How long until current 'stealth' techniques are compromised?

"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.

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.

That's correct. The FSU was engaged in the T-60S bomber project which
is still active as well as several stealth configurations put forth
from the design bereaus of MiG and Sukhoi. Then there's plasma stealth
research and anti-stealth missile systems of which one type is
operational.

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.

Wrong. The UK (Bae), France (Dassault) and Germany (EADS) all have
stealth aircraft and missile research on-going. The British HALO and
German Firefly II might even be operational by now. EADS is moving
forward with its stealth cruise missile and anti-stealth missile
systems. Bae has several proposals for a wide range of stealth
aircraft and missiles (formerly from AVPRO, now open to others)as well
as the stealth ship SeaWraith. France has Dassault and the AVE which
may be either a UAV, UCAV, or piloted aircraft in the final design.

And nobody except the US has the research capability to make such a
breakthrough.

Total BS. Germany had visual stealth in WW1 with the Taube, a stealth
aircraft in WW2 (Go-229 with radar-absorbing paint), and independently
came up with the MBB Lampyridae (Firefly) stealth interceptor by 1981.
Like the Canadian CF-105 Arrow, however, the US Govt. exerted extreme
pressure on Germany to drop the program which would have been superior
to the F-117 as it was an armed interceptor. MBB, which became part of
DASA, DB Aerospace, then EADS never gave up the program. It has been
suggested that the program survived as a European multinational effort
since two German stealth triangles (Firefly II) were spotted over
South Africa's Overberg Test Range a few years back. Germany alone is
pioneering the anti-stealth missile and has designs for a metamorphic
aircraft beyond anything the US has planned for the same time of IOC
of 2020+

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

True, but independent stealth capability is active. China, India,
South Africa, and Israel all are working on either stealth aircraft
projects, missiles, or both.

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.

They are, according to the European military journals, responding to
the US attempts to keep stealth out of the hands of everyone,
including their friends. The UK was the first to break this agreement
by collaborating with Dassault on stealth development. The Germans of
course continued on without any agreement with the US. Russia still
has active projects but is strapped for cash. China is actively trying
to develop a stealth aircraft- the JXX. South Africa and Sweden both
have stealth missiles and ships under development.

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.

Except of course not send the US any troops to aid in the
reconstruction of Iraq. As a direct result our military is
overstretched and in danger of not being able to wage two seperate
wars should one break out in the East. Our soldiers are dying daily
and Iraq will be an election year issue that might cost President Bush
a second term. Going it alone is only good in the short run as we have
no clear exit strategy and stuck in a financial quagmire that
irritates the American citizen paying for this "adventure".

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.

The detection systems alone do not render stealth aircraft useless...
but link it to the German anti-stealth seeking missile and it is an
effective counter.

Rob

The detection systems alone do not render stealth aircraft useless...
but link it to the German anti-stealth seeking missile and it is an
effective counter.

But who needs missiles?
You dont even need exotic weapons like EM missiles,a multi static system
designed to detect stealth platforms might be turned into a "kill" system
instantly if you can keep frequencies and phases of several powerful emitters
under control,a kind of poor mans HPM weapon.

(Denyav) wrote in message ...
The detection systems alone do not render stealth aircraft useless...
but link it to the German anti-stealth seeking missile and it is an
effective counter.

But who needs missiles?
You dont even need exotic weapons like EM missiles,a multi static system
designed to detect stealth platforms might be turned into a "kill" system
instantly if you can keep frequencies and phases of several powerful emitters
under control,a kind of poor mans HPM weapon.

Yes, you are talking about a theoretical ADW "aerial denial weapon"
that would knock aircraft out of the sky without knocking out powered
systems on the ground.
Trouble is, like the German situation in WW2, you would have to drop
such a weapon ABOVE the attacking force. German fighters did this near
the end of the war. Instead of fighting bombers traditionally, they
climbed above them and bombed them!
But US and coalition aircraft strikes today are seldom that
concentrated; rather, they operate in waves of aircraft or pockets. A
ground system would be better but then presents itself as a priority
target to knock out. Second problem would be the power required to
sustain these emitters.
The EADS anti-stealth missile has a multiple seeker system that is
initially launched into the path of the stealth aircraft. As it closes
rapidly it starts looking visually for the aircraft while sniffing out
the exhaust with the plume detector. Once located no manner of
aircraft defensive aids would prevent the missile from striking.

Rob

Yes, you are talking about a theoretical ADW "aerial denial weapon"
that would knock aircraft out of the sky without knocking out powered
systems on the ground.

Actually I was talking about something much different.
Lets consider a multi static system using hundreds or thousands of commercial
emitters and only a dozen or so powerful dedicated military emitters.If you can
detect and track a stealth platform (or any platform) , these military emitters
could be used as frequency and phase controlled combined devices to produce
much higher levels of energy at the target area.
Problem is phase locking but seemingly solved.
Such a device will not be able to engage targets at exotic ranges,wont be able
to recover GW or TW levels energy at target like EM Missilles and they are
strictly line sight type devices, but they will severely degrade the any
adversaries ability to attack.
And most importantly they are very cheap in comparison to "real" HPM weapons.

In article ,
(Denyav) wrote:

But who needs missiles?
You dont even need exotic weapons like EM missiles,a multi static system
designed to detect stealth platforms might be turned into a "kill" system
instantly if you can keep frequencies and phases of several powerful emitters
under control,a kind of poor mans HPM weapon.

....after you increase their output by a few orders of magnitude.

Not going to happen.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

..after you increase their output by a few orders of magnitude.

Not going to happen.

If you can keep the frequencies AND phases under control,then you have no
problem.

In article ,
(Denyav) wrote:

..after you increase their output by a few orders of magnitude.

Not going to happen.

If you can keep the frequencies AND phases under control,then you have no
problem.

Which, of course, you can't, with a large number of commercial emitters.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

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,

Both US and Europeans were and are aware of next paradigm shift ,Europeans
simply want to wait,on contrary US got to act before it takes place no matter
what.

As I said before,I think the most powerful weapon in US arsenal is the
Greenback.
The most likely peer competitors of US are also the biggest lenders of US (and
US is the biggest borrower of them),that offers US a unique chance to
destabilize likely peer competitors by devaluating Dollar.

As Nixon said long time ago"Dollar is our currency,but your problem"

On 02 Jan 2004 06:06:59 GMT, Denyav wrote:
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,

Both US and Europeans were and are aware of next paradigm shift ,Europeans
simply want to wait,on contrary US got to act before it takes place no matter
what.

As I said before,I think the most powerful weapon in US arsenal is the
Greenback.
The most likely peer competitors of US are also the biggest lenders of US (and
US is the biggest borrower of them),that offers US a unique chance to
destabilize likely peer competitors by devaluating Dollar.

As Nixon said long time ago"Dollar is our currency,but your problem"

I suspect the days of the dollar as international reserve currency
are numbered:

http://www.cabalamat.org/weblog/art_145.html

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).