Sweden says it built a Russian fighter jet killer — and stealth is totally irrelevant

[Zhukov]

He sounded so much like Indian Air Chief BS Dhanoa

 

[CriticalThought]

Who the heck was getting into "technical" issues? The hell are you talking about? My post was in response to the article (subject of this thread btw) which Swedes claim Gripen-E can take on Russian Flankers and Fulcrum. I pointed out that tall claims amount to nothing when a small country like Yugoslavia can shoot down an American F-117 Knighthawk, one of the most advance aircraft in USAF inventory, at the time. Your claim, that "your F-16" are superior to F-117s in every other regime other than stealth, doesn't really have any pertinence to my post. Since Yugoslavia shot down an F-16CJ Wild Weasel, other than F-117, as well as an AV-8 Harrier.

Yugoslavia was nowhere near as powerful as NATO, equipped with MiG-21s and a handful of MiG-29s along with their Soko attack variant aircraft. It had mostly Cold War era SAMs and it had tracked F-117 using Vera radar, among other aids. It managed to gain a victory (even though a small one) despite being outmatched in advance tech fighters operated by NATO.



https://www.truthinmedia.org/Bulletins2000/tim2000-5-1.html

I knew what your post was really about, where some pilots in the USAF were of the view that these F-117s were overrated and they rated their own fighter jets, over this stealth aircraft. But your point has no bearing on what my post was about. There isn't anything technical, so don't make it sound technical. F-117s were designed to evade radar to avoid being shot down by SAMs, but they did get shot in Yugoslavia, albeit just one. Proved my point, where as yours sounded more incoherent than anything else.

So again, I say that Swedish claims can get as extravagant as they want. Russians have extensively modernized both the RuAF and their ADN (Air Defense Network). Russia isn't someone NATO can bully around or walk over.

Next time, don't assume things about other people. I may not be a military pilot, but I am a pilot none the less. And I have extensive research on military history, as I consider myself to be a student of the subject. Also, learn to have some humility. Goodbye!

Your core argument itself is flawed. Sweden made a claim about Russian jets. In order to show it is a preposterous claim you present the unlikely example of stealth jet destroyed by outdated SAM. First if all, proof by example isn't a proof. Second, you have failed to establish the correlation between the Swedish claim and American disaster. The two are completely unrelated and when people try to call your attention to this fact, you drive off on a completely different tangent about latest technology. You come across as incoherent, confused, and too full of yourself. Don't try to buy currency by informing us of your trivial accomplishments. Present a logical argument and stop strutting about.

 

[Nasr]

You brought it up.

Saying something which is already documented and purported by U.S in print media, isn't bringing it up. Just repeating a claim they've already made. The development of this aircraft was overseen by DARPA. The project was shrouded in secrecy and was what Pentagon made out be something advance.

The mountain out of a mole hill, is what you've done. Absolute waste of brain cells, on the trivial aspect of the aircraft having no radar. Of course with that shape who would expect to have a radar. What nonsense and utterly stupid argument carrying on for this long. Claims made by your country, not me. Secrecy by your country, not me. Hype of making stealth supposedly being something advance by your country, not me. And along comes you, claims of being a USAF pilot (like if that means anything) and claiming the exact opposite.

Whatever crap you're trying to make sense of, you've failed. F-117 was one of the most advance aircraft at the time of Yugoslav war, as claimed by your government, your pentagon and your Air Force. No one cares whether the damn thing had a radar or not, or was the shape of a flying saucer or an antelope. It was first generation stealth, the latest tech in USAF and it was shot down by a small Balkan country, using comparatively primitive equipment.

End of discussion!

 

[CriticalThought]

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/swed...ler-and-stealth-is-totally-irrelevant.601018/



There is no such 'code' if Mr. Lockie is trying to imply, even figuratively, there is a single math equation or software if-else block that can solve the problem is getting a radar lock on a 'stealth' fighter.

This...

...Is how an aircraft look like to the radar computer: A cluster of voltage spikes.

Each spike is a collection of smaller spikes.

For example...

If there are surface irregularities, like a scratch or a rivet, each irregularity create a small voltage spike from the radar signal. The more irregularities, the greater the sum which ended up as a major spike for the radar computer. There is NOTHING mysterious about this.

This is why maintenance for the F-117, F-22, F-35, and B-2 are intensive. They are intensive not because it is difficult to remove internal components, even a component as large as an engine, but intensive because we want to preserve surface consistency. The amount of panel fasteners are calculated in. The gap of the panels are calculated in. Each panel's dimensions are calculated in. Even material science regarding reflectivity are calculated in.

So just for surface alone, the factors involved are enormous to try to minimize radar reflections. Now calculate in other items like wings, fins, antenna, etc...etc...

The problem is data processing. One computer may see a single voltage spike. A better computer may see 10 discrete signals inside that single spike. A better computer may see 100 or 1000 or even more. So the real problem is how to detect these discrete signals and process them all.

