Israeli Stealth???

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 00:23:52 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Alan Minyard wrote:

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 00:00:35 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

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.

Well, that sort of supports "completely in-effective" doesn't it :-)

It worked fine. As long as you kept it in pure fresh water...

Yes, but not a terribly target rich environment. :-)

Al Minyard

On 14 Oct 2003 09:48:30 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:

U-2511 and U-3008 both went out on patrols with U-2511 passing
undetected under a HMS Suffolk and carrying out a mock attack (under
strict orders not to engage). He returned to base where 12 other Type
XXIs were fully ready for operation, with another 30 boats in the
stages of trial and training.

Yep thats 2 count em 2 war patrols.

And both were undetected, carrying out mock attacks on a cruiser and
British convoys.


After WW2, the USN heavily tested the Type XXI boat (as did the
British, French, and Russians) and found the design quite stealthy.
The Type XXI also was fitted with a silent V-belt drive system in
addition to the Alberich covering.

But all adopted different designs and none selected a v-belt drive.

All the major foreign navies tested the Type XXI completely from 1945
into the '50s. A summary:

U-2513 US, tested and scrapped in 1956
U-2518 France, served as Roland Millirot
U-2529 British N27 until 1947, handed over to Russia
U-2540 Germany, scuttled, raised in 1957, recommissioned as Wilhelm
Bauer, restoed at Maritime Museum at Bremerhaven
U-3008 US, tested until 1955
U-3017 British N41, scrapped 1950
U-3035 British N28 until 1948, handed over to Russia
U-3041 British N29 until 1948, handed over to Russia
U-3525 British N30 until 1948, handed over to Russia

The problem with Alberich was not the covering itself but the adhesive
used to attach it to the boats. Early Alberich trials resulted in
seperated sheets of the material coming loose. This was later remedied
by the time the coating was applied to the Type XIII, U-4709 being the
first to recieve the new adhesive.

U-4709 was bombed while being built

No, it was scrapped on May 4, 1945.

Had these boats been produced in number and launched a year earlier
the Allies would have had a tough time countering them.


Over a 100 type XXI's HAD been launched, the Germans couldnt
make em work. Boats that dont work and adhesive that doesnt
stick arent war winning weapons.

Keith

Not true. The Type XXIs were revolutionary for their time and had the
normal teething troubles. Prefabrication and transportation
difficulties added to the problem. Alberich was not a problem, the
adhesive was and that (as already explained) had been corrected by Feb
1945. No Type XXI was destroyed due to Alberich failure and even those
without the covering were still stealthy with the V-belt drive as
PROVEN by postwar Allied tests.
The Type XXI was a truly remarkable machine for the time, better than
anything the Allies had.

Rob

If it was so wonderful, why did none of the countries that received
Type XIIIs copy them? Because they were death traps that offered no
better performance or protection than contemporary US Boats! If the
"v-belt drive" was so superior, where are the Russian, British and US
boats that use the design?

Germany lost, get over it.

Al Minyard

In article ,
(Denyav) wrote:

Until someone spends a few watts spoofing you out of your shoes.

If someone could spoof your radar even a B17 could do the job,but Air Forces
showboats supposed to be a little bit different than them.
Besides,spofing a system that does not use amplitute based binary detection is
not easy all,you need to know all properties of forward scatterer wave
,including polarimetric data,which is much harder to accomplish than analysing
emissionss of back scatterers.

You have a very shallow knowledge of how radar jamming works in the
years after World War II. What you describe is pretty much first
chapter "ECM 101," and has nothing to do with methods in current use.

Only viable form of spoofing is possibly the saturation of processing unit,but
that would make an attacker very visible to other forms of detection.

Nope. You're assuming again.

Lots of things have been "talk of the town" for a week or so, until
someone did the actual work and found out how silly it was. The "we can
use cell phone signals to find B-2s" story died a quick death last year
after someone did the math on it.

Cell Phone story did not die it well and alive,emissions from cell phone base
stations are excellent for multistatic use.

....against large, obvious targets that aren't fighting back. The
"celldar" systems have some extremely big caveats, like "can't handle
targets below a certain size."

There currently three competing systems from three different countries and all
of them utilize cell phone emissions succesfully.
Regarding math,radio-astronomers are working with much weaker signals for
decades.

But they know what they're looking for, and are using *very* directional
antennas to do so.

