It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

cruise missiles, EW and opining a doorway for bomber

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 11:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Especially when plans like ATS get in the way of things like school lol. Oh well, the aviation forum shall suffice for now hah.




posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 11:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: buddah6

originally posted by: bigx001
stealth planes should be really easy to find. current radar uses the return from a radar and stealth planes dissipate a large amount so that it looks like background noise, allowing the plane to get in range with its weapons systems.

but there is a flaw, detection should be possible by looking for the void in returns from a known return, such as rain clouds, a stealth plane should show up as a void moving across such returns.

that is one of the things haarp was doing altering the upper atmosphere so radar waves would bounce back better from the ionosphere


I think that you need to take your logic to the next step. If stealth is so easy to defeat by your methods, then why haven't our adversaries with their deep pockets employed your techniques? It's my guess that since the US invented the "practical" use of stealth and is constantly improving it. Then, you would have to conclude that by the time it is vulnerable to enemy defeat the US would have improved the technology.

The most common mistake made most people, here on ATS, is they assume that military technology is stagnant. By the time we see it here the technology is many steps down the road.


i didn't say it was stagnate what i said was that haarp also made radar waves bounce better off the ionosphere, and that due to its nature stealth should present a void in a radar return from a known object. you don't think the military would just sit back and be helpless detecting an adversary's stealth plane? on the contrary they would have already tested a method of tracking a stealth plane since that technology would not be limited to the us military and will eventually be obtained by an adversarial force.

it is a good bet that we can track all stealth aircraft, otherwise we would be just as vulnerable once others gain that technology level



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 11:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: bigx001

Yes, you could try things for finding 'noise anomalies' but it is much less reliable and precise. If you have something coming at you at 1000 km/hr---or 2200 km/hr---and you're in a war, you need some pretty precise identity, type, range, altitude, bearing & speed to counter.

If you don't know what "it" is, how many of "its" there are, whether the "its" are yours or theirs or birds, or rain or anything like that....

sure you may get an idea that Something Wicked This Way Comes, but you could get that from CNN.



more to the point an adversary having stealth would put us in the same boat thus giving them first strike capabilities.

but it is unlikely that would be the case and it is highly likely that besides continuous improvements in stealth we would already have the capabilities of tracking stealth aircraft, otherwise we would be just as vulnerable to any and all who have such capabilities
edit on 24-7-2014 by bigx001 because: reread what i wrote, edit for better content



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigx001

originally posted by: buddah6

originally posted by: bigx001
stealth planes should be really easy to find. current radar uses the return from a radar and stealth planes dissipate a large amount so that it looks like background noise, allowing the plane to get in range with its weapons systems.

but there is a flaw, detection should be possible by looking for the void in returns from a known return, such as rain clouds, a stealth plane should show up as a void moving across such returns.

that is one of the things haarp was doing altering the upper atmosphere so radar waves would bounce back better from the ionosphere


I think that you need to take your logic to the next step. If stealth is so easy to defeat by your methods, then why haven't our adversaries with their deep pockets employed your techniques? It's my guess that since the US invented the "practical" use of stealth and is constantly improving it. Then, you would have to conclude that by the time it is vulnerable to enemy defeat the US would have improved the technology.

The most common mistake made most people, here on ATS, is they assume that military technology is stagnant. By the time we see it here the technology is many steps down the road.


i didn't say it was stagnate what i said was that haarp also made radar waves bounce better off the ionosphere, and that due to its nature stealth should present a void in a radar return from a known object. you don't think the military would just sit back and be helpless detecting an adversary's stealth plane? on the contrary they would have already tested a method of tracking a stealth plane since that technology would not be limited to the us military and will eventually be obtained by an adversarial force.

it is a good bet that we can track all stealth aircraft, otherwise we would be just as vulnerable once others gain that technology level


I agree with this a lot. Besides with F-117 for which I don't think they had a way to see stealth aircraft at first, the US most likely has a way of detecting stealth aircraft. Its no secret we have radar ranges in the NTS and my guess is they were for both testing an aircraft in flight for RCS as well as a way to counter it



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 11:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: boomer135

originally posted by: bigx001

originally posted by: buddah6

originally posted by: bigx001
stealth planes should be really easy to find. current radar uses the return from a radar and stealth planes dissipate a large amount so that it looks like background noise, allowing the plane to get in range with its weapons systems.

but there is a flaw, detection should be possible by looking for the void in returns from a known return, such as rain clouds, a stealth plane should show up as a void moving across such returns.

that is one of the things haarp was doing altering the upper atmosphere so radar waves would bounce back better from the ionosphere


I think that you need to take your logic to the next step. If stealth is so easy to defeat by your methods, then why haven't our adversaries with their deep pockets employed your techniques? It's my guess that since the US invented the "practical" use of stealth and is constantly improving it. Then, you would have to conclude that by the time it is vulnerable to enemy defeat the US would have improved the technology.

