Plasma Stealth: Past & Present

I'm sure there was a media storm not too long ago when the British tracked a B2 from a destroyer with standard radar kit.

there was also an incident with the B2 being tracked at Farnborogh (2nd sept 1996), when BAe caused a storm after it released a video showing the Rapier SAM system tracking the B-2 Stealth bomber in IR as it did a fly past.

(Iran currently uses the rapier system)

Most Central/western european countries have radar systems capable of tracking anything the US has at the moment

The F117 also refused to land at farnborough, due to the sensitive nature of it's technology... although it was easily tracked by nearby airport radar...

I was recently reading an article where the US apparently stated that it did not care anymore if Russia got it's hands on a F-117 as it probably had already surpassed it technically.

here is an interesting article on the subject.

www.hippy.freeserve.co.uk...

if that is the case with the B-2, then i wonder if the F-22 and the F-35 would suffer similar fates.

if that only moderately advanced radar can do so much tracking, i wonder what the latest russian radars built with the intention of detecting stealthy us aircraft are capable of ?

Wel DUH, stealth can be detected at very close ranges. Stealth DOES NOT equal invisible, it just reduces the range it can be seen. The whole B-2 inicident occurred at an airshow when the plane was at three miles from the Missile, while the B-2 operationally flies at 6 miles above the Earth's surface How is that operationally benefitial? the same with the destroyer.

Also anyone with some form of Carbon material and a copy of a book about RCS from the old Soviet Union can build a stealth plane comparable to the F-117, it was designed in the 1970's before advanced materials and ccomputers were not as heavily used.

Actually the US was trying to sneak in... it was a predetermined excercise, but the bomber crew was supprised to be greated by 2 RAF tornado interceptors, having been detected and relayed by a type-42 destroyer in the vicinity.

[edit on 24-10-2004 by Lucretius]

[edit on 24-10-2004 by Lucretius]

The thing is that the B-2 wouldn't be flying anywhere close to Radar on a mission. It is designed to fly between the gaps created in radar by the stealth.

Also, I read on the last page someone believes that the raptor or JSF probably use a plama screen in front of it's radar. As far as the Raptor goes, it may or may not, but I do know that the Raptors radar was desiged to be LO by using different radar frequencies, so it may not need it.

well you cant really dodge a ships radar if the ship moves around in a large operational area.

Yeah you can because the B-2 moves a LOT faster then any ship plus ships are easy to track, thus it is easy for the B-2 find a gap.

Lucretius,
I looked all over the 'net and could not find any info on the incident with the B-2... I'd really like to read the full story - got a link?

Regarding the other article, the F-117 that was shot down by the Serbs was supposedly tracked by a Tamara radar/listening device made in the Czech Republic. The Tamara was a very effective tool in "sniffing out" stealth aircraft - it is however, a short range device.
Incidently, the US persuaded the manufacturer of the Tamara to cease manufacture. The US also apparently "acquired" some units to further enhance and test upgrades and new stealth aircraft.

The western methods of Stealth are constantly improving and evolving, it has been reported by chase plane pilots flying with the new F-22's that the new Raptor does not show up on their radar screens regardless of range in a head on fly-by. That either says good things about the Raptor or bad things about the F-15's and F-16's radar.

I was on the phone today with the author of this thread, Intelgurl, who is somewhat "out of pocket" said the following regarding the F-117 and B-2 stories.

Intelgurl: "What you have to remember is that Stealth is not the silver bullet that makes aircraft miraculously impervious to the enemy. The US military is fully aware of that fact... Politicians, media and enthusiasts may however choose not to consider this truth.
Some would declare that stealth is a myth where others may think it makes aircraft invisible and impossible to bring down... both are wrong.

What Stealth does do however, is to reduce RCS enough so that the overlapping effects of enemy air defense radar is greatly diminished, creating gaps through which the stealth aircraft can manuever and hopefully avoid detection, so not only is it technology but it is strategy as well.
Don't expect a stealth aircraft to fly in close vicinity of a destroyer and go undetected, especially a guided missile destroyer such as a type-42 with Type 1022 radar.

Stealth does not work everytime but it does decrease the chances of losing the aircraft and crew to enemy air defenses."

I also was given this pic taken in a Lockheed plant - it is of a technician working on an F-22.

Here's my question, is this a plasma screen or something else?



Thoughts anyone?

not easy in choppy seas and how can you tell the diffrence, remeber that british ships have reduced a RCS due to the sloped hulls. like your going to waste lots of fuel dodgeing a possible frigate which could be a tanker.

well, there is the whole thing of RADAR EMISSIONS. The B-2 is a stealth aircraft so it has a passive radar. The radar can tell the difference between a destroyer and a tanker based on the radar emissions. so it would be pretty easy to find a ship without active radar.

depends if the ship is running full radar search OR that the 42 was in a place which forced the B2 to fly over instead of a more dangerous area AKA radar site.

whilst speaking to senior officials involved in the eurofighter project i asked wether the aircraft would be put at a huge disadvantage as it does not incorporate any stealth technology. ( i specifically referenced the f-22 and next generation russian aircraft). his response was that the effect of stealth technology is greatly overplayed and that the eurofighter was at no disadvantage by not having it. apparantly it is alot easier than is generally accepted to pick up a stealth aircraft on radar. i dont believe these men had any cause to misinform me, even though they it might be accepted that they would be biased towards eurofighter.

Hrrmmmm. That the fat chunk of Monel alloy sheathing the underside of the F-22's engines is stealthy gives me to think that the F-22's stealthiness is somewhat overstated. Head on, yes, it'll swallow radar energy like a crocodile in a chicken coop. But from underneath? Ha.

Nebertheless, one wonders what other stealth-related tricks the F-22 may have up its sleeve to cover up that blemish.

Easy in chopy seas and YES, YOU WOULD WASTE THAT FUEL WHEN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT A BILLION DOLLAR PLUS AIRCRAFT!

Use your head mate! The B-2 was designed around doing EXACTLY THAT! The whole B-2 tactic is that it has a very long range and can attack it's target with little to no support aircraft becaue it uses it's stealthiness to avoid enemy detection.

The B-2 would never go near ANY ship on the other side because it's usefullness is based around NOT being seen.

what if it had no choice would you rather fly over a frigate or a radar station?

Sounds like a tough technology to implement, and yet... Didn't the Russians develop the supercaviting supersonic torpedoes? That's heavy duty stuff as well...

yeah i mean how hot is that stuff going to be, if you get a leak somewhere say bye bye mmmm toasty pilots.

The thing is that there IS a choice. The B-2 would not be used to fly directly over anything. If you have to go over something, most likely you would have an airstrike followed by an B-1 or B-52.

you cant account for every ship to be exsactly where you want it to be.
i mean mabye this was just a pilots decsion aka they didnt plan on it being there and didnt exspect it there. ethier that or that trusty old british weather helped.