Israeli Stealth???

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...


Which contributes to its being useless for an ocean-going vessel.

Mike

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...
Alan Minyard wrote in message
. ..
On 12 Oct 2003 08:14:41 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:



A typo, Al. Relax. The line should have read YF-23. Second, the Type
XXI and XXIII U-boats that did employ the Alberich covering were
undetected, so were Type VIIs with the stealth schnorkel raised. The
radar absorbing paint became the basis for the type found on the
latter U-2s and yes, we did steal the entire radar defraction scheme
from a single Russian source.

Well now given that most Type XXI's never left the shipyard I suppose
its accurate to say they werent detected. U-Boats that dont make
operational patrols are rather hard to spot.

Despite the fact that the design was completed in June 1943
and the first boat launched in May 1944 only 2 type XXI's ever
went on war patrol IRC and the first such patrol was on 30th April 1945 !

The Germans never detected any DeHavilland Vampires on radar
either, does that make it a stealth aircraft do you think ?

Keith

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. One thousand more were under
construction. The Type XXIII had 6 operational patrols with none
detected and the last U-boat victory of two British freighters sunk
May 7, 1945. 59 more were launched by wars end. Over 900 Type XIIIs
were under construction.
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.
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.
Had these boats been produced in number and launched a year earlier
the Allies would have had a tough time countering them.

Rob

Chad Irby wrote in message m...
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...

Chad,

Alberich's problem was not the material itself but the adhesive
applied to the sub to attach the sheets. This problem was fixed by the
time Alberich was applied to the Type XIII Boats in Feb '45.
If you are talking about the stealth schnorkels then that was another
material Tarnmatte...
In addition to Alberich the Type XXI also had a stealth V-belt silent
drive. Using the belt drive the Type XXI could achieve 6 knots
underwater in silence. This was proven when the USN testing U-2513 in
late 1946 could not detect the boat reliably even when it was at a
range of only 220m.
A photo of the V-belt drive can be seen in the book "The Type XXI
U-Boat" by Fritz Kohl & Eberhard Rossler (Naval Institute Press, 1991)
on page 44.

Rob

"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...
Alan Minyard wrote in message
. ..
On 12 Oct 2003 08:14:41 -0700, (robert arndt)
wrote:



A typo, Al. Relax. The line should have read YF-23. Second, the Type
XXI and XXIII U-boats that did employ the Alberich covering were
undetected, so were Type VIIs with the stealth schnorkel raised. The
radar absorbing paint became the basis for the type found on the
latter U-2s and yes, we did steal the entire radar defraction scheme
from a single Russian source.

Well now given that most Type XXI's never left the shipyard I suppose
its accurate to say they werent detected. U-Boats that dont make
operational patrols are rather hard to spot.

Despite the fact that the design was completed in June 1943
and the first boat launched in May 1944 only 2 type XXI's ever
went on war patrol IRC and the first such patrol was on 30th April 1945
!

The Germans never detected any DeHavilland Vampires on radar
either, does that make it a stealth aircraft do you think ?

Keith

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.

One thousand more were under
construction.

No sir. A block of numbers from U-3000 to U-4000 had
been assigned but most of those are simply marked
as projected.

The Type XXIII had 6 operational patrols with none
detected and the last U-boat victory of two British freighters sunk
May 7, 1945. 59 more were launched by wars end. Over 900 Type XIIIs
were under construction.

Again you are incorrect as a simple thought would tell you.
There's not enough shipyard capacity in the whole of europe
to build 1600 boats suimulataneously

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.

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

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

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.

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.
Among crowd of US Nobel laurates (technicians according to Hawking) only Murray
Gell Mann is in the same league with the all time starts of physics.

Strange, in spite of plenty of US nobel laurates we still use theories
developed by some others almost one hundred years ago.
(BTW many of US nobel laurates are the experimentalists that proved the
theories of others were correct)

There is quality and quantity issue even in Nobel prizes,US excels everywhere
when you judge only by quantity.


The Europeans had a big advantage a hundred years ago, but they seem to
have ****ed most of it away.

They are back big time again,they are going to rewrite century old laws of
physics,after they do it our technicians can continue to collect Nobel prizes
by proving that they are right.

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

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?

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...
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

In message , Ian Craig
writes
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?

We know the technology and have done a fair bit of work, particularly on
RCS reduction of existing and future platform.

We don't have any admitted LO aircraft, quite likely for the same four
reasons we only have four leased C-17s: money, cash, moolah and dinero.

If we're up against the sort of quality opposition that _needs_ stealth
aircraft, the US has them and is on our side; if not, the money's better
spent on enhancing more conventional capabilities (like, getting Link-16
so that we're at least on the same network and can swap data properly)
than on buying a handful of F-117-a-likes.

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)

--
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

"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...


U-4709 was bombed while being built

No, it was scrapped on May 4, 1945.

My source has it bombed in the shipyard, either way it never went to sea.


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.

2 Operational patrols when a pool of 118 boats was available
is WAY beyond normal teething troubles.

My sources also indicate the Alberich coating was primarily
for sound deadening and was used on at least one type VIIc
boat (U-1105)

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.

Given that the Alberich coatings were succesfully used on the humble type
VIIC and that a v-drive belt seems to have been a developmental dead
end your assertion looks a little weak.

The Type XXI was a truly remarkable machine for the time, better than
anything the Allies had.


IF it had worked it might have been however the less revolutionary
fleet boats the USN built while less advanced were actually able
to go to sea and sink large numbers of enemy ships.

The Germans would have done much better to make a modest
improvement to the type IXC by removing its deck gun,
streamlining the hull a little better and fitting larger batteries.
As it was the type VII and type IX boats had to soldier on
while the defective type XXI's swung at anchor.

Note that its hardly accurate to characterise type XXI's as
undetectable unsinkable super weapons since the folowing were
lost at sea

U-2503 - badly damaged by RAF aircraft - scuttled
U-2521 - sunk by RAF aircraft
U-2524 - badly damaged by RAF aircraft - scuttled
U-3519 - sunk by mine
U-3520 - sunk by mine

So we have 2 successful boats and 5 losses, U-boat men didnt have
very good odds, even in a type XXI

Keith