Article

2005-05-24 Home Front: Tech

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2005-05-24 10:27|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I don't think so. At least not to the point of deliberately picking a sub-optimal stealth level just to go to a higher one later.

First, Reduced Cross Section means just that: reduced. The idea is to reduce the distance at which it can be detected, not make it totally invisible. There is a radar return; it's just very, very weak. Obviously, more (or less, as it were) is better, but there are always trade-offs with speed, maneuverability, range, payload, and of course CO$T.

While the B-1 is by no means a "stealth" platform, it is vastly superior to the B-52 in RCS. If the radar stations are spaced far enough apart, a B-1 could sneak through a warning net that could detect a B-52. The F-117, B-2, F-22, and F-35 are just more of the same. They are able to penetrate existing nets. But, with more stations or higher power at each station, they could indeed be detected. So, if you want to defeat a B-2, just put your radar stations XXX feet apart and there you go. You'll need some generators for all the power and have half your population in the air defense, but it will work.

So, I suspect that if we did not reduce the RCS of the F-22 as much as possible, it's not because we are trying to trick other countries, but we viewed other parameters, such as supersonic cruise, a higher priority.

Posted by Jackal">Jackal 2005-05-24 13:58|| home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2005-05-24 13:58|| Front Page Top

#2 So, I suspect that if we did not reduce the RCS of the F-22 as much as possible, it's not because we are trying to trick other countries, but we viewed other parameters, such as supersonic cruise, a higher priority.

Exactly. Sometimes 'good enough' is indeed good enough.

Posted by Parabellum 2005-05-24 17:43|| 2005-05-24 17:43|| Front Page Top

#3 It all comes down to one thing: the speed of innovation. Stealth is a fast cycle technology (less than 18 months sustainability per generation). The notion that there is something in the black box to pull out when needed is a misperception and a false contention.

Posted by Captain America 2005-05-24 19:50|| 2005-05-24 19:50|| Front Page Top

#4 I saw a Discovery Channel show theat demonstrated how the design for the Burke class destroyer shrunk its radar cross section so that it's blip look like a fishing boat. Pretty impressive. Recommendation: don't fish in the vicinity of a Burke class destroyer during a shooting war.

Posted by Super Hose 2005-05-24 20:25|| 2005-05-24 20:25|| Front Page Top

#5 Super Hose, how about if we all just get out of the water until the shooting war is over? ;-)

Posted by trailing wife 2005-05-24 21:49|| 2005-05-24 21:49|| Front Page Top

22:34 DEMOCRAT YES
22:34 VOTE YES
23:52 BH
23:49 Chase Unineger3873 aka Jarhead
23:28 Chase Unineger3873 aka Jarhead
23:26 trailing wife
23:03 CrazyFool
23:03 DMFD
23:00 Fred
22:50 2b
22:41 mojo
22:40 Minni Mullah
22:35 Mike
22:34 VOTE YES TROLL
22:34 DEMOCRAT YES TROLL
22:31 SC88
22:30 Fred
22:28 Fred
22:28 Fred
22:28 Fred
22:27 .com
22:24 Destro
22:24 Omotch Sheasing8304
22:23 Minni Mullah