has been optimized to detect next
generation stealthy cruise misilles and UCAVs using terrain masking)

Why they still invest in convantionel radars
(and stealth platforms)?
Well,Mitchell has showed whole world in 1921 that the era of Battleships was
over,but the Admirals all over world continued to built bigger,better and more
expensive battleships till they learn the truth hard way during WWII.

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

One emitter multiple receiver type multistatic,even tough theoretically
possible,would be the worst solution.


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

None of them published passive radar images of f117 as far as I know.

No multistatics detected the B-2 and engaged it.

Sure,no multistatics detected B-2,f117 or any other NATO aircraft,because
Serbians had no multistatics.
Even though this fact was well known by everbody,hitting two f117s by SAMs
created a multistatic scare in Washington and led to shutdown of serbian power
system.
(At that time US multistatic system,or the first version of it,was already a
couple of years old,so they were aware of the capabilities of US system)

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

US is one of the countries that developed a multi static system,Russia is not
among them.

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

But,wouldn't losing stealth planes over hostile territory be an even worse
tactic?

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

No,when I say a demonstration,I mean a demonstration Mitchell style,for
everbody.

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

Its a well proven strategy,would you buy a car if you known that the
manufacturer going to drop the type only a couple of weeks later?

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.

Problem for the dictators is that US one of the three producers and other two
wont sell them to anyone for several reasons.
(They dont even officially acknowledge the existence of their own systems)

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

?????

"James Dandy" wrote in message
m...
Seems to me like all the modern wars I can remember up from Vietnam
use mostly ordinary fighters and bombers.

Because that was what was available.
The F-117 & B-2 have been doing their fair share as they became available.

I don't understand why such emphasis is put on that stealth stuff when
we use the same old planes from previously.

Because it is getting time to replace the old stuff and stealth makes
the new stuff much better.

I still remember when the F-14 and F-15 came out. Don't we still use
these? Aren't they better than everyone else's stuff?

In some ways yes, in some ways no.
The last generation of Russian (Red) planes (Su-27 & MiG-29) are
aerodynamically superior. The currently coming on line generation
of European planes are at least the equal of the F-14 & F-15 in most
ways.
So far we've yet to fight anybody (and there may well not be anybody yet)
who can field an integrated force equal to ours: our AWACS, tankers
etc give our fighters a big leg up.

My son Billy tells me I'm out of date on such matters and that the old
Reds have stuff that is better than ours. Tell me it ain't so. I saw
on tv one night a show on the History Channel that showed a new plane
that did amazing flying but I can't recall its name. It was a Red
plane tho.

I don't have much interest in stealth so long as we keep pounding them
Arabs with B-52 bombs! God bless the almighty B-52.

Since I'm out of date maybe you guys can fill me in on the latest.
What makes a stealth aircraft better?

It can get a lot closer before being detected and whack the bad guy
before he has a chance to duck.

If they are so good how come we don't own many?

They are new and more expensive.
Give us time and we will own a bunch more of them.

What if they were all destroyed, wouldn't we still be
able to fight with the proven stuff?

Sure, it just cost more lives on our side and takes longer to win.



And yes, I do smell troll.

"Denyav" wrote in message
...

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


So post the reports.

"Gene Storey" writes:

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?

As others have pointed out, multi-static radar has its advantages and
disadvantages, in the same way that a large and several small ships
have theirs: and the crucial area that makes the latter of both
examples effective is reliable and instantaneous communications.

That, plus the issues of redundancy and never placing all your eggs in
one basket. No matter what secret frequencies you devise, chances are
about 100% that during system testing stage even these will be picked
up and analyzed by other major powers.

Mitsubishi's bistatic/multistatic radar system currently under
development here at Kyoto University/Amagasaki Mitsubishi has shown
several critical performance problems at closer ranges for given
detection and tracking relaiance criteria, and of course the tecnhical
issues such as pulse-chasing and synchronization are not easy.

But once such issues are removed, then as has been pointed out, any EM
source and receiver could be integrated.
--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

On 09 Jan 2004 23:57:52 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:

ROTFL! Oh really, and what pray tell is your practical insight to draw that
conclusion, compared to that of a combat vet who has a wardrobe full of
'dont that' T Shirts.

Combat vets should try to do what they supposed to do best, we are not going to
re-fight Vietnam war or any war in the past,if f16 or f22 were available during
Vietnam war,it would be magnificent,but it was 30 years ago and science and
technology did not stop in 70s.

Your comment that was refuted was that Boyd & Co. and Stealth were two
concepts gleaned from Vietnam that were proven erroneous or invalid.

Boyd's work on energy maneuverability and three dimensional maneuver
is still the basis for 1-v-1 BFM and led to the development of
supporting element maneuver in multi-plane engagement. Without Boyd,
we'd still have Eagles, Vipers and Raptors running around in fighting
wing.

Stealth, and the idea of denying the defenses accurate az/el/range
data through a variety of technologies is going to be a foundation for
aircraft (and defense) designs for a long time to come.

As for what "combat vets should try to do", please acknowledge that
like all professions, military aviators are not one-dimensional
humans. We do a lot of things in a life time, and don't simply
disappear into the attic when the war is over.

As for the relevance of the lessons of Vietnam to F-16, F-22 or SU-37,
let me point you to Santyana---"those who will not learn the lessons
of history are condemned to repeat them."

Lots of science and technology, but it is directed by the experiences
gathered along the way.

You gotta problem wid dat?


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 04:17:22 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

How does a stealth fighter detect an unstealthy fighter?

Several options available. Data can be provided by other sources, such
as AWACS, ground radar or participating friendly aircraft. Data fusion
can provide three dimensional modeling with several cooperative
sources each providing one dimension of the data.

Or, you can use IR to provide an azimuth (totally passive) then "ping"
sporadically with an LPI (low probability of interception) radar to
gain range. Or, use IR only and simply integrate successive positions
to triangulate for range.

Feed data to missile, open doors and launch, lather, rinse, repeat.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Yes, in addition to a 60,000 (?) lb rated holdback chain.

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. Carrier aircraft get into AB for launch by
employing a "hold back". The F-4, for example, couldn't be held in
military power by the wheel brakes. Engines were checked at 100% one
at a time. Takeoffs were done with a runup to 85% prior to brake
release, then to mil and finally to AB.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8