New U.S. Stealth Jet Can’t Hide From Russian Radar

[notgoodenough]

[quote"Peter C, post: 5638116, member: 151235"]I think you should do some research on radar types and their pros and cons. You'll see the problems with VHF and how countries are trying to use high speed computers to try and make them actually useful.[/quote]

Good luck with that flying turkey bro.

 

[Esc8781]

Good luck with that flying turkey bro.

You'll all be proven wrong just like the F-117 before Desert Storm. But hey, please underestimate the US military's capabilities; it always ends well.

 

[notgoodenough]

You mean like in Vietnam Afghanistan Iraq? Haha. Imperial hubris at its finest.

The only thing the US military is good at is bombing defenseless countries like Libya or sending their wahabi terrorists like in Syria. Or sending Nazis and fascists like ukraine and venezeuala. How's that working out for you?

The paper tiger has peaked. This f35 flying turkey gimmick plane was only good for looting and skimming tax payer dollars. This is the end of the US empire. Although you're too blind and brainwashed by your own propaganda to see it.

You'll all be proven wrong just like the F-117 before Desert Storm. But hey, please underestimate the US military's capabilities; it always ends well.

 

[gambit]

You're living in denial. Like all " good " amerikuns.




You just keep proving my point. Stealth is a marketing gimmick. There is no real stealth. At least on American planes. The funny thing is, when you guys lose arguments online, you admit to it. Cut over to Lockheed et al during their sales pitch presentations and you'd swear american planes had Klingon cloaking devices.


There are liars, apologists and those living in denial. I am missing anyone? Lol@ our planes have stealth, but it doesn't work, but we will keep selling " stealth " as though it did.

We can tell that you are not here for a rational discussion but to troll this subject.

Nevertheless...Clue for you, troll.

In radar detection, NOTHING is 'invisible'. It may surprise you to read me saying this, as I have relevant experience in the sensor business, but the US military NEVER claimed anything to be 'invisible'. The correct phrasing is 'low radar observable'. The word 'invisible' is usually used by popular news.

The laws of physics were well known for this, all the way back to post WW II, that meters length freqs can detect large complex bodies like aircrafts. But those same laws of physics also said that if you want to accurately track an aircraft through 3D space, you need to use increasingly higher (shorter) freqs, and that is what 'stealth' is against, those centimeters and millimeters freqs. Lockheed knew of this before the F-117 came to be. The analogy is that you can see it, but whatever you throw at it, most likely it will miss.

Something like this...

Raptor debuts at Red Flag, dominates skies

"The thing denies your ability to put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it through the canopy," said RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell, F-15 exchange pilot in the 65th AS. "It's the most frustrated I've ever been."

Ignorant trolls like you have no interests in these details as put forth by people in this business. You take what is clearly a 'slow news day' article and thinks that ANY one can fly with a radar antenna tens of meters across.

Let me know when you are ready to be educated. But I doubt you have that kind of intellectual honesty to admit you do not know any better.

 

[notgoodenough]

Name calling. Always the sign of high intellect. Not.


Stealth = branding gimmick.
F35 = useless flying turkey

/

We can tell that you are not here for a rational discussion but to troll this subject.

Nevertheless...Clue for you, troll.

In radar detection, NOTHING is 'invisible'. It may surprise you to read me saying this, as I have relevant experience in the sensor business, but the US military NEVER claimed anything to be 'invisible'. The correct phrasing is 'low radar observable'. The word 'invisible' is usually used by popular news.

The laws of physics were well known for this, all the way back to post WW II, that meters length freqs can detect large complex bodies like aircrafts. But those same laws of physics also said that if you want to accurately track an aircraft through 3D space, you need to use increasingly higher (shorter) freqs, and that is what 'stealth' is against, those centimeters and millimeters freqs. Lockheed knew of this before the F-117 came to be. The analogy is that you can see it, but whatever you throw at it, most likely it will miss.

Something like this...

Raptor debuts at Red Flag, dominates skies

Ignorant trolls like you have no interests in these details as put forth by people in this business. You take what is clearly a 'slow news day' article and thinks that ANY one can fly with a radar antenna tens of meters across.

Let me know when you are ready to be educated. But I doubt you have that kind of intellectual honesty to admit you do not know any better.

 

[HeinzG]

The analogy is that you can see it, but whatever you throw at it, most likely it will miss.

Something like this...

Raptor debuts at Red Flag, dominates skies

Ignorant trolls like you have no interests in these details as put forth by people in this business. You take what is clearly a 'slow news day' article and thinks that ANY one can fly with a radar antenna tens of meters across.

