It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Stealth technology now a real threat to US forces?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 11:15 AM
OF course other countries can benefit from US work but the question is to what extent? Or otherwise said how much did the US show them? Indeed there were some collaboration between US and allies, but that doesn't mean other countries will be sudently able to make fully capable stealth planes. They will probably not need to spend that much on R&D than US, but it will be stil considerably much, especially when they want to develop their own planes not copy the american ones.The desing of entirely new stalth aircraft is extremely complex task - many problems need to be solved again. Look at the F-35 for example - nothing more than a single engine copy of F-22 and what problems does it's production brings!
But as I said the oposite is happening - US spends more and more on defense, while other countries spend less and less. For example how much gives EU to the stealth research? I doubt it is anywhere near 10% of US.

Concerning the new UCAV's (Both European and American ones) - I doubt they are that stealthy, because of their low proposed price. They certainly have lower level of stealth technology implemented than manned planes.

posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 11:56 AM
It is foolish to compare US and World stealth capabilities on a one-one basis. Wars are not fought symmetrically.

It is easy enough to realize that it doesn’t matter that China has fewer and less sophisticated ICBMs than US –in nuclear war China could nuke US. Simple.

Same applies to stealth. In a war the enemy is going to use any stealth they have where it is most likely to have effect.

BAE Systems in UK seems a particularly strong candidate for advanced stealth technology. More hints at BAE Systems UCAV technology.

Firstly they have flown what they say is the world’s fist flapless air vehicle:

That’s got greater significance than it first appears. Flapless technology potentially puts them a step AHEAD of the US.

Note that the COREX and HIRITE projects were “black” until recently.

posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 12:03 PM
Taking nothing away from the amazing stuff the US has achieved, I think the level of know how that exists in other countries is SERIOUSLY underestimated by some American members of this site.

posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 07:16 PM
Absolutely Waynos; and this is going on even though the American histories acknowledge the 'help' Russian research from their physicists gave the latest projects from the 1960s onward.

Pyotr Ufimtsev was apparently the one who started 'doing the math' which was picked up much later in the west.

A book published fifteen years before by an obscure Russian physicist named Pyotr Ufimtsev turned out to be very important in making stealth a reality. The book entitled "Method of Edge Waves In The Physical Theory of Diffraction" made calculating the precise way electromagnetic waves scatter or reflect off three-dimensional surfaces far easier. From this Overholser created EHCO 1, a software program that could perform these laborious calculations quickly

In WW2 the Germans were actively trying to develop methods of reducing the radar return.
Especially with the U-boats and the attempt at a RAM coating on the Horten Ho9 is well known.
Some of their ideas were effective and some not.

We in the UK knew and understood that the early 1940's 'wooden wonder' the DH Mosquito was difficult to pick up on radar thanks to it's largely wooden construction.

Some folks seem to have real trouble working out that maths, physics and human intelligence are not the preserve of any one nation.

posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 07:31 PM
As far as "who invented stealth", many of you may find this interesting:

In the nineteenth century, Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell developed a series of mathematical formulas to predict how electromagnetic radiation would scatter when reflected from a specific geometric shape. His equations were later refined by the German scientist, Arnold Johannes Sommerfield. But for a long time, even after aircraft designers attempted to reduce radar signatures for aircraft like the U-2 and A-12 OXCART in the late 1950s, the biggest obstacle to success was the lack of theoretical models of how radar reflected off a surface. In the 1960s, Russian scientist Pyotr Ufimtsev began developing equations for predicting the reflection of electromagnetic waves from simple two-dimensional shapes. His work was regularly collected and translated into English and provided to U.S. scientists. By the early 1970s, a few U.S. scientists, mathematicians, and aircraft designers began to realize that it was possible to use these theories to design aircraft with substantially reduced radar signatures. Lockheed Aircraft, working under a contract to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, soon began development of the F-117 stealth fighter.


As is usually the case, the science was developed by a lot more then one or even two people. From my understanding of it, if one single person should get credit for it, it should be Sommerfield. However, it was the US that put these formulas to use, and it was us who actually took the math and made it fly.

In any case, IMHO it isn't a matter of other nations having the scientists or computing power to develope stealth aircraft - it's more of a question of the money to produce such an aircraft in sufficient numbers.

I don't think any nation has the ability to produce stealth aircraft in the numbers it would take to "threaten" us in the next 10 years. In 20 years I would say it's most probable.

[edit on 22-12-2005 by American Mad Man]

posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 09:30 PM

Taking nothing away from the amazing stuff the US has achieved, I think the level of know how that exists in other countries is SERIOUSLY underestimated by some American members of this site.

Taking nothing away from the amazing stuff the ROW has achieved, I think the level of know how that the US is keeping secret is SERIOUSLY underestimated by some non Americans members of this site.

posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 11:07 PM
I don't think so ,cause what ever we were ? we are that much more .
Means : Carbon Graphite Composite technology (the aircraft skin ) is in
it's 5th generation now .WOW and that means our tec. Has 4 Generations
of Finding our own planes ! There is no chance belive me within the next 10 years that an area thats ours will have some sort of UAV or Aircraft come along undetected ,,

posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 07:40 AM

Originally posted by kilcoo316
If B-2 mission loss rates are say 1%, and the 100 times cheaper UCAV 10%, the UCAV is still the more cost effective option.

EDIT: Before someone goes mad and says B-2 loss rates are nothing like 1%, I'm using it as a basis for comparison, the UCAV can have a much cheaper and "rougher" construction and still do the job.

[edit on 20-12-2005 by kilcoo316]

Good Point! However, you niglected some critical facts that change the equation:

1. Manned Aircraft have statistically been more accurate then UCAV's. That means you need less missions to do the same Job.

2. Bombers are bigger and carry more weapons then any UAV. Again, this means less missions

HYPOTHETICALLY: Let's say you were right about the 1% loss rate. This would mean you loose 1 out of every 100 missions. If we use the UAV at 10% (as you suggested). This would mean you loose 1 out of every 10 missions.

Now, because of the size difference 1 B-2 can carry the same payload as 20 UAV's. This means you need 20 missions with the UAV to do what the B-2 can do in 1 mission. So if both the UAV and the B-2 each deliver 1'000 weapons. For the B-2 this would take about 100 mission (ESTIMATE). the theretical loss rat for 100 missions is 1 plane. For the UAV delivering the same paylode would take about 2000 missions. At a 10% loss rate, we loose about 200 UAV's for the same tasking.

Using your suggested prices, that would mean that the cost of the lost UAV's would still TWICE as much as the cost of the lost B-2. If the total cost of the lost UAV's is Twice the cost of lost B-2's for the same mission, How is the UAV more cost effective?

Nice try, next time please check the math before you start throwing statistics around. You'll be a lot more convincing if your math was correct and the numbers supported you conclusions.


[edit on 22-12-2005 by ghost]

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in