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.

 

Is Stealth inferior to new Advanced SAM's and IRST?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   
In a book i'm reading Lockheed Stealth written by Bill sweetman it quotes
"SA-10(S-300V) is claimed that this system has a capability against stealth targets"
Another source:
www.fas.org...

How to locate an F-22:
www.f22totalairwar.de...

What do you guys think?

[edit on 2-12-2006 by Shadowraven]




posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Stealth just is a shield. In history everytime when a better shield or other kind of protection came something else came to defeat it. So yes if the stealth design is not advanced enough when compared to its enemy then it will get destroyed.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowraven

What do you guys think?

[edit on 2-12-2006 by Shadowraven]

I think that if an F-22 or a B-2 can get shot down then an F-18 or F-15 or dare I say it - even a Typhoon won't stand a snowball's chance in hell of surviving.

Of course stealth aircraft are not invisible - they are just low observable, meaning their tactics are to fly just outside the range of enemy radar.
All stealth does is broaden the gaps between air defense radars, if you screw up and fly directly over an S-300 - you're probably coming down.

[edit on 12-2-2006 by intelgurl]



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Basic your threading the needle through the SAM sites. with a F-18/15 or Typhoon you have a very narrow path to take. with the B-2, F-22 and F-35 you have alot more of road to take. its like comparing walking a tight rope to walking a wooden plank. much more room to "breath"



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 11:14 PM
link   
It's a hell of a price to fly something that isn't invinsible all the time



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowraven
In a book i'm reading Lockheed Stealth written by Bill sweetman it quotes
"SA-10(S-300V) is claimed that this system has a capability against stealth targets"
Another source:
www.fas.org...

How to locate an F-22:
www.f22totalairwar.de...

[edit on 2-12-2006 by Shadowraven]


All systems have a capability against Stealth aircraft - it's really a question of how much the distance to target acquisition of the system has been reduced as a result of the LO features of the particular aircraft. This year the SAM systems may make an advancement in their ability to detect LO aircraft. Next year we come up with something that makes the LO aircraft signature a little smaller. It's a cycle - and it's basically what keeps the defense industry moving forward (that, and politicians).



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 11:29 PM
link   
You can only decrease a Signature to a certain degree electronically, The big Signature loss is in Airframe design. Do you think that they are going to redesign every stealth aircraft.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowraven
You can only decrease a Signature to a certain degree electronically, The big Signature loss is in Airframe design. Do you think that they are going to redesign every stealth aircraft.


Of course not, but every airframe has room for improvement in signature reduction, whether it's new tape, new coatings, new caulking, etc...these gradual improvements are just part of the routine maintenance and overhaul process for any aircraft.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowraven
You can only decrease a Signature to a certain degree electronically, The big Signature loss is in Airframe design. Do you think that they are going to redesign every stealth aircraft.

It's not the stealthy aircraft that need a redesign. Once again, with a stealthy aircraft - you are more survivable, not invinsible. There are many routes to take as EAD radar becomes more sophisticated; more passive measures, active stealth, jamming, plasma, etc.


It's a hell of a price to fly something that isn't invinsible all the time

It's a hell of a higher price if it's never invinsible - as in non-low observable technology aircraft.



[edit on 12-2-2006 by intelgurl]



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 01:55 AM
link   
Here's a link that discusses the issue of Iran's SA-10's against the American Airforce

www.axisglobe.com...

[edit on 3-12-2006 by Shadowraven]



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 09:10 AM
link   
To my knowledge Iran does not posses any S-300 systems and it's effectiveness against LO aircraft would be reduced. For an LO platform there would be room for navigation and room for launching stand off munitions. Unless a LO aircraft flies very close to a SAM system it can avoid being shot down while still attacking targets.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
To my knowledge Iran does not posses any S-300 systems


Well don't take this in the wrong way but then you don't know much, because they do!. Go do your homework, this thread is based on fact not your knowledge

[edit on 3-12-2006 by Shadowraven]



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowraven
Well don't take this in the wrong way but then you don't know much, because they do!. Go do you homework, this thread is based on fact not your knowledge



No need to be quite so narky about it - everyone is wrong at some stage or other.



