We got angry because they tracked our untrackable plane, so we took our ball and went home?

I'm not sure this incident makes the French look bad

Of course they're going to test their hardware against ours.

We do the same thing, any country would...

there was a rumour that the rafale in last years red flag were sitting back and active tracking the raptors - they refused to engage and just sat there listening

I may be missing something, but what is the point of tracking and listening if surely no electronic warfare systems/active stealth systems are activated during shows or even usual drills?
Stealth does not equal "un-trackable". Stealth lowers range of possible detection,thus giving edge. So if bare-bone aircraft was detected and tracked, it is not end of the world nor it is the combat readings of the same aircraft. At least this is how i understand it.

personally I think it is impossible to completely hide stealth aircraft. There will always be some sort of a signature to be picked up. It may be intermittant but it's there to be tracked. I also beleieve that there are much more advanced forms of radar that the general public does not know about and that it very easily can track any stealth aircraft once it gets a lock on it initially. completely inescapable radar lock ons are possible in my opinion. I think the US has it, and apparenly now do the french and most likely most other major countries such as china have a semi working knowledge of how to do the same thing. Maybe we pulled out because the very fact that they have this tech means that somebody from their country was spying and geting our black tech.

Also, B2 + high MW fields = disrupted radio and TV transmissions making it very easy to track the B2 (when you know what sort od disturbance to look for) like what happened in Kosovo.

The French have a long and seedy record of industrial espionage. Nationalized French corporations have the luxury of receiving direct solutions to their technical challenges courtesy of the DGSE. In 1991, the French attempted to steal from Lockheed Martin critical stealth technologies, but were foiled in their attempt. The French are also adept at bribing officials in other countries who make selections on new weapon systems, a practice I witnessed firsthand while employed by Raytheon Company.

So....if the USAF security system deems it an unacceptable risk to send stealth platforms to France for dog and pony shows, it's not like there isn't any previous precedents.

Personally, if I was the SECDEF, I wouldn't authorize the massive expenditure of funds to support the deployment to Paris. Why should we? It's not like we are going to sell any copies to NATO nations - especially the Fraunch. As usual, the sole exception would probably be the Brits, and they would probably get fully cleared in and send over pilot to test fly the aircraft over here anyways, just like the F-117. Why show off what your not selling?

Well, worst case, you can always use sonar to track a stealth plane. They haven't quite figured out a way of prevent the plane from reflecting sound, just radar. Not as effective as radar, of course, but it's a work around.

Originally posted by FredT
If so the French have a nasty little habit of pulling crap like this.

Listen to you...


You'd think no-one else in the world uses all means necessary to gather information




This place is rapidly becoming an absolute joke.

Lol, stand down jedi. To touchy you are.

Originally posted by FredT
If so the French have a nasty little habit of pulling crap like this. Take the Tu-144 accident. Its pretty clear one of thier Mirages got in the way forcing the Tu- pilot to overstress the airframe. Perhaps they got wind of more stuff going on and pulled it.

Ah, those pesky French and their cheesy monkeys. It is only a theory that a French Mirage was somehow involved in the tragedy at Paris back in 1973. The most likely cause - and that most cited - is that the Russian plane was just not very good and the design was flawed.

There are many reasons why the US would withdraw the plane. Most likely is that they have better things to do. It is possible that they don't want the publicity of the French air-traffic control having a laugh - if they are not on strike, that is. In these times of pressures on defence budgets, the last thing the US would want is all the bad press that their "invisible" planes are in fact "visible". Just think what the effect of the F35 procurement would be if it became clear that stealth is not (er) stealthy!!!

Regards

It is my somewhat informed opinion that the following is probably true:

Those who profess to possess CVLO radar systems are probably making unsubstantiated claims for the benefit of their sales department. After all, how exactly would you be able to prove or demonstrate to a potential customer that your supposedly awesome CVLO radar can detect and track B-2's and F-22's? It's not like those platforms are available for rent, you know. And I have yet to made aware of any other operational aircraft that even comes remotely close to US stealth capabilities.

Those who are making progress on CVLO systems are probably keeping pretty darn quiet about it. Wouldn't you?

the thing is though kilcoo is right - israel spy on the usa for its secrest , and the usa spies on everyone else - i really want to know what sort of deal they made with india to get the latest flankers over .....

im sure he is but the French seem to do it in an overt manner so why should the USAF give then carte blanch to spy on the Raptor.

The only joke is how touchy he gets when the EU comes under scrutiny

---

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

---

[edit on 6/17/09 by FredT]

Originally posted by Harlequin
there was a rumour that the rafale in last years red flag were sitting back and active tracking the raptors - they refused to engage and just sat there listening

Rumor? Rafales deployed to Red Flag for the first time when India brought its MKIs. They listened on the USAF/IAF. The F-22 has never been to a Red Flag, especially not last year, with French aircraft.

Originally posted by stumason
...they can give quite accurate readings to it's location and track them...

"Quite accurate"? and "track"? Those are very loaded claims that have not really been substantiated. The survivability and actual effectiveness of the deployment of such a system for long term use, against an advanced adversary, is questionable.

[edit on 17-6-2009 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by stumason
...they can give quite accurate readings to it's location and track them...

"Quite accurate"? and "track"? Those are very loaded claims that have not really been substantiated. The survivability and actual effectiveness of the deployment of such a system for long term use, against an advanced adversary, is questionable.

Ahh, Westy, always the one to argue the toss!

For those "in the know", CELLDAR has been in development for some years now in the UK by BAe and Roke Manor Research, along with Siemens I believe too. The concept is an understood and proven one, the problem lies within actually collecting and interpreting the data produced.

As for "survivability", well that is a major selling point! Unless the "advanced adversary" is willing to risk significant assets in locating and neutralising EVERY cell tower and TV transmitter in a locality, I'd say it was very survivable. Certainly more so than much fewer and more prominent traditional RADAR systems. Would you be willing to risk your shiny, new (and unproven) Raptors in attacks over the UK?

Stand off attacks would be ineffective, given that cruise missiles are quite easily dispatched, so you'd have to get in close. Couple the threat from CELLDAR/SAM systems and the Typhoons that would flood the sky in such a situation, I wouldn't put much money on many Raptors getting home.

Also, seeing as Raptors would be hard to deploy against the UK in this hypothetical scenario and you'd probably rely on carrier born aircraft anyway, I'd say the US may take a hiding trying to "Blitz" the Brits again.

Don't forget history! The Germans thought their aircraft were superior (in many ways they were) and they underestimated RADAR. The result? They got creamed, lost alot of airframes and more importantly, thousands of experienced pilots which set them up to lose the war as a whole.

As for effectiveness, one could argue that the F-22 itself has yet to prove it's "survivability and actual effectiveness of the deployment of such a system for long term use, against an advanced adversary".

Until it comes down to the crunch, no one can be certain. Would you be willing to risk your shiny new Raptors in raids over the UK?

The Chinese, Russians, French, Germans and probably quite a few others have also been looking into using existing EM transmissions in an air defence capacity for a while too. I wouldn't be so cock-sure about your systems when the US has yet to prove ANY of it's warfighting capability against an advanced enemy.