Let me know when you are ready to be educated. But I doubt you have that kind of intellectual honesty to admit you do not know any better.

If the aircraft radar can see it why can't a missile seeker cannot see the aircraft ? Let's say one threw an advance IR missile like R 73 can't it hit the target?

 

[500]

Stealth = branding gimmick.

Yet, Russia and China are copying it and all other leading countries want to buy it.

F35 = useless flying turkey

Name calling. Always the sign of high intellect. Not.

 

[notgoodenough]

Nobody is copying the f35. Certainly not the Russians. And no people don't want to buy it. Nato countries have no Plan B so they either buy it or they are left out of " next gen " fighter class. All countries have scaled back their orders. They know its a piece of junk.

And Pierre Sprey called it a flying turkey. I found it fitting so I repeated his sentiment. If you think Pierre Sprey doesn't know what he's talking about, you're clueless about fighter jet design.

Are you done licking uncle Sam's boot? Or are you just saying this because Israel wants to buy some?

Hahaha

Yet, Russia and China are copying it and all other leading countries want to buy it.


Name calling. Always the sign of high intellect. Not.

The russians

They've already admitted stealth doesn't exist. Its just a stupid marketing gimmick to sell more turkeys to Israel and the rest of the crowd who can't build their own 5th gen fighters

If the aircraft radar can see it why can't a missile seeker cannot see the aircraft ? Let's say one threw an advance IR missile like R 73 can't it hit the target?

 

[satishkumarcsc]

We can tell that you are not here for a rational discussion but to troll this subject.

Nevertheless...Clue for you, troll.

In radar detection, NOTHING is 'invisible'. It may surprise you to read me saying this, as I have relevant experience in the sensor business, but the US military NEVER claimed anything to be 'invisible'. The correct phrasing is 'low radar observable'. The word 'invisible' is usually used by popular news.

The laws of physics were well known for this, all the way back to post WW II, that meters length freqs can detect large complex bodies like aircrafts. But those same laws of physics also said that if you want to accurately track an aircraft through 3D space, you need to use increasingly higher (shorter) freqs, and that is what 'stealth' is against, those centimeters and millimeters freqs. Lockheed knew of this before the F-117 came to be. The analogy is that you can see it, but whatever you throw at it, most likely it will miss.

Something like this...

Raptor debuts at Red Flag, dominates skies

Ignorant trolls like you have no interests in these details as put forth by people in this business. You take what is clearly a 'slow news day' article and thinks that ANY one can fly with a radar antenna tens of meters across.

Let me know when you are ready to be educated. But I doubt you have that kind of intellectual honesty to admit you do not know any better.

Seriously Do you want to talk with people and post the same articles that have been posted again and again in this forum and waste your time? I guess you have got better work to do.

 

[xyxmt]

Now that's a kick in the balls. Maybe we can spend another trillion of taxpayer money on a new jet that can overcome this problem, Because that would be way more important then things like deteriorating infrastructure, shitty healthcare, ect,

sorry mate most of your politician are in oil or defense business not the construction business.

 

[gambit]

Name calling. Always the sign of high intellect. Not.


Stealth = branding gimmick.
F35 = useless flying turkey

/

In your case, calling you a troll is definitely appropriate.

You started off, not by taking the article's side in a rational manner, but by going off topic.

Is 'stealth' a gimmick ? Basically, you are saying that all the major aviation powers in the world are in league with Lockheed with this 'gimmick'. What a grand conspiracy...!!! Right up there with the many 9/11 ones.

Russia and China are not copying the F-35 ? Wrong. Both are copying the TECHNIQUES that created the F-22 and F-35. So if the F-35 is junk, so are the Russian PAK-FA and Chinese J-20. Funny we do not see you going over to the Chinese forums and telling the Chinese members China made a boo-boo.

Pierre Sprey ? Is he the only aircraft designer in the world ? Was he a combat pilot ? For every Pierre Sprey, there are thousands who support the F-35, at the technical level and the philosophical level. With all due respect to Sprey, he is old news. The man once believe the F-16 should not be equipped with radar.

NATO members believe the F-35 is 'junk' ? Then why are they buying it, reduced figures or not ?

You are a troll.

 

[anonymus]

@gambit

Would the advent of passive sensors like IRST negate the advantage that stealth planes have over non-stealth one's?

 

[notgoodenough]

Keep living I denial about your " stealth " plane that isn't really stealth. Let's just close our eyes and wish.

In your case, calling you a troll is definitely appropriate.

You started off, not by taking the article's side in a rational manner, but by going off topic.

