JSF "clubbed like baby seals"

[CAP1]

We did. The F-22 is one of the most nimble airplanes ever made. When its stealth is added to the equation it is the most invincible air superiority fighter in history.

Cap instead of making all kinds of loony predictions let me give you one piece of advice. Type "defeating stealth" into a search engine and try and find some concrete facts to support your conclusions.

Stealth was never intended to be invincible, even if it basically has been. It was designed to provide a war winning edge for its operators. It was designed to defeat the type of radars it would actually go up against in combat. And even then pilots will use standard radar avoidance tactics to enhance their stealth. Besides these radars will be hit hard as well per standard doctrine.

War technology will always be a horse race. There may well be a time when stealth will be useless. But its not going to be anytime in our lifetimes.

here's a couple sites i found. probably houy though.....but somewhat interesting none-the-less

http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-space/article/2001-12/stealth-threat
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread187610/pg1
http://www.ehow.com/how_2179694_detect-stealth-aircraft.html
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htada/articles/20051121.aspx

the last one was somewhat more interesting as this guy used his resources and brains more than any technology he may or may not have had available to him

[Rich46yo]

http://www.afa.org/magazine/Feb1999/0299radar.asp

In theory, a bistatic radar that placed the transmitter in one location and the receiver in another might be able to pick up what might be called the "trailing" RCS that is directed away from the monostatic radar. However, bistatic radars, while simple in concept, have many fundamental technical and operational issues to overcome, according to John Shaeffer, RCS engineer at Marietta Scientific in Georgia. The receiver antenna beam must intercept its companion transmit beam and follow the transmit pulse which is moving at the speed of light. Unless the transmitter and receiver pulses are synchronized, distance measurement is impossible. Even a workable bistatic radar must then address the problem of how much volume of airspace it can scan at a given power setting in a given time. When the receiver, transmitter, and target are located on a straight line, the receiver can be overwhelmed by the transmitter pulse, which hides the target's radar return. As Shaeffer put it, "This is similar to looking into the Sun for light scattered from Venus."

Bistatic systems are hardly new news. You see them when you tune the TV for the weather report.

[indy007]

the last one was somewhat more interesting as this guy used his resources and brains more than any technology he may or may not have had available to him

While it is an impressive feat, getting 2 jets out of hundreds in a 20+ day air campaign... that's a bit like trying to plug Hoover Dam with your finger.

[CAP1]

While it is an impressive feat, getting 2 jets out of hundreds in a 20+ day air campaign... that's a bit like trying to plug Hoover Dam with your finger.

agreed. the point though, is thatwhat he did was supposed to be impossible.

[firbal]

Very true - but our F-111's are still servicable and could be easily continued in service till 2020. The idea it is a relic is the reasoning that the last govt. were so desperate to get rid of it, but our F-111's have been continually upgraded since the mid 1990's, its weapon systems are up to current Nato standards and are far more capable than they were since the 70's. No-one thinks to retire B-52s, or B-1 just because the eras in which they were designed for have passed.

 Tronsky

One of the problem being that they are getting harder to maintain. Themy may look good on the outside, but they are wearing out. I read an articel a few years back that the wing box is cracking alot on them. A real pain to fix. You have to remove alot of stuff to get to it. They are still a great aircraft, but one reason they are getting replaced is they are wearing out. Of course, you can keep any plane flying if you want to keep fixing it. But parts are a big big problem. To keep the B-52s flying, they have to "can." from the fleet and the boneyard.
So in the end, it gets too much to maintain. But I cann't see how the F-35 can replace a med bomber. And I build them, so I want all the custumers we can get so I can have a job till I retire.

[Rich46yo]

While it is an impressive feat, getting 2 jets out of hundreds in a 20+ day air campaign... that's a bit like trying to plug Hoover Dam with your finger.