An airliner is easy to detect because the designer do not care about these things. He does not care because the airliner is not a war machine.

At the high level, there is nothing mysterious about this. But at the practical level, to design in low radar reflectivity requires repeated shaping and measurement, over and over. A computer may help, but actual physical measurement is always required. So at the practical level, it is financially prohibitive for most countries, even one as wealthy as Sweden.

The Swedes can make all the claims they want. We chose our path and proved it lethal. Other countries can take their chances with the Swedes.

Ha more propaganda. The American gambit *ahem* *ahem* seems to come undone in rain. So much for judicious balance of competing design elements. The 'code' being discussed is the American LPI radars. But let's extend the meaning and take 'code' as the entire process of defeating stealth, then here is that process.

1. Knowing stealth cannot deal with UHF/VHF, develop tracking methods in that frequency range.

2. Knowing there is no such thing as perfect cancellation, develop radar sources of higher intensity and receivers that can discern low intensity reflections from a longer distance.

3. Develop VLRAAMs that can perform a search of the target area. We know that the closer the active seeker is, the better chance of detection it has.

4. Detect the reflections from the VLRAAM active seeker at the launching aircraft to provide mid-course updates.

5. Utilize knowledge of limited missile count on American stealth jets to simply overwhelm them, leaving them unarmed. Kill rates of 1:5 only work in orchestrated exercises.

 

[gambit]

Ha more propaganda.

Yeah...I can see that what I posted is over your head, hence, the same old 'propaganda' empty charge.

Saying something which is already documented and purported by U.S in print media, isn't bringing it up. Just repeating a claim they've already made.

Even if they are wrong?

The development of this aircraft was overseen by DARPA. The project was shrouded in secrecy and was what Pentagon made out be something advance.

That does not make the F-117 the 'most advance' in the technology front. The only thing unique about the F-117 was its shaping.

End of discussion!

 

[CriticalThought]

Yeah...I can see that what I posted is over your head, hence, the same old 'propaganda' empty charge.

You must think your readers are fundamentally incapable of rational thought to peddle your supposed supremacy so callously.

 

[gambit]

You must think your readers are fundamentally incapable of rational thought to peddle your supposed supremacy so callously.

Whenever I posted something like no. 54, I am readied to be proven wrong. So far, no one have taken what I posted in the past, did his/her own research, ran it thru his/her university perfessors, and returned to the forum and proved me wrong.

Maybe you would be the first?

 

[CriticalThought]

Whenever I posted something like no. 54, I am readied to be proven wrong. So far, no one have taken what I posted in the past, did his/her own research, ran it thru his/her university perfessors, and returned to the forum and proved me wrong.

Maybe you would be the first?

I never said you posted incorrect information. I was pointing out the accompanying chest thumping. Now here is the problem in my little world. My fellow countrymen are rather prone to getting awed when presented with even superficially deep technical details (I am not accusing your post of being superficial). So I need to be absolutely merciless in countering 'propaganda', i.e., attempts to wow them such that they mentally capitulate to the 'greatness' of another nation.

Hope this clarifies my position.

 

[gambit]

I never said you posted incorrect information.

Good. Because that would be dangerous grounds for you. Some in the past have learned the hard way. They left here out of embarrassment.

I was pointing out the accompanying chest thumping.

Nothing wrong with that - the chest thumping. You are supposed to cheer for your country, right?

Now here is the problem in my little world. My fellow countrymen are rather prone to getting awed when presented with even superficially deep technical details (I am not accusing your post of being superficial). So I need to be absolutely merciless in countering 'propaganda',...

If you cannot prove me wrong at the technical level, then what I presented is not 'propaganda'.

Propaganda can be challenged and even refuted. The laws of nature cannot and what I presented came from the laws of nature. What I presented anyone can take to the authority of their choice and confirm or disprove. You cannot say that with propaganda.

...they mentally capitulate to the 'greatness' of another nation.

Your problem, not mine. Now it is YOU who are insulting the intelligence of others, particularly on this forum that have many Pakistanis with higher education.

I was invited here back in '09. Since then, I provided bits and pieces of military life that no one can fabricate, and what I provided are high level technical information on basic radar operations and 'stealth' in general.

 

[CriticalThought]

Good. Because that would be dangerous grounds for you. Some in the past have learned the hard way. They left here out of embarrassment.


Nothing wrong with that - the chest thumping. You are supposed to cheer for your country, right?


If you cannot prove me wrong at the technical level, then what I presented is not 'propaganda'.

Propaganda can be challenged and even refuted. The laws of nature cannot and what I presented came from the laws of nature. What I presented anyone can take to the authority of their choice and confirm or disprove. You cannot say that with propaganda.


