Why is Stealth So Important?

If multistatic radar was deployed and operational, then how come the
US, NATO, France, UK, Japan, and Saudi Arabia invest so much
money in maintaining a "monostatic" AWACS fleet?

Why does the US, Europe, Asia, and especially India and Pakistan,
invest so much money in "monostatic" mobile radars?

That information alone should tell you how significant multistatic radar
has been integrated into defense systems. I can appreciate one transmitter,
multiple receivers, but using it to shoot down aircraft and track them
through the national airspace has not been so successful that very
expensive weapon systems have been rotating into the boneyard.

I think your either dreaming, or incorrectly extrapolating what you
read in Aviation Week, or Time magazine.

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

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 04:17:22 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

How does a stealth fighter detect an unstealthy fighter?

Several options available. Data can be provided by other sources, such
as AWACS, ground radar or participating friendly aircraft. Data fusion
can provide three dimensional modeling with several cooperative
sources each providing one dimension of the data.

Or, you can use IR to provide an azimuth (totally passive) then "ping"
sporadically with an LPI (low probability of interception) radar to
gain range. Or, use IR only and simply integrate successive positions
to triangulate for range.

Feed data to missile, open doors and launch, lather, rinse, repeat.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

"James Dandy" wrote in message
m...
Seems to me like all the modern wars I can remember up from Vietnam
use mostly ordinary fighters and bombers.

Because that was what was available.
The F-117 & B-2 have been doing their fair share as they became available.

I don't understand why such emphasis is put on that stealth stuff when
we use the same old planes from previously.

Because it is getting time to replace the old stuff and stealth makes
the new stuff much better.

I still remember when the F-14 and F-15 came out. Don't we still use
these? Aren't they better than everyone else's stuff?

In some ways yes, in some ways no.
The last generation of Russian (Red) planes (Su-27 & MiG-29) are
aerodynamically superior. The currently coming on line generation
of European planes are at least the equal of the F-14 & F-15 in most
ways.
So far we've yet to fight anybody (and there may well not be anybody yet)
who can field an integrated force equal to ours: our AWACS, tankers
etc give our fighters a big leg up.

My son Billy tells me I'm out of date on such matters and that the old
Reds have stuff that is better than ours. Tell me it ain't so. I saw
on tv one night a show on the History Channel that showed a new plane
that did amazing flying but I can't recall its name. It was a Red
plane tho.

I don't have much interest in stealth so long as we keep pounding them
Arabs with B-52 bombs! God bless the almighty B-52.

Since I'm out of date maybe you guys can fill me in on the latest.
What makes a stealth aircraft better?

It can get a lot closer before being detected and whack the bad guy
before he has a chance to duck.

If they are so good how come we don't own many?

They are new and more expensive.
Give us time and we will own a bunch more of them.

What if they were all destroyed, wouldn't we still be
able to fight with the proven stuff?

Sure, it just cost more lives on our side and takes longer to win.



And yes, I do smell troll.

I don't understand why such emphasis is put on that stealth stuff when
we use the same old planes from previously.

We have less tolerance today than we did in 1970 for losing our pilots
in combat against enemy air defenses.

I'll bet there were days when Ed Rasimus wished that his F-105 had
stealthy characteristics.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Cub Driver" wrote

I'll bet there were days when Ed Rasimus wished that his F-105 had
stealthy characteristics.

It wouldn't have mattered, as the white house was building the ATO, and
most of them flew the same waypoints year after year. It was a war designed
to be lost, by officers who were pretty much derelict in everything they did.

"Gene Storey" wrote in message
news:tzwMb.10086$6l1.1052@okepread03...

snip

It was a war designed to be lost, by officers who were pretty much
derelict in everything they did.



Well, the comment about micromanagement from the White House was generally
accurate, so I guessed you are getting a *bit* better, but then you toss out
this unsubstantiated crap. Please provide some evidence that US military
officers intended to lose the war...no? That's right, you can't. No doubt
there were decisions made by some officers that were, in hindsight, wrong.
But "pretty much derelict in everything they did"? It is amazing that you
have recently spent so much time and effort defending the actions of folks
like Hitler and Saddam, and then come out with an indictement like the
above.

Brooks

"Kevin Brooks" wrote
"Gene Storey" wrote

Please provide some evidence that US military officers intended to lose the war

The war was lost, and officers are in charge of war.

It was lost in 1946 when we allowed the French to decolonize.

http://www.lexisnexis.com/academic/2...ietnamMACV.asp

Basically, if you fly a B-52 down the same route as the previous three B-52, and do
it at the same altitude, and with the same waypoints, you and whoever drew-up the
operation are derelict. The fact that anyone survived is pure luck, and those that
died were very brave, but very wasted (much as going over the top in the great war
in the face of machine guns). The way to lose a war is to suffer casualties so great,
with such waste, the people back home won't want to go, and either burn their draft
cards, or joined the Reserves.

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:59:37 -0600, "Gene Storey"
wrote:

"Kevin Brooks" wrote
"Gene Storey" wrote

Please provide some evidence that US military officers intended to lose the war

The war was lost, and officers are in charge of war.

You might want to review the relationship between the military and the
government established by the US Constitution.

It was lost in 1946 when we allowed the French to decolonize.

???? We? Who is we? And, why would the French need approval from
anyone other than the French people? And, if they "decolonized" in
1946, what was going on at Dien Bien Phu in 1954?

http://www.lexisnexis.com/academic/2...ietnamMACV.asp

What's the relevance of the link? It certainly doesn't offer any
support for US military officers intending to lose.

Basically, if you fly a B-52 down the same route as the previous three B-52, and do
it at the same altitude, and with the same waypoints, you and whoever drew-up the
operation are derelict.

You might refer to Marshall Michel's excellent work, "Eleven Days of
Christmas" for some insight into the relationship between SAC and the
rest of the US military. Pay close attention to the command
relationships. SAC was not under the operational control of MACV or
7th Air Force.

Then, you might also want to check the size of the target area, the
availability of offset or direct aim points for a weapons delivery,
and the need to avoid collateral damage in a target area. (I might
even offer you a first-person account by a POW who was moved to a cell
that was immediately across the street from the Hanoi Power Plant.)
Some times there are only so many ways you can approach a target. Why
come down Thud Ridge every day? It points at Hanoi, it doesn't have
much population and it provides radar screening from SAM sites. But,
that means you go the same way every day....Yep.

The fact that anyone survived is pure luck, and those that
died were very brave, but very wasted (much as going over the top in the great war
in the face of machine guns). The way to lose a war is to suffer casualties so great,
with such waste, the people back home won't want to go, and either burn their draft
cards, or joined the Reserves.

But, if we count casualties, then the 58,000 names on the Wall are
minor compared to the estimates of 2 to 3 million that the NVN and VC
lost in the war.

Whether we won or lost, suffered immense casualties or none at all,
the sniveling weak sisters who burned their draft cards would still
have been driven only by the desire to preserve their own worthless
hides.

And, you might also want to check out the number of Reserve and Guard
units that served in combat in SEA and how many casualties they
incurred.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8