low observable or not - no aircraft is going to survive very well in an area full of search and tracking radars as well as SAM launchers (and multiple airborne hostiles). They are intended to catch the enemy asleep at their post - unaware - not take on their targets in a battle of attrition.

It is really an inferior RCS demonstrator. Lockheed dropped the ball with their repackaged F-15. It is more than detectable at other angles - which is the key to defeating stealth technology.

The fact of the matter is that Stealth aircraft are not intended to go 'into the fray' of radar rays. Most stealth aircraft take advantage of a certain angle of approach that minimises their RCS relative to their target (which will be air defense systems). They are intended to 'get the jump' on such systems and neutralize them to create the necessary tears in the 'mesh' to then 'jump into the fray'.

Remember - when an aircraft is hit up by multiple radars, its chance of being detected increases exponentially. Even if one radar cannot get a solid lock on its own - two or more radars can coordinate to illuminate the target for a passive missile.

It's a game. How many pieces do you want to lose? By placing the radars strategically and using topological advantages and paradoxes (age old placing mock-ups where the real thing would be expected to be tricks), one could effectively create a network with Soviet-era equipment that would be capable of engaging and destroying a number of stealth aircraft, unsupported by air forces.

The goal would be not to completely eliminate the first strike (reserving forces for later) - but giving a sort of bloody nose that would cause America to step back and re-evaluate the situation for a moment - cause them to lose enogh aircraft that they reconsider their plans of attack - and behave more cautiously.

I'm not deluded - it's very very unlikely that any existing country with soviet-era technology would be capable of warding off a full-scale U.S. military operation for long - but they could sure exploit fatal flaws in our technology.

The only redeeming factor is that the pilots flying these aircraft have been taught the weak points of their aircraft's radar evading features.

I can assure you, though - it is very possible to destroy 25+% of an F-22 strike force along with the supporting AWACS aircraft using soviet era technology. In fact - one of the biggest weaknesses of the status of current soviet era weaponry would be what exposes the largest weakness of the Raptor. But we'll save that for another lesson in strategy.

Oh - and I'm using soviet era weaponry because that is what we face in most countries that we would be expected to conduct military operations in. Of course - if I were to take into account some form of civil war - I could guarantee complete immunity from all U.S. air forces using U.S. technology.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was a first step in the stealth reformation. Planners are considering abandoning the radar blocker in the exhaust with the idea that the 5-deg. cone of vulnerability out the aircraft's tail was an acceptable risk given the altitude at which it would fly (a margin of safety provided by the use of precision weapons). Its overall radar signature, for example, is about -30 dBsm. (the radar reflection of a golf ball) in most directions compared with -40 dBsm. (a marble) for the F/A-22.

The objective of lobing is to concentrate this unavoidable radar return into specific directions so as to minimise frontal/aft/beam aspect return and maximise scintillation in the direction of the lobe. Scintillation is a measure of how rapidly the size of the return varies with angle, the greater this variation, the more difficult a target is to track. The lower the number of lobes and the narrower the lobes, the lower the probability of detecting any return.

www.fas.org...
B-2 Spirit
The B-2 Spirit is a multi-role bomber capable of delivering both conventional and nuclear munitions.

Along with the B-52 and B-1B, the B-2 provides the penetrating flexibility and effectiveness inherent in manned bombers. Its low-observable, or "stealth," characteristics give it the unique ability to penetrate an enemy's most sophisticated defenses and threaten its most valued, and heavily defended, targets. Its capability to penetrate air defenses and threaten effective retaliation provide an effective deterrent and combat force well into the 21st century.

The blending of low-observable technologies with high aerodynamic efficiency and large payload gives the B-2 important advantages over existing bombers. Its low-observability provides it greater freedom of action at high altitudes, thus increasing its range and a better field of view for the aircraft's sensors. Its unrefueled range is approximately 6,000 nautical miles (9,600 kilometers).

The B-2's low observability is derived from a combination of reduced infrared, acoustic, electromagnetic, visual and radar signatures. These signatures make it difficult for the sophisticated defensive systems to detect, track and engage the B-2. Many aspects of the low-observability process remain classified; however, the B-2's composite materials, special coatings and flying-wing design all contribute to its "stealthiness."