Your problem, not mine. Now it is YOU who are insulting the intelligence of others, particularly on this forum that have many Pakistanis with higher education.

I was invited here back in '09. Since then, I provided bits and pieces of military life that no one can fabricate, and what I provided are high level technical information on basic radar operations and 'stealth' in general.

Propaganda uses whatever technique best suits its needs. Controlled dissemination of correct information, misinformation, and disinformation. If you don't observe the simple discipline of separating nationalistic jingoism from technical content, then I must point that out loudly.

I mean people who disseminate knowledge for the love of science tend to limit themselves to pure technical content and actually enjoy doing so.

And finally, you are not faultless and the times where I have proven you wrong are well known. But lets not derail the thread.

 

[gambit]

Propaganda uses whatever technique best suits its needs. Controlled dissemination of correct information, misinformation, and disinformation.

The problem for you is that I controlled NOTHING. There is something call 'the Internet' where anyone can use to verify anything I said. Try it instead of blindly accusing me of controlling information.

If you don't observe the simple discipline of separating nationalistic jingoism from technical content, then I must point that out loudly.

The problem for you is that you conflate technically correct information with nationalistic jingoism. If I am technically correct about something like in post 54 -- too g-damn bad for your argument. Simple as that.

And finally, you are not faultless and the times where I have proven you wrong are well known. But lets not derail the thread.

Yeah...You THOUGHT you proved me wrong.

 

[CriticalThought]

The problem for you is that I controlled NOTHING. There is something call 'the Internet' where anyone can use to verify anything I said. Try it instead of blindly accusing me of controlling information.

Let's review one of the definitions of propaganda

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

Richard Alan Nelson provides a definition of the term: "Propaganda is neutrally defined as a systematic form of purposeful persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial purposes through the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or may not be factual) via mass and direct media channels."[26] The definition focuses on the communicative process involved – or more precisely, on the purpose of the process, and allow "propaganda" to be considered objectively and then interpreted as positive or negative behavior depending on the perspective of the viewer or listener.

Now let's look at what I am alleging is propaganda in 54

The Swedes can make all the claims they want. We chose our path and proved it lethal. Other countries can take their chances with the Swedes.

See the snarky smiley? Notice the non-objectivity of 'We chose our path and proved it lethal'? Where is the proof? See the one-sided nature of the statements? Translation: "Our way is the best way, because we say so". Where is the counter-point? Why aren't alternatives described? This subtle psychological manipulation conducted over decades has shaped perceptions around the world. I feel it is time to call this out.

The problem for you is that you conflate technically correct information with nationalistic jingoism. If I am technically correct about something like in post 54 -- too g-damn bad for your argument. Simple as that.

Kindly show how I espouse nationalistic jingoism, and mix it with technically correct information? If I provide the counter-point to your one-sided narrative, and then call out the propaganda, that's called setting the record straight and upholding the values of freedom and democracy.

Yeah...You THOUGHT you proved me wrong.

Correction, you were unable to present your argument to the IEEE and make them accept their mistake.

 

[gambit]

Let's review one of the definitions of propaganda

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

Now let's look at what I am alleging is propaganda in 54

What you alleged as propaganda was my opinion. On the other hand, the bulk of post 54 was purely technical. The laws of nature is not propaganda.

Correction, you were unable to present your argument to the IEEE and make them accept their mistake.

That is where you misunderstood the nature of IEE in the first place.

 

[CriticalThought]

What you alleged as propaganda was my opinion. On the other hand, the bulk of post 54 was purely technical. The laws of nature is not propaganda.

I concede it might not have been your intention, and maybe I am too paranoid. But I will continue to keep my guard raised.

That is where you misunderstood the nature of IEE in the first place.

IEEE is a prestigious society which takes pride in maintaining high level of technical accuracy in all publications. The IEEE Spectrum is like the public face, where it reaches out to people across all levels of technical expertise and makes them interested in engineering. The level of inaccuracies that you identified would be considered out right scandalous. Most definitely IEEE would publish a clarification, and would either retract the article, or update it to better reflect the reality.

 

[gambit]

IEEE is a prestigious society which takes pride in maintaining high level of technical accuracy in all publications. The IEEE Spectrum is like the public face, where it reaches out to people across all levels of technical expertise and makes them interested in engineering. The level of inaccuracies that you identified would be considered out right scandalous. Most definitely IEEE would publish a clarification, and would either retract the article, or update it to better reflect the reality.

The highlighted is where you are HILARIOUSLY wrong.

What is said in that other debate was not inaccurate. The article was TACTICALLY INCOMPLETE.

Supposed I post an article that says: Radar detect stuff.

I provided all the necessary math and supporting sources. Then comes along someone submit an article that says: Shaping reduces RCS.

That does not mean my paper is inaccurate. Neither does his. Neither paper violated any laws of physics. You are confused between the TECHNICAL and TACTICAL issues.