Stealth
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
Is it true that stealth has reached its limit or has little room for improving?
Also, that radar detection will improve and make it