Why is Stealth So Important?

"Denyav" wrote

Stealth is used today to "knock down the door" and the rest of
the stuff does the grunt work. The B-2 and other stealth assets
are used to knock down the electronic systems (radar,

Yeah right,It proved its abilities,albeit under full ECM support aganist
defences of Panama,Afghanistan,Iraq,Serbia etc.
(In Balkans two ECM failures meant two f117 damages,but nevermind)


The US Military uses ECM and decoys. They would use them whether
or not stealth aircraft existed.

I wonder how they would fare against US ,UK or German counter LO systems?

I don't know what UK and German "counter LO" systems are deployed and
integrated into their air defense system, or even if it exists.

Today you can detect and track a LO aircraft even more easily than conventional
aircraft with multistatics.

Your sentence doesn't make sense, so I'm assuming that English isn't your native
language, and will leave it at that.

The stealty airborne platforms have only a PR value today,and thats the reason
why Air Force put them on display on every occasion,even though the passive
stealth is an extremely "sight-sensitive" technology !.

Fine, Fine. Whatever...

In article ,
(Denyav) wrote:

Stealth is used today to "knock down the door" and the rest of
the stuff does the grunt work. The B-2 and other stealth assets
are used to knock down the electronic systems (radar,

Yeah right,It proved its abilities,albeit under full ECM support aganist
defences of Panama,Afghanistan,Iraq,Serbia etc.

Actually, over Baghdad, they didn't use active jamming for the F-117
sorties. It would have warned the defenses that an attack was coming.
Since there were well over a thousand sorties over Baghdad, with zero
losses and zero damage, it's amazing that you keep trying to suggest
this silly theory of yours.

(In Balkans two ECM failures meant two f117 damages,but nevermind)
I wonder how they would fare against US ,UK or German counter LO systems?

Today you can detect and track a LO aircraft even more easily than
conventional aircraft with multistatics.

Nope. That's just something the less-honest multistatic guys are
suggesting as a sales method. They still haven't gotten the system to
work that well against any aircraft, and certainly not good enough to
track and target any of the stealth aircraft.

The stealty airborne platforms have only a PR value today,and thats
the reason why Air Force put them on display on every occasion,

Except for that whole "flying them on combat missions" thing, not to
mention the "buying more of them" bit. Since everyone in the world
who's building combat planes is doing *some* stealth and low-observable
design, it's odd that they haven't gotten the message yet.

even though the passive stealth is an extremely "sight-sensitive"
technology !.

You keep using that "sight-sensitive" phrase, and it's still wrong.

....and if Russia could build a useful stealth plane, you'd be telling us
how wonderful it would be.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

I don't know what UK and German "counter LO" systems are deployed and
integrated into their air defense system, or even if it exists.

But probably you know that an US system exists,so a Mitchell style
demonstration would be very useful to settle differences.

Your sentence doesn't make sense, so I'm assuming that English isn't your
native
language, and will leave it at that.

It makes excellent sense for the ones who want to understand but a
clarification for you,multi static designers love everything that stealth
designers do to reduce backscatter.

Fine, Fine. Whatever...


Spending hundreds of taxpayer billions for an obsolete technology is not fine,I
guess.

"Denyav" wrote in message
...

Spending hundreds of taxpayer billions for an obsolete technology is not
fine,I
guess.


What do you care if US taxpayers spend billions on obsolete technology?

Trouble with the F15 and F14 - and the rest of the fleets - is that
fighters wear out. You can replace part after part but when the basic
airframe reaches its fatigue life - better scrap it and make pots and
pans out of it or you're going to have inflight failures. During my
career this happened to the F84, F86, F100, F105, KB29 and KB50, B47,
B52, C130, A26 and F4, to mention but a few. I lost a good friend to
inflight failure in an F4 on a training mission.
As for stealth, first let me mention I spent some 4000 hours sitting
behind a radar scope in a fighter. In the F102A and the F4 I could
detect another fighter at ranges up to 70 miles. The 104A's scope only
went out to 20 miles but it still beat the naked eye. Now a stealth
fighter wouldn't have this vulnerability, nor would it be detected at
night or in the weather until well after it detected an unstealthy
fighter. Upon detection of a target one manuevers into the target's
stern and then - do what is necessary. One does not have to lock on to
do this. It is quite easy to determine the target's approximate course
by monitoring target motion on the radar scope and, after moving into
the stern quarter, determining his exact course and altitude is
simple. Most radar warning gear will not indicate AI scanning so the
target will be unaware what is happening. Of course if you are in an
IR equipped fighter the target's problem is even worse - his first
indication of a problem is when (if) his missile warning gear detects
a missile launch in his six.l
Walt BJ

"WaltBJ" wrote in message
om...

As for stealth, first let me mention I spent some 4000 hours sitting
behind a radar scope in a fighter. In the F102A and the F4 I could
detect another fighter at ranges up to 70 miles. The 104A's scope only
went out to 20 miles but it still beat the naked eye. Now a stealth
fighter wouldn't have this vulnerability, nor would it be detected at
night or in the weather until well after it detected an unstealthy
fighter.


How does a stealth fighter detect an unstealthy fighter?



Upon detection of a target one manuevers into the target's
stern and then - do what is necessary. One does not have to lock on to
do this. It is quite easy to determine the target's approximate course
by monitoring target motion on the radar scope and, after moving into
the stern quarter, determining his exact course and altitude is
simple. Most radar warning gear will not indicate AI scanning so the
target will be unaware what is happening. Of course if you are in an
IR equipped fighter the target's problem is even worse - his first
indication of a problem is when (if) his missile warning gear detects
a missile launch in his six.l
Walt BJ

Actually, over Baghdad, they didn't use active jamming for the F-117
sorties. It would have warned the defenses that an attack was coming.
Since there were well over a thousand sorties over Baghdad, with zero
losses and zero damage, it's amazing that you keep trying to

I am talking about DS I,not DSII,During DSI several guided launches aganist
f117 have been detected and spoofed by jammers.
If Jammers failed during DS I,you would not have to wait till Balkan Conflict
for f117 losses.
About a year ago I posted some data about f117 performance during DS I,they
were under ECM protection all the way/
A quote from DS I f117 driver explains all "Jammers are like American
Express,never leave home without them"

Nope. That's just something the less-honest multistatic guys are
suggesting as a sales method. They still haven't gotten the system to
work that well against any aircraft, and certainly not good enough to
track and target any of the stealth aircraft.

They are doing exactly that almost on daily basis,plus they can also image
stealth aircraft with their multistatics.(they can even find out the type of
skin material)

Except for that whole "flying them on combat missions" thing, not to
mention the "buying more of them" bit. Since everyone in the world
who's building combat planes is doing *some* stealth and low-observable
design, it's odd that they haven't gotten the message yet.

Most of "new" stealth projects involve some kind of active stealth which is a
completely different animal.

You keep using that "sight-sensitive" phrase, and it's still wrong.

Thats the truth ,passive stealth is an extremely "sight-sensitive" techonology
and in 70s and 80s you definitely needed to know the hardbody shape to counter
it,thanks to rasant development of multi statics and UWB radars thats not the
case anymore.

What do you care if US taxpayers spend billions on obsolete technology?

Because its my money and I have every right to say how things should be done in
this country,even if you disagree with my views.

"Denyav" wrote in message
...

Because its my money and I have every right to say how things should be
done in
this country,even if you disagree with my views.


It's US citizens' money.

It's US citizens' money.


Exactly,so its my money too.
Fair enough?