The most common mistake made most people, here on ATS, is they assume that military technology is stagnant. By the time we see it here the technology is many steps down the road.


i didn't say it was stagnate what i said was that haarp also made radar waves bounce better off the ionosphere, and that due to its nature stealth should present a void in a radar return from a known object. you don't think the military would just sit back and be helpless detecting an adversary's stealth plane? on the contrary they would have already tested a method of tracking a stealth plane since that technology would not be limited to the us military and will eventually be obtained by an adversarial force.

it is a good bet that we can track all stealth aircraft, otherwise we would be just as vulnerable once others gain that technology level


I agree with this a lot. Besides with F-117 for which I don't think they had a way to see stealth aircraft at first, the US most likely has a way of detecting stealth aircraft. Its no secret we have radar ranges in the NTS and my guess is they were for both testing an aircraft in flight for RCS as well as a way to counter it



didn't they have a metal rod, or blade or something that they extended to allow it to be seen on radar so it could be tracked, if they wanted it to. like say over us territory or on routine training flights ?



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: bigx001

Anything sticking out will allow them to be tracked. That's why even the lights were retractable on the F-117. The early days of the F-117 just about anything messed up the skin, and allowed it to be tracked.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: bigx001

Stealth craft aren't stealth, they just have less echo. In 1999 a F117 was shot down using a 1960's russian Isayev S-125, they just changed frequency to longer wavelength, and they could see the F117. A $111 million dollar F117 being shot down with a 1960's missile is a bit sad.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: glend

Actually, it was shot down just after it dropped its bomb, at its least stealthy point of the mission. It flew in on the same path several nights in a row, so it was predictable. Long wavelength radar won't give you a firing solution, just tell you something is out there.



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 12:25 AM
link   
a reply to: boomer135

That documentary you were talking about is called Winds of the storm - Operation Desert Storm I think.

It gives you a really good insight into relatively modern air warfare. I'd recommend to anyone who hasn't seen it to check it out on YouTube.



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 12:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Thanks for correcting Zaphod58.



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: bigx001

Anything sticking out will allow them to be tracked. That's why even the lights were retractable on the F-117. The early days of the F-117 just about anything messed up the skin, and allowed it to be tracked.


Its just like the "go to war" mode on the B-2. When they push the button to step up the stealth so to speak, all the antenna's retract, as well as some other systems kick in to increase its stealth...



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: boomer135

That's why it kills me when people say stealth doesn't work because saw/tracked a stealth aircraft going over heading to an airshow.

Yeah, because it wasn't trying to hide. If it was trying to hide, totally different ballgame there folks.



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 10:48 PM
link   
hey can I read up on the alpha and beta emitters on the plasma stealth thread we have here by inteligurl?

Also, why can't they make a paint that won't allow the current to shred the composit materials the fuselage and wings are made of? Like planes made of aluminum can be struck by lightening and be just fine. I know newer non metallic materials don't due so well, but why can't they make something that can do that...Or maybe...



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

It has to do with the properties of the plasma, and the way it interacts with the skin material.



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 11:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: boomer135

That's why it kills me when people say stealth doesn't work because saw/tracked a stealth aircraft going over heading to an airshow.

Yeah, because it wasn't trying to hide. If it was trying to hide, totally different ballgame there folks.


Yep. That's also why when the B-2 flew just south of North Korea it had a couple F-16s flying in formation with the gear down. Just so those North Koreans couldn't judge the stealth of the B-2 on radar. But what am I saying, since stealth doesn't work like some people claim, there wouldn't be a need to fly in formation with them right?



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 12:19 AM
link   
a reply to: boomer135


books.google.com... ay7XU7v8MI-ayATtv4CwBg&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=f%20117%20plasma&f=false

cool little passages about stealth and plasma stealth



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 06:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: boomer135


books.google.com... ay7XU7v8MI-ayATtv4CwBg&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=f%20117%20plasma&f=false

cool little passages about stealth and plasma stealth


Here's my thoughts on plasma stealth. To me, if this technology exists like some think it does, then it shouldn't matter what the shape or the RCS of an aircraft is. It would be invisible to radar. Remember back about 20-30 years ago when the soviet union said they perfected a form of plasma stealth that could be applied to any jet in the inventory? They were claiming that normal non-stealthy bombers utilizing plasma stealth would be undetectable to radar. So if we are using it, then why do we still feel the need to make our aircraft in VLO shapes Coates with ram?



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: boomer135

They could do it as a back up, in case the plasma stealth doesn't work, say your flying over Russia and something goes wrong with your power supply for the plasma, you'd rather at least have a back up system in place rather getting shot outta the sky.



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: boomer135

The plasma is more an aerodynamic thing than stealth coating. It has a secondary feature of making things stealthier but the primary idea is to increase the "slipperiness" of the air going over the airframe.



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I wonder if that slippery tech works to reduce heat from friction, increases gas mileage, make airframes go faster then their appearance would suggest?

Wonder if it works on all fluids? We left port last night there, how'd we get here by the morning so fast?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join