posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 07:04 PM
reply to post by AlphaExray
The thing about using lower frequencies for stealth detection (like VHF or UHF) is that the the resolution of the paint is frequency dependent.
Telling me that an airplane is somewhere within that 32 miles of cubic airspace is useful as a search or warning tool, but useless for providing
targeting data to a SAM, for example. For targeting data, we need higher-frequencies. And at X-band, we're right back to stealth being a useful tool
again. Lower frequencies are also more susceptible to clutter and jamming. It's not as simple as saying, "An OTH radar can detect a stealth
aircraft". It is true, but it doesn't tell us what "detect" means.
You're bang on. Nice to see someone who knows their physics. I think Pierre Sprey was being overly simplistic when he said battle of Britain radars
could target stealth aircraft, but the point he was making is that they are visible. In today’s complex battle field scenarios, outside of say
undeveloped rural areas, you have frequency saturation. Echos upon echos from all walks of active radars, overlapped with Doppler, magnetometer and
satellite arrays. Advanced computing allows for multi layer analysis, leading to heightened threat awareness, but the ideal means of response remains
direct threat engagement. Sams are Sams; they have come a long way, but they are still outpaced by aeronautical developments. The simple point is
that the selling point of Stealth has justified the use of substandard epoxy based composites airframes at a ridiculously overpriced rate. It hurts
for me to put down the material given that it is my mentors technology, but we realized back in the 80's their limitations. When we gave composites
to the US government for the use in their stealth program, it was under the guise that it would make aircraft construction better and far less
expensive, not the monstrosities they have become now.
One of our original work-ups for the 1983 presentation through the Celanese corporation to then secretary of defence was a proposal to make a
prototype f-4, which we named the F-4X. It was to be a Mach 3 capable aircraft, with the engines incorporated into the design layup. We had forecast
that with the right tooling, a group of five men could produce an airframe in five days, at a materials cost of under $150 000.00, excluding avionics
and weapons systems. Now planes cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and they are made with substandard multilayer machine layups, with no z-axis
strength, lots and lots of machining, and need to be refrigerated. It is painful to watch.
It still makes me sad to hear people talking about state of the art and putting up pictures of planes that were flying in the early eighties.