Originally posted by $tranger*sigh* the russians invented stealth, but there is not so much need for stealth with now days radars
anyways, only if your against nk or iraq then it helps
My guess is that we do not use true "stealth" aircraft (although considerable efforts went into reduction of effective radar crossections of our
combat aircraft) is that they are not as stealth as one may think. We possess the radar systems that can detect existing stealth aircraft. Also our
scientists have developed the methods that can be used to effectively detect such aircraft and the existing equipment can be upgraded to employ these
methods. In short, your radar shouldn't look for the direct reflections off the target, but rather for a "disturbance" it makes in a radar picture.
As a simple example, imagine a 100% radar absorbing object put against a mountainside. A Doppler radar that can "see" moving objects against the
Earth surface will not show you anything, as there's no radar return from a moving target. OTOH a simplest radar will show you a radar picture of
ground clutter with a black spot where the "stealth" target is, because it absorbs not only the direct EM radiation, but also the reflections from
the Earth surface. To be truly stealth the target should have the ability to transfer the EM radiation from it's one side to another, but that is not
a case with the current "stealth" technology. So I think that our experts have considered that these pseudo stealth aircraft ain't worth the
investment.
PS: IMO the plasma stealth thing is a complete BS. As anyone who studied physics knows, plasma conducts electrical current quite well. Metals conduct
current too. So putting a plasma cloud into the sky is almost the same as putting a large chunk of metal there. It will retransmit (or "reflect" in
more common terms) the EM waves nicely. BTW ionosphere that makes long-range radio transmissions possible consists of plasma and it does just the
same, reflects radio waves.
[Edited on 4-8-2003 by Russky]