Westy, there are alot of reports like this one saying Iran has been interested in SA-10s since the mid-90s.

[edit on 3-12-2006 by kilcoo316]



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Sorry I'm tired of Know it alls

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You have a U2U

[edit on 3/12/06 by masqua]



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 02:25 PM
link   
I'm surprised that no on has mentioned that Stealth technology is evolving too. As everyone else has said, No stealth planes ane Not invisible, but instead "Harder to See" on Radar. They use advanced tactics as well to increase their ability to survive.

Neither side is standing still in their technology. Yes the new radars are much better then the ones of 1978 when Have Blue first flew. But so are the stealth aircraft. The Stealth of the F-22 has evolved, and is Far Superior to what was tested in the Have Blue flying out of Area 51 in 1978.

Tim



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Maybe today it's the thing, but with every measure there is a counter-measure maybe not now but later. So if stealth is getting beter so is the defences designed to shoot them down.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost01
Neither side is standing still in their technology. Yes the new radars are much better then the ones of 1978 when Have Blue first flew. But so are the stealth aircraft. The Stealth of the F-22 has evolved, and is Far Superior to what was tested in the Have Blue flying out of Area 51 in 1978.

Tim


Ah ha... thing is, taking the F-22 as an example, the F-22 is what, well... the YF-22 is near 20 years old, the F-22 design was essentially froze about 10 years ago.

Look how far computers have come in the last 10 years - thats alot more processing power to seperate the wheat from the chaff in terms of an F-22 from background clutter on a radar. While obviously it takes some time to implement these changes, its pretty obvious software and computer hardware updates to SAM systems are alot more straightforward than updating an airframe.


The smartest thing a company like Thales/Raytheon/MBDA etc could do would be make the software coding and hardware 'plug and play' - so every 18 months you can double your CPU power [Moore's law], update your coding and boom, your radar can now pick out targets a futher 15 miles away.

Of course... such a move may mean defence forces would tend to update existing systems rather than purchase new...



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Westy, there are alot of reports like this one saying Iran has been interested in SA-10s since the mid-90s.


Kilcoo yes I am aware that Iran has expressed interest in the S-300 system for some time now, this is well documented, there are even some reports which state Iran has operational systems, but as of yet there is no concrete evidence. Iran does not seem to shy away from publicity so I'd image they would make such capability public if they had it. Anyway, we do not yet know for sure if they have any S-300 systems so that leaves us with speculation and guesses, that's what I was trying to say, but if any "know it alls" whish to prove otherwise, by all means...



There were reports that Iran was considering purchases of the highly capable SA-10 [S-300] missile system. The SA-10 is a highly capable long-range all-altitude SAM. As early as 1994 it was reported that Iran had six SA-10 batteries [96 missiles] on order from Russia [but as of early 2006 no deliveries had taken place]. In February 1997 a $90 million sale of 36 missiles to Iran and three older SA-10 SAM systems, made up of components from Russia, Croatia, and Kazakhstan, fell through. On 30 December 2000 an announcement was made in Russia that Iran had informed Russian Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev about Iran's desire to purchase the S-300 anti-missile system.

Link



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 06:14 AM
link   
If there are only rumors that they have one you must assume that they have.

Indeed the F22 design is fairly old. There are most likely modifications that is making it stealthier than what was possible 10 years ago but there hasnt been a major design change.

Personally i think the development time of the F22 simply is too long. 25 years since the first plans where made up. That leaves plenty of time for major innovations in dectection to destroy the F22's advantage.



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowraven
Sorry I'm tired of Know it alls

Oh wait, you mean much like yourself?
Btw, did you ever get around to reading WestPoint23's GlobalSecurity.org article and offering legit rebuttal to your mistaken over-reaction assertion to WestPoint23's mention that Iran has not yet received the S-300 , especially being that you were found to be in error.......?

Originally posted by Shadowraven
Well don't take this in the wrong way but then you don't know much, because they do!. Go do your homework, this thread is based on fact not your knowledge


I suppose next you will be asserting that GlobalSecurity.org "don't know much" and that their reporting/findings are not based upon fact.


[edit on 4-12-2006 by Seekerof]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join