Israeli Stealth???

Having a
"stealth program" and having deployed, active stealth aircraft are two
completely different things. The US did not "steal" anything, we
simply incorporated some open-source calculations in our

Yeah right,even worst Nazis were in US in fifties.
What they were doing?

And will be for a very long time. If the Brits, or anyone else, had
stealth technology they would have built stealth aircraft. The don't
and have not.


Well,I think nobody,incl.US,is going to build stealth planes like B2 or f117
again,this technology is already a thing of the past.

(Denyav) wrote:

So far, the best anyone's been able to really establish is that, under
some conditions, a good multistatic system can act as a very general
early warning radar against good stealth airframes, but not enough to
manage specific targeting solutions. Mostly due to detecting the
turbulence in the air well after a plane flies by...

There is absolutely nothing to do with turbulence.(Turbulence story again is
created by the Brits a couple of years ago as part of the disinformation
package to hide capabilities of their own system)

No, it's a major advantage of modern radars. If you can't detect the
tiny radar signatures of airplanes, detect the much larger signatures of
the disturbed air in their wake. It's actually an easier solution than
trying to make multistatics work good enough to catch a stealth plane.

ALL modern multi statics use forward scatterers from target (passive stealth
platforms are designed to eliminate backscatterers and atmosphere is full of
man made EM waves) for target detection,tracking and imaging purposes.

But, once again, the physics that makes a good stealth plane (few hot
spots, general radar absorption) makes multistatic radars fairly
useless, except under one or two very specific angles, and only for very
short periods of time.

Yes none of them have able to demonstrate such capabilities to
public,because the air force,only official user of stealth platforms
in US,showing cold shoulders to Mitchell style Stealth vs Multistatic
demonstration idea.(I think they already know something about the
outcome of a such demo.)

Yes, they know it won't work very well, and are very happy to have
people like Russia selling fairly useless hardware to every second-rate
dictator on the planet. If they do a public demo and show it won't
work, someone might actually spend some time on a system that would be
more effective.

"Da, Comrade, new radar will detect all new American stealth planes."

"Then what just blew up our command center?"

a good multistatic system can act as a very general
early warning radar against good stealth airframes, but not enough to
manage specific targeting solutions. Mostly due to detecting the
turbulence in the air well after a plane flies by...

A good multistatic is able to detect and track targets
as small as a grain of sand at distances around 600 miles.

Claimed but not actually demonstrated. In the few public tests I've
heard of, they're just not that good. Not to mention that a radar that
detects sand grains will detect, well, sand grains.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

In article ,
Alan Minyard wrote:

The "YF-22" has not been canceled, it is in
production, the German "stealth" project was a complete failure, the
RAM on the Nazi's U-Boats was completely in-effective.

Note that the German WWII sub coatings *did* work a bit. At least,
until they were exposed to sea water, which deposited a lot of
microscopic material on them which screwed up their stealth properties.
They also didn't "stick" very well.

They also had some stealth coatings for airframes. Which had the
unfortunate tendency to peel off in flight...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

All of the evidence says it's just another "Germans/Russians invented
everything first" fantasy by some national supremacists.

Unfortunately the current ethnical make-up of faculty and researchers in
prestigious US institutions,inc Ivy League ones,seems to prove the assertions
of those "supremacists".

If you cannot produce your own home grown scientific talent,you have to depend
on stolen technology and imported talent.
period

No, it's a major advantage of modern radars. If you can't detect the
tiny radar signatures of airplanes, detect the much larger signatures of
the disturbed air in their wake. It's

Well,who needs to detect turbulence if your multistatic is capable of detecting
a grain of sand at 600 miles distance?

Besides,there is much more important reason,even a bit of forward scatterer
from the target carries lots of target information.

It is almost a shame that old fashioned Maxwellian EM waves have been used
almost for one century as a binary detection method,they are much more than
that if you know how to extract info from a bit of signal.

But, once again, the physics that makes a good stealth plane (few hot
spots, general radar absorption) makes multistatic radars fairly
useless, except under one or two very specific angles, and only for very
short periods of time.

Stealth designers use physics to redirect incoming EM energy and multi static
designers use physics to catch redirected EM energy.

Multistatics could use any kind of emitter,dedicated radar emitters,TV and
radio emitters,cell phone emitters etc and they could even use a method known
as "Track before Detect".

Yes, they know it won't work very well, and
If they think still so a couple of multistatic radar images of their stealth
showboats would surely help to change their minds.
ictator on the planet. If they do a public demo and show it won't
work, someone might actually spend some time on a system that would be

I dont think that Russians have a working multistatic system,surely they know
fundamentals of multistatic systems and probably also know how to solve
coherency problems,but good multistatics are expensive systems and computing
power guzzlers.
Its very doubtful if Russia today has $$$ and the will to develop such costly
systems just to counter a few stealth planes.

