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.
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.

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.
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.


Actually, the current multistatic has only worked (at all) on targets of

about ten thousand times the size of modern stealth planes, and only
under controlled circumstances. And it's not the "look at noise and
decode it" system you're touting - it's a multiple-emitter *active*
radar system.

I think you are referring to the previous version of US system,which needed a
direct "calibration" signal from the emitters ,but it was then now US system
too,like British and German counterparts does not need it anymore.
I think the calling a multistatic system that could utilize signals from
hundreds or thousand emitters is a stretch.
If if you take out 20 or 50 of such emitters it wont degrade System
performance,emitters are not critical part of the system,its receiver and its
silent.

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

Thats the key of whole multistatic development.

Nope. It's a *system* approach, since no body can be 100% "correctly"
shaped, and since good radar absorbing materials can give huge
advantages in and of themselves.


RAMs are only used in places where "system" requirements do not allow proper
body shaping,they are Band-Aids of stealth designer.

That's exactly the opposite of what *everyone* says.
RAMs RASs etc by definition "absorb" energy,I would not recommend anybody to
try to absorb GW or TW level energy in a small structure like an aircraft.

Even a 98% effective "reflector" would get vaporized at high enough
power levels.

Imagine what would happen if it "absorbed"
GW level or more energy?.

HPMs aren't going to be big antiair systems, anyway. For line of sight,
you need plain old lasers.

No "some" HPMs are "currently" only systems that you theoretically could hit a
submerged submarine off Australia with an HPM "misille" launcher located in
New Mexico.
Call it "line of sight".



Absolutely. Even the best of stealth has *some* return. A lot RCS
gives you a *huge* defensive ECM advantage. For one, you can use very

Even the best stealth has some BACKSCATTERER return,
Better stealth means LESS back scatterer and MORE forward scatterer,that means
multistatics could detect stealth planes easier than convantional ones,thats
make them perfect for stealth detection.