4 ms·

I remember reading something along the lines that several models were being discontinued (the first ones that come to mind are the A-10 and the F117) in favor o

I remember reading something along the lines that several models were being discontinued (the first ones that come to mind are the A-10 and the F117) in favor of this plane since it was going to be able to do everything. However, he loses a lot of respectability when he says that stealth is a scam. All you have to do is ask the multitude of the F117 pilots who flew over Baghdad during the invasion, if stealth technology helped them avoid Iraqi radar.

rst 12y ago
His claim is that stealth only works against radars in a particular frequency band, and that long-wave radars designed to defeat it can do so easily. Saddam Hussein didn't have those; the point is that the F-35's adversaries (anyone with an air defense system designed after the F-117 went public) likely do.
- tomwhipple 12y ago
  Long wave radars are fine for early warning. (e.g. HEY! There's some thing out there!) But they can't help you figure out where it is exactly. (e.g. guide an anti-aircraft missile to intercept).
- sharpneli 12y ago
  Disclaimer: I think the F-35 is total scam. But this is about stealth You can also reduce your effective cross section to long-wave radars by splitting the hull into non electrically connected areas. If there is no electrical contact there is no resonance effect for that particular frequency. Who knows, maybe some aircraft eventually will use it. Stealth as a generic concept is not ruined by long wave radars, the current designs might be. It's traditional arms race.
msandford 12y ago
You've just fallen prey to a logical fallacy. Just because SOME radars cannot detect stealth aircraft it does not immediately follow that NO radars can detect stealth aircraft. http://aviationweek.com/defense/commentary-do-russian-radar-developments-challenge-stealth http://aviationweek.com/defense/commentary-do-russian-radar-... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_aircraft#Limitations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_aircraft#Limitations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bistatic_radar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bistatic_radar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_radar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_radar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multistatic_radar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multistatic_radar Provided that you're willing to invest a minute or so (I spent 5 min finding links) you can discover that in fact he does know what he's talking about. This is established science and not at all contentious.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- vacri 12y ago
  What is the logical fallacy in saying "stealth has been credited with protecting aircraft over Iraq, so it's not a scam"? The OP did not say that stealth made an aircraft invisible to radar, just that it 'helped avoid Iraqi radar'. Creating a straw man out of the OP's argument doesn't turn the original words into a logical fallacy.
  - dmpk2k 12y ago
    It's not a logical fallacy, but the F117A is a poor argument for stealth. Military weapon systems are a war unto themselves: each side learning about the other's and creating new systems to remove those advantages. Basically, once the F117A became common knowledge, it was only a matter of years before modern radar systems were developed that mitigated that advantage. I have little doubt that Russia put a lot of effort into making the S400 effective against stealth aircraft. Having a low radar profile still helps, but we won't see the advantage the F117A had over Baghdad.
fafner 12y ago
You mean during Desert Storm? Stealth was very new (I think the F117 had been used in Panama for the first time though). 8 years later the Serbs were able to track and shoot down an F117. The Russians and Chinese and probably every other defence company aren't sitting still. Afghanistan had no serious air defence network anyway. The Iraqi air defence network was heavily outdated and under sanctions for over 10 years in 2003. The Libyan air defences hadn't been updated since the 80s when the US managed to bomb Libya with the loss of one aircraft. The Israelis managed time and time again to overcome the Syrian air defence network. Which is, although not build to its full capacity due to Russia holding back the S300 and now heavily impacted by the civil war, more modern and better designed than anything the US encountered in her recent conflicts. And the Israelis have no stealth aircraft and used their F-15.
- a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
  I thought the Serbs tracked the F117 they shot mostly by sight? They had a bunch of observers with cell phones. This got them a close enough fix to target it. Not really an argument against keeping a low radar cross section.
  - droithomme 12y ago
    Well fortunately we can ask him. The F-117 was downed by Colonel Zoltan Dani, former commander of the 3rd battery of the 250th Missile Brigade in Belgrade, on March 27, 1999. Question: "How did you manage to spot the stealth fighter?" Zoltan Dani: "To that end, we used the Soviet-made P18 meter band radar which is capable of tracking any warplane irrespective of the configuration of its fuselage. The radar started to emit and we discovered a target at a distance of 15 kilometers – something that our operators were distinctly seeing on a display. I was quick to order the launch of a missile which destroyed the target." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-18_radar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-18_radar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoltán_Dani http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoltán_Dani http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_03_24/69369732/ http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_03_24/69369732/
InclinedPlane 12y ago
Do you not remember the F117 that was shot down? Stealth isn't a scam, but it's very much oversold, especially with regard to the F35. Ultimately the stealth of the F35 is not enough of an advantage to make up for the downsides of the aircraft. In any force on force engadgment the F35 will run out of missiles and run low on fuel before the enemies, and then it will be forced to run away. A condition where the vehicle is less stealthy and also where it's slower speed is a huge disadvantage, so it'll just get shot out of the sky. This has been the consistent result of many simulations and wargames with the F35 against contemporary fighter aircraft.
theoh 12y ago
He also seems to have a business selling high-end audiophile gear, which is difficult to square with his apparent engineering expertise.

rst 12y ago

His claim is that stealth only works against radars in a particular frequency band, and that long-wave radars designed to defeat it can do so easily. Saddam Hussein didn't have those; the point is that the F-35's adversaries (anyone with an air defense system designed after the F-117 went public) likely do.

tomwhipple 12y ago
Long wave radars are fine for early warning. (e.g. HEY! There's some thing out there!) But they can't help you figure out where it is exactly. (e.g. guide an anti-aircraft missile to intercept).
sharpneli 12y ago
Disclaimer: I think the F-35 is total scam. But this is about stealth You can also reduce your effective cross section to long-wave radars by splitting the hull into non electrically connected areas. If there is no electrical contact there is no resonance effect for that particular frequency. Who knows, maybe some aircraft eventually will use it. Stealth as a generic concept is not ruined by long wave radars, the current designs might be. It's traditional arms race.

msandford 12y ago

You've just fallen prey to a logical fallacy. Just because SOME radars cannot detect stealth aircraft it does not immediately follow that NO radars can detect stealth aircraft. http://aviationweek.com/defense/commentary-do-russian-radar-developments-challenge-stealth http://aviationweek.com/defense/commentary-do-russian-radar-... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_aircraft#Limitations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_aircraft#Limitations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bistatic_radar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bistatic_radar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_radar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_radar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multistatic_radar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multistatic_radar Provided that you're willing to invest a minute or so (I spent 5 min finding links) you can discover that in fact he does know what he's talking about. This is established science and not at all contentious.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
vacri 12y ago
What is the logical fallacy in saying "stealth has been credited with protecting aircraft over Iraq, so it's not a scam"? The OP did not say that stealth made an aircraft invisible to radar, just that it 'helped avoid Iraqi radar'. Creating a straw man out of the OP's argument doesn't turn the original words into a logical fallacy.
- dmpk2k 12y ago
  It's not a logical fallacy, but the F117A is a poor argument for stealth. Military weapon systems are a war unto themselves: each side learning about the other's and creating new systems to remove those advantages. Basically, once the F117A became common knowledge, it was only a matter of years before modern radar systems were developed that mitigated that advantage. I have little doubt that Russia put a lot of effort into making the S400 effective against stealth aircraft. Having a low radar profile still helps, but we won't see the advantage the F117A had over Baghdad.

fafner 12y ago

You mean during Desert Storm? Stealth was very new (I think the F117 had been used in Panama for the first time though). 8 years later the Serbs were able to track and shoot down an F117. The Russians and Chinese and probably every other defence company aren't sitting still. Afghanistan had no serious air defence network anyway. The Iraqi air defence network was heavily outdated and under sanctions for over 10 years in 2003. The Libyan air defences hadn't been updated since the 80s when the US managed to bomb Libya with the loss of one aircraft. The Israelis managed time and time again to overcome the Syrian air defence network. Which is, although not build to its full capacity due to Russia holding back the S300 and now heavily impacted by the civil war, more modern and better designed than anything the US encountered in her recent conflicts. And the Israelis have no stealth aircraft and used their F-15.

a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
I thought the Serbs tracked the F117 they shot mostly by sight? They had a bunch of observers with cell phones. This got them a close enough fix to target it. Not really an argument against keeping a low radar cross section.
- droithomme 12y ago
  Well fortunately we can ask him. The F-117 was downed by Colonel Zoltan Dani, former commander of the 3rd battery of the 250th Missile Brigade in Belgrade, on March 27, 1999. Question: "How did you manage to spot the stealth fighter?" Zoltan Dani: "To that end, we used the Soviet-made P18 meter band radar which is capable of tracking any warplane irrespective of the configuration of its fuselage. The radar started to emit and we discovered a target at a distance of 15 kilometers – something that our operators were distinctly seeing on a display. I was quick to order the launch of a missile which destroyed the target." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-18_radar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-18_radar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoltán_Dani http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoltán_Dani http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_03_24/69369732/ http://voiceofrussia.com/2012_03_24/69369732/

InclinedPlane 12y ago

Do you not remember the F117 that was shot down? Stealth isn't a scam, but it's very much oversold, especially with regard to the F35. Ultimately the stealth of the F35 is not enough of an advantage to make up for the downsides of the aircraft. In any force on force engadgment the F35 will run out of missiles and run low on fuel before the enemies, and then it will be forced to run away. A condition where the vehicle is less stealthy and also where it's slower speed is a huge disadvantage, so it'll just get shot out of the sky. This has been the consistent result of many simulations and wargames with the F35 against contemporary fighter aircraft.

theoh 12y ago

He also seems to have a business selling high-end audiophile gear, which is difficult to square with his apparent engineering expertise.