posted on May, 11 2008 @ 10:28 PM
getting it light enough and durable for aircraft use is probably a bigger issue (can't say either way, but clearly not all paints are suitable), and
it still wouldn't change fundamental design issues that affect stealth like engine-blades reflections.
All frequencies? H,mmm.... I guess an army would like to have it work on the frequencies in JSTARS (or enemy equiv) and the Longbow's radar (or
Stealth in a defensive battle, as I see it*, is a force multiplier. We've only seen stealth applied in offensive warfare and only by USA. It'd be
interesting to see it employed by a military that thinks and is structured differently, in a defensive operation. The problem stealth aircraft and/or
vehicles has for an offensive force is that you have to commit resource to finding these stealth threats, and guarding against them.
If the stealth threat is in the air, then the attacker's offensive combat air patrols would have to be far tighter, and maybe resort to close escort
of strike packages. Air crew in general would be far more jumpy over enemy territory. In this way pilots would end up chasing shadows and it'd be a
CCC nightmare even if the threat itself is quite modest in footprint. It's like the sniper in the mountain pass effect - a tiny force tying down
Also, if AWACS and JSTARS can't see the stealth threats, then the fighter pilots and ground commanders start to doubt these still valuable assets. I
am sure that western military doctrine has come to rely too heavily on these assets. Reverting to the 1960s war-picture where enemy movements are
largely unknown and threats materialise at 10km would probably take a lot of people out of their comfort zone - as has the insurgency threat in Iraq.
In this way, stealth in the hands of a defending force is a form of asymmetrical warfare, and it's not one I think any country is particularly well
suited to facing.
*Warning: Armchair General