Israeli Stealth???

Much less common than something called "a huge technology advantage."


Yeah right,like "historical victories"in
Grenada,Panama,Iraq,Serbia,Afghanistan,Micronesia, Zambia,Nowhereia etc.

For one thing, because you really can't (wavelength considerations alone
make that a ridiculous claim), and even if you could, you'd get a screen
full of noise.

Thats true,but only if you use radar as amplitute based classical binary
detection method (conventional radar).
But if you start to consider radar as a data carrier and process,for example
polarimetric data,you can easily filter out the noise.
Regarding ridiculousness of claim,this claim was the talk of the town last year
somewhere in East Coast.if* you know what you're looking for, and under
perfect conditions.

The only demonstrated multistatics have been working on targets
literally a thousand times the size of stealth planes (10 m^2 versus
0.01 m^2).

Lets say only sofar,the frontal RCS of both B2 and F22 is 0,0001 sqm but both
of them could be easily detected,tracked (and imaged) by US multistatic
system,which is optimized for the next generation stealthy cruise missiles and
UCAVs.
Why ? Because current RCS definition has a meaning only if you face
backscatterers,if you face multistatics thats different story.

While stealth designers also *absorb* energy, and use those much-reduced
reflections to make ECM much more potent. that's the big weakness of
multistatics, you know... *way* easier to spoof.

As I posted before,for meaningful backscatterer radar detection range
reductions you need an echo reduction at least in order of 10000 whereas the
best RAMs today offer only reduction in order of 100.
RAMs are a stealth designers Band-Aids,they use them only if everything else
fails,the weapon of every passive stealth platform designer is the "Hardbody
Shaping".
Probably you wont see any RAMs,RASs etc in the platforms of future because of
the development of HPM weapons.
If you face HPM weapons the last thing that you may want is to absorb their
energy.
Spoofing? Well it depends,if you know the location receiver lt might be easier.
But do Stealth planes need ECM support like lowly counterparts?

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..
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

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.
As for Germany, Europe, or NATO having no operational stealth
aircraft- you simply don't know. What we do know is that non-US
stealth aircraft have been flying over Europe since the '90s and that
all the major nations have black projects too.
If German stealth is utter BS as you claim then please tell me how MBB
designed the Lampyridae independently from the US and without help
from Pyotr Ufimtsev's book? Their aircraft would have been superior to
the F-117 in faceting and much faster, armed with aams too! It must
really **** you off that from scratch the Germans designed such an
aircraft while the US took decades of research and translation to
arrive at the same conclusions!!!
Here's to the Firefly II, may Al live to see it!

Rob

"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

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 00:00:35 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Alan Minyard wrote:

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.

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 :-)


They also had some stealth coatings for airframes. Which had the
unfortunate tendency to peel off in flight...

Al Minyard

On 13 Oct 2003 09:43:25 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..
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

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.
As for Germany, Europe, or NATO having no operational stealth
aircraft- you simply don't know. What we do know is that non-US
stealth aircraft have been flying over Europe since the '90s and that
all the major nations have black projects too.
If German stealth is utter BS as you claim then please tell me how MBB
designed the Lampyridae independently from the US and without help
from Pyotr Ufimtsev's book? Their aircraft would have been superior to
the F-117 in faceting and much faster, armed with aams too! It must
really **** you off that from scratch the Germans designed such an
aircraft while the US took decades of research and translation to
arrive at the same conclusions!!!
Here's to the Firefly II, may Al live to see it!

Rob

If the Germans (or anyone else other than the US) has/had stealth that
worked we would have seen it by now. The "firefly" was not built, was
not flown, and was abandoned. Making things up does not make them
true. As to a "firefly II", it will never see the light of day as it
does not exist. The Germans might have designed a prototype scale
model of an aircraft, but they did not design/build/fly one. Get over
it.

Al Minyard

In article ,
(Denyav) wrote:

Well, we *do* allow people in from all over, while still generating a
lot of skilled folks in-country.

We do allow people in because US system could and would not produce top notch
scientists.

Except for the ones we *do* produce, of course. Like the two US-born
and trained scientists who just won the Nobel for chemistry. Or the guy
who shared the prize for medicine for inventing the MRI.

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).

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

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

In article ,
(Denyav) wrote:

Much less common than something called "a huge technology advantage."


Yeah right,like "historical victories"in
Grenada,

Won. Not really much of a fight, though.

Panama,

Won. Ditto.

Iraq,

Won (in one of the most lopsided wars ever fought).

Than kgoodness we were fighting a country that used mostly Russian
weapons, it might have been tough.

Serbia,

Wow - you just don't quit when you're behind, do you?

Afghanistan,

Again, won. Afghanistan has had a change in government and a 30%
increase in their economy in the last year. More Russians were killed
by Chechens in Moscow than we lost in Afghanistan...

Micronesia,

Haven't fought there. Yet.

Zambia,

Ditto.

Nowhereia etc.

And the list of imaginary "losses" just keeps on rolling.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

In article ,
(Denyav) wrote:

For one thing, because you really can't (wavelength considerations alone
make that a ridiculous claim), and even if you could, you'd get a screen
full of noise.

Thats true,but only if you use radar as amplitute based classical binary
detection method (conventional radar).
But if you start to consider radar as a data carrier and process,for example
polarimetric data,you can easily filter out the noise.

Until someone spends a few watts spoofing you out of your shoes.

Regarding ridiculousness of claim,this claim was the talk of the town
last year somewhere in East Coast.

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.

Lets say only sofar, the frontal RCS of both B2 and F22 is 0,0001 sqm
but both of them could be easily detected,tracked (and imaged) by US
multistatic system,which is optimized for the next generation
stealthy cruise missiles and UCAVs.

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.

Why ? Because current RCS definition has a meaning only if you face
backscatterers,if you face multistatics thats different story.

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

As I posted before,for meaningful backscatterer radar detection range
reductions you need an echo reduction at least in order of 10000
whereas the best RAMs today offer only reduction in order of 100.
RAMs are a stealth designers Band-Aids,they use them only if
everything else fails,the weapon of every passive stealth platform
designer is the "Hardbody Shaping".

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.

Probably you wont see any RAMs,RASs etc in the platforms of future
because of the development of HPM weapons.

That's exactly the opposite of what *everyone* says.

If you face HPM weapons the last thing that you may want is to absorb their
energy.

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

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

Spoofing? Well it depends,if you know the location receiver lt might be
easier.
But do Stealth planes need ECM support like lowly counterparts?

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
low power transmitters (and a lot more of them). And since you're
looking at odd reflection angles, you can pretty much idsappear in the
noise.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

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...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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