Exactly the oposite problem with celldar.

There's no real evidence to support this. Just more handwaving.

Thats the key of whole multistatic development.

Yep. Handwaving. Like I said.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

In article ,
(Denyav) wrote:

About *half* of the Nobel prizes in physics for the last half-century
have gone to guys who were born and raised in the "pitiful" US (or born
elsewhere and raised here).

True and thats the reason why last half 0f 20th Century is called the Ice Age
of physics.

....because the reat of the world is being frozen out, of course.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ...

Then you get into the operational analysis issues like "just when does
stealth actually provide a clear benefit anyway?" and that's when the
punch-ups usually start: it's a controversial question. (Sure, stealth
lets you fly through enemy IADS alone (sort of) and unafraid (well,
mostly)... but then the USAF can do that today and tomorrow anyway)

April 2, 1982.

Chris Manteuffel

You have a very shallow knowledge of how radar jamming works in the
years after World War II. What you describe is pretty much first
chapter "ECM 101," and has nothing to do with methods in current use.

Well,can you tell me which,past,current or projected,ECM/ESM sytem analyses
forward scatterers?
None.period.
Every ECM effort requires the knowledge of emitter signal properties,Modern ECM
equipment could analyse intercepted backscatterer radar signal in real time and
activate counter measures.

In case of backscatterers, the signal that you must intercept and analyse for
ECM purposes is the signal that hostile radar emits,but in case of multistatics
it is NOT the signal that you must intercept and analyse,in other words you
must intercept and analyse forward scatterer for effective jamming which is
,altough theoretically possible,very diffucult in real life.
Even if you intercepted the forward scatetered signal you have to deal always
with the signals with diferent polarizations,even if the signal originates from
the same emitter.(Thats how some multistatics track the targets even before a
binary detection!)

Nope. You're assuming again.


I am not assuming anything,simply put multistatics are much more than eye
catches or something aganist stealth platforms,their detection and tracking
methods have nothing in common with familiar back scatterers....against large,
obvious targets that aren't fighting back. The

"celldar" systems have some extremely big caveats, like "can't handle
targets below a certain size."

Sure,for example less than an insect size.

But they know what they're looking for, and are using *very* directional
antennas to do so.


Multistatic antennas are very directional too and they know what they are
looking too.

xactly the oposite problem with celldar.


See above.

ep. Handwaving. Like I said.

Then I wonder why Air Force dodges all requests for a realistic demonstration
involving Their showboats vs. US Multi static system.
Such a demonstration would settle this dispute for good.

Germany lost, get over it.


Well,if Mike Tyson started a fight with 14 ordinary guys like you and me,I am
pretty sure he would end up as a loser.

"Denyav" wrote in message
...
Germany lost, get over it.


Well,if Mike Tyson started a fight with 14 ordinary guys like you and me,I
am
pretty sure he would end up as a loser.

That wouldn't be the problem. The Problem would be picking a fight with 14
ordinary guys willing to die taking him down.

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 20:23:23 +0100, "Ian Craig"
wrote:

You seem very sure that the UK doesnt have a stealth aircraft - how come?
Know something we dont? Just cos we havent got a batwing or f117 doesnt mean
we dont have stealthy aircraft?

The UK does not have an operational "stealth" aircraft.


Al Minyard

In message , Chris
Manteuffel writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
Then you get into the operational analysis issues like "just when does
stealth actually provide a clear benefit anyway?" and that's when the
punch-ups usually start: it's a controversial question. (Sure, stealth
lets you fly through enemy IADS alone (sort of) and unafraid (well,
mostly)... but then the USAF can do that today and tomorrow anyway)

April 2, 1982.

What does stealth get you on Day 1 of the Falklands? A F-117-a-like
doesn't have the range, a B-2 is gross overkill (and lacks the targeting
data: sure, it can get down there and drop bombs, but on what?) Also,
there's a distinct lack of air defence for a stealth aircraft to have to
hide from.

If you had to choose, would a small squadron of F-117-type aircraft be
more or less useful than (for example) AEW Sea Kings deployed and worked
up; CIWS fitted to at least the carriers, amphibs and Type 42s; better
boots; and more Chinooks?

That's what I mean by the analysis: where does stealth get you more
benefits than costs, and what scenarios do you gain in by pursuing that
option to the exclusion of others?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk