Israeli Stealth???

(Denyav) wrote in message ...
Not built, not flying, non-existant. NATO research would mean US
research, and we are not giving stealth away. Yet more of your
Ubermench fantasy.

1)Who needs stealth?

Apparently about every major military combat aviation project these
days does. Hence the claims from EADS that Typhoon has some stealthy
qualities, as do the claims from Dassault regarding Rafael, not to
mention the myriad of stealthy UAV's hitting the air these days, or
the plans for both Russian and Chinese advanced aircraft projects to
incoporate as many stealthy features as possible, along with a whole
slew of stealthy warship designs beginning to hit the water of late.
Care to name any advanced combat projects that *don't* incorporate it?

2)You cannot give away anything that does not belong to you.
Stealth is a British and German product and stealth in US is gift of Harold
Macmillan to US.

Yeah, right... care to puchase a bridge in Brooklyn?

Brooks

possible, along with a whole
slew of stealthy warship designs beginning to hit the water of late.
Care to name any advanced combat projects that *don't* incorporate it?

TAV (spaceplane).
No airborne stealth platform,current,planned or projected,has a change aganist
multi static systems developed in US,UK and Germany.
BTW land and sea borne platforms are more lucky than their airborne
counterparts as they may need only one non threat sector with a good design

..eah, right... care to puchase a bridge in Brooklyn?

I always wondered why business savvy Brits offered that technology to US free
of charge,
A technology trap maybe?

How convenient

Cuts both ways,it should also be very convenient to put 1500 tons of documents
under lock for 75 years and making claims .

(Denyav) wrote:

No airborne stealth platform,current,planned or projected,has a change aganist
multi static systems developed in US,UK and Germany.

By "change," you mean "chance?"

Even though some of the people who are selling multistatic systems are
making some pretty strong claims about how well they work against
stealth aircraft, none of them have been able to demonstrate any such
capabilities.

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...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

In article ,
(Denyav) wrote:

How convenient

Cuts both ways,it should also be very convenient to put 1500 tons of documents
under lock for 75 years and making claims .

It's really much more of a "since we have these superplanes, why didn't
we use them against the Soviets in the 1950s through 1980s?"

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

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

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)
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.

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.)

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.

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 09:24:02 +0100, "Ian Craig"
wrote:


"Denyav" wrote in message
...
Not built, not flying, non-existant. NATO research would mean US
research, and we are not giving stealth away. Yet more of your
Ubermench fantasy.

1)Who needs stealth?
2)You cannot give away anything that does not belong to you.
Stealth is a British and German product and stealth in US is gift of
Harold
Macmillan to US.

Which was never recipricated by the US at the time. If I remember correctly
(and this was from 2 Discovery Wings programmes about the speed of sound and
stealth), the Americans asked for the data from our stealth and supersonic
programmes, with the promise of letting the British have information about
new munitions. Needless to say we're still waiting.......

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.

Al Minyard

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 16:07:42 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , Alan Minyard
writes
Not built, not flying, non-existant. NATO research would mean US
research, and we are not giving stealth away. Yet more of your
Ubermench fantasy.

Low-observable isn't a US monopoly, Al, and the US does more
collaboration than you might think (though there are still internal
firewalls; teams working with the US can't then talk to Some Other
Nations or teams working with them...)

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

Al Minyard

On 12 Oct 2003 08:14:41 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:


Not built, not flying, non-existant. NATO research would mean US
research, and we are not giving stealth away. Yet more of your
Ubermench fantasy.

Al Minyard

Al, there you go again with your anti-German rhetoric. Germany didn't
need US help when it comes to stealth since the Germans invented it.
In WW2 they had the G0-229 and radar-absorbing paint
(Shornsteinfeger). They also had anti-sonar Alberich covering for
their schnorkels and Type XXI and XXIII subs.
BTW, the US stole the radar defraction design of the F-117 from the
Russians and the first US stealth aircraft wasn't even the F-117- it
was a Windecker Eagle civilian plane covered in RAM back in the early
'70s.
Russia at this time already was working on the Sukhoi T-60S stealth
bomber (which is still active) and by 1981 when the F-117 became
operational the Germans had the MBB Lampyridae program (which would
have been superior to the F-117 in design with better faceting also
faster and armed). You can't tell me the Germans just bowed to US
pressure and gave it up.
Britain, OTOH, is said to have developed FFX propulsion and shared it
with the US... not the other way around. Bae developed HALO which is
an admitted stealth aircraft prototype and from eyewitness accounts of
the BD crash in the '90s Bae haD at least one other stealth aircraft
that was flying in the '90s (similar in appearance to the cancelled
YF-22). Recently we have seen the Replica design too.
Dassault, SAAB, MiG-MAPO, Sukhoi, Tupolev, and EADS all have their own
stealth aircraft programs without US participation or permission. And
to a lesser extent so do China, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Israel,
and Japan.
The US does not have a monopoly on stealth or anti-stealth. Get over
it.
Two German black triangular craft flew at the Overberg range in South
Africa and you can't handle it. Too bad. Europe has stealth too. Too
bad. Whine about it all you like.

Rob

Utter bullsh**. 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. 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 stealth
program. Germany, and Europe, have no operational stealth aircraft,
get over it.

Al Minyard

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"?