Hardly impressive. The CO of that Yank squadron should have been court martialed for his sheer stupidity. There was no target worth hitting in daytime a 117 couldn't hit at night. It was sheer ignorance and stupidity on our part, and add in a bit of 3rd world ethnic cleansing shrewdness. So if we were ever stupid enough to fly the things in straight lines, time after time, in daytime, so the enemy can pattern them with binoculars, then we stand another good chance of losing a stealth aircraft.

And I dont blame the Serbs for not wanting to leave their radars on. It must have been those photos of the Iraqi crispy critters manning their Dars to the last ember.

And lets not forget the Yank led NATO air Juggernaut brought the Serbs to their knees sniveling and begging, spittle dripping from their simpering faces. The mission was accomplished and it didn't take one ground pounder to do it.

Stealth was never meant to be invincible, for the hundredth time. It was designed to be a decisive war winning system.

[indy007]

Stealth was never meant to be invincible, for the hundredth time. It was designed to be a decisive war winning system.

Skunkworks by Ben Rich is a good read on the development of it.

[CAP1]

Hardly impressive. The CO of that Yank squadron should have been court martialed for his sheer stupidity. There was no target worth hitting in daytime a 117 couldn't hit at night. It was sheer ignorance and stupidity on our part, and add in a bit of 3rd world ethnic cleansing shrewdness. So if we were ever stupid enough to fly the things in straight lines, time after time, in daytime, so the enemy can pattern them with binoculars, then we stand another good chance of losing a stealth aircraft.

And I dont blame the Serbs for not wanting to leave their radars on. It must have been those photos of the Iraqi crispy critters manning their Dars to the last ember.

And lets not forget the Yank led NATO air Juggernaut brought the Serbs to their knees sniveling and begging, spittle dripping from their simpering faces. The mission was accomplished and it didn't take one ground pounder to do it.

Stealth was never meant to be invincible, for the hundredth time. It was designed to be a decisive war winning system.

agreed about the co doing the same predictable things da in day out.

i have understood what you've been saying all along. the only point i've been trying to make is that while we are advancing our technology to have stealth, potential enemies are probably going apechit developing technology to defeat it. they may or may not be successful. i sincerely hope they're not.
 i didn't read the whole page, yet, but one of those links i posted had mentioned that we were selling this technology. i sincerely hope this isn't true too. that is part of why i said in that post that those sites mightve been a bunch of houy.....
 it just seems to me that a lot of us(myslef included sometimes) tend to onlyu look at what we want to see

[Rich46yo]

Skunkworks by Ben Rich is a good read on the development of it.

It wasn't as big a secret as they would have liked it to be. In 1982 a retired British General, Sir. John Hackett, published a book "The Third World War". It was an account of a Soviet/Warsaw PAC invasion of Western Europe. In the book he included opening night tactical strikes on Soviet C&C by a Yank attack plane that was invisible to radar. In the book he called the plane the "Frisbee". This was a year before we had an operational squadron and 6 years before USAF admitted we had such an airplane.

The thing traveled at will in some of the heaviest protected airspace in the world. And the F-35 is going to be a far, far more effective and versatile platform. Really just a tremendous step up from the 117.

[Rich46yo]

agreed about the co doing the same predictable things da in day out.

i have understood what you've been saying all along. the only point i've been trying to make is that while we are advancing our technology to have stealth, potential enemies are probably going apechit developing technology to defeat it. they may or may not be successful. i sincerely hope they're not.
 i didn't read the whole page, yet, but one of those links i posted had mentioned that we were selling this technology. i sincerely hope this isn't true too. that is part of why i said in that post that those sites mightve been a bunch of houy.....
 it just seems to me that a lot of us(myslef included sometimes) tend to onlyu look at what we want to see

Very true. Defense is always a horse race. Thats why America spends for defense the same rough amount of the entire rest of the world combined. You cant look at stealth as the only element in the equation. Its a huge asset yes but the same importance is also placed on training, doctrine, and sound tactics. Computer power alone has allowed the entire battle space to be networked into one huge system. Command and Control is almost instantaneous. All this is what is really going to give an edge to an air force like the RAAF. They have a very high level of competency and technology, as do we. Stealth is just one part of the equation.