"Then what just blew up our command center?"
Defeating multistatics is much harder,a multistatic could use hundreds of
emitters,if not thousands,and the most important part,receiver/processor unit
might stay always silent,but if you have prior intelligence its becomes a very
easy job.

Claimed but not actually demonstrated. In the few public tests I've
heard of, they're just not that good. Not to mention that a radar that
detects sand grains will detect, well, sand grains.

A multi static that can detect a grain of sand at such distances,can detect any
"projected" stealth platform.

In article ,
(Denyav) wrote:

It may not be a "monopoly", but it is clearly far more developed in
the US than anywhere else

Didnt you hear something called "technology trap"?

Much less common than something called "a huge technology advantage."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

In article ,
(Denyav) wrote:

All of the evidence says it's just another "Germans/Russians invented
everything first" fantasy by some national supremacists.

Unfortunately the current ethnical make-up of faculty and researchers in
prestigious US institutions,inc Ivy League ones,seems to prove the assertions
of those "supremacists".

Well, we *do* allow people in from all over, while still generating a
lot of skilled folks in-country.

On the other hand, folks like Russia are scraping along trying to pay
their researchers, while power companies are cutting off electricity to
military bases for not paying their bills...

If you cannot produce your own home grown scientific talent,you have to depend
on stolen technology and imported talent.

Thank heavens we still produce most of the best folks here.

Although I'm sure we could find you a job at a McDonald's, if you ever
decide to immigrate.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

In article ,
(Denyav) wrote:

No, it's a major advantage of modern radars. If you can't detect the
tiny radar signatures of airplanes, detect the much larger signatures of
the disturbed air in their wake.

Well,who needs to detect turbulence if your multistatic is capable of
detecting a grain of sand at 600 miles distance?

For one thing, because you really can't (wavelength considerations alone
make that a ridiculous claim), and even if you could, you'd get a screen
full of noise.

Besides,there is much more important reason,even a bit of forward scatterer
from the target carries lots of target information.

*if* you know what you're looking for, and under perfect conditions.
The only demonstrated multistatics have been working on targets
literally a thousand times the size of stealth planes (10 m^2 versus
0.01 m^2).

Stealth designers use physics to redirect incoming EM energy and multi static
designers use physics to catch redirected EM energy.

While stealth designers also *absorb* energy, and use those much-reduced
reflections to make ECM much more potent. that's the big weakness of
multistatics, you know... *way* easier to spoof.

Multistatics could use any kind of emitter,dedicated radar emitters,TV and
radio emitters,cell phone emitters etc and they could even use a method known
as "Track before Detect".

They can also use a method known as "getting jammed." Much easier to
jam someone when they're not looking for one particular signal or
frequency. You also have signal strength problems. A thousand
different sources at a fraction of a watt doesn't make up for one big
source at a few kilowatts.

If they think still so a couple of multistatic radar images of their
stealth showboats would surely help to change their minds.

Damned shame Russia can't manage that.

ictator on the planet. If they do a public demo and show it won't
work, someone might actually spend some time on a system that would be

I dont think that Russians have a working multistatic system,surely they know
fundamentals of multistatic systems and probably also know how to solve
coherency problems,but good multistatics are expensive systems and computing
power guzzlers.
Its very doubtful if Russia today has $$$ and the will to develop such costly
systems just to counter a few stealth planes.

In other words, this system that you're really sure works and can detect
all American stealth planes doesn't actually exist.

Now you know why.

"Then what just blew up our command center?"
Defeating multistatics is much harder,a multistatic could use
hundreds of emitters,if not thousands,and the most important
part,receiver/processor unit might stay always silent,but if you have
prior intelligence its becomes a very easy job.

The problem is that building such a system would be *insanely* expensive.

Claimed but not actually demonstrated. In the few public tests I've
heard of, they're just not that good. Not to mention that a radar that
detects sand grains will detect, well, sand grains.

A multi static that can detect a grain of sand at such distances,can
detect any "projected" stealth platform.

So this system that y0ou admit doesn't exist can detect grains of sand?

Nope.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Well, we *do* allow people in from all over, while still generating a
lot of skilled folks in-country.

We do allow people in because US system could and would not produce top notch
scientists.
US system is designed to produce scientific counterparts of Henry Ford's
workers,in other words "standardized minds".
Anything beyond "standardized mind" production is too dangerous for the
"establisment".

On the other hand, folks like Russia are scraping along trying to pay
their researchers, while power companies are cutting off electricity to
military bases for not paying thei

Thats true.but at least they were capable of producing top notch scientists.
BTW Nations that could produce top notch classical music composers,not rappers,
could also produce top notch scientists.

Thank heavens we still produce most of the best folks here.

Although I'm sure we could find you a job at a McDonald's, if you ever
decide to immigrate.

Interesting,I am here but I unfortunately do not work McDonalds,if you wanna
make a reality check for yourself,please visit a College or hi-tech company
near to you,you will see more Indians,Chinese and East Europeans than Americans
and they the ones that doing something other than producing paperwork.