Is 'stealth' a gimmick ? Basically, you are saying that all the major aviation powers in the world are in league with Lockheed with this 'gimmick'. What a grand conspiracy...!!! Right up there with the many 9/11 ones.

Russia and China are not copying the F-35 ? Wrong. Both are copying the TECHNIQUES that created the F-22 and F-35. So if the F-35 is junk, so are the Russian PAK-FA and Chinese J-20. Funny we do not see you going over to the Chinese forums and telling the Chinese members China made a boo-boo.

Pierre Sprey ? Is he the only aircraft designer in the world ? Was he a combat pilot ? For every Pierre Sprey, there are thousands who support the F-35, at the technical level and the philosophical level. With all due respect to Sprey, he is old news. The man once believe the F-16 should not be equipped with radar.

NATO members believe the F-35 is 'junk' ? Then why are they buying it, reduced figures or not ?

You are a troll.

 

[UKBengali]

In your case, calling you a troll is definitely appropriate.

You started off, not by taking the article's side in a rational manner, but by going off topic.

Is 'stealth' a gimmick ? Basically, you are saying that all the major aviation powers in the world are in league with Lockheed with this 'gimmick'. What a grand conspiracy...!!! Right up there with the many 9/11 ones.

Russia and China are not copying the F-35 ? Wrong. Both are copying the TECHNIQUES that created the F-22 and F-35. So if the F-35 is junk, so are the Russian PAK-FA and Chinese J-20. Funny we do not see you going over to the Chinese forums and telling the Chinese members China made a boo-boo.

Pierre Sprey ? Is he the only aircraft designer in the world ? Was he a combat pilot ? For every Pierre Sprey, there are thousands who support the F-35, at the technical level and the philosophical level. With all due respect to Sprey, he is old news. The man once believe the F-16 should not be equipped with radar.

NATO members believe the F-35 is 'junk' ? Then why are they buying it, reduced figures or not ?

You are a troll.

Nato are buying F-35 is that there is no other choice. If the US was to offer F-22, then you would see how popular the F-35 really is. At least it offers 5th generation avionics and a degree of stealth.

The guy is not a troll as he makes valid points.

 

[gambit]

@gambit

Would the advent of passive sensors like IRST negate the advantage that stealth planes have over non-stealth one's?

No.

Passive sensors rely on target characteristics to give you target information. That kind of information can be corrupted and misleading. In the early days of IR seekers, a favorite tactic is to fly into the sun to escape the missile. Granted, today's IR seekers are much more sophisticated, however, even an aircraft's physical layout can deny an IR seeker sufficient target IR clustering to effect any kind of reliable guidance. When you have two jet engine exhausts, you have an IR cluster. The A-10's engines locations make it difficult for most IR seekers to have a good view of both engines at oblique angles.

But if you are talking about using other areas of the aircraft, such as IR from leading edges, like this extreme example using the Space Shuttle...

File:STS-3 infrared on reentry.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

...Then it is even more problematic to use faint and fairly dispersed IR emissions to try and track the aircraft. IR emissions from these locations can be transitory because the fighter is most likely maneuvering. One moment the IR sensor can see IR emissions on both wing leading edges, the next moment one wing does not show. Same for other structures like the vertical stabs or fins or the cockpit.

Try this source...

www.qirt.org/archives/qirt2012/papers/QIRT-2012-322.pdf

...As there are a few good graphics showing typical IR emission points on a wing leading edge. Now imagine a maneuvering fighter.

That is not to say IR cluster tracking cannot be done. We have been doing it for decades. I know that wing leading edges at non-Mach speed can be as high as 100C contrast. But the word 'tracking' implies a steady stream of target characteristics that are statistically significant in terms of intensity and frequency for the tracking algorithm to work and a maneuvering body simply do not provide that kind of constancy in IR emission, other than directly behind the exhausts.

To date, nothing beat radar if you want to increase your odds of hitting the target.

Take a look at these illustrations of IR reticles...

File:Reticle-abc.png - Scramble

The reason we have those 'blacked out' wedges is because we have to induce some kind of frequency, just like radar, in order to have timestamps of when an IR emission begins and when it ends. Tracking algorithms requires these time units. The output is then processed in similar fashions in radar data processing techniques. If there is insufficient contrast or unsteady sources, as in maneuverings, there will be inconsistent times of when a pseudo IR frequency begins and when it ends. The tracking process will fail. There more sophisticated seeker designs, of course, but the foundation of them is still these pseudo IR frequencies that have to be created, not by the target, but by the seeker.

Infrared search and track (IRST) is not the 'stealth' countermeasure as the Russians tried to portrayed it to be. It is good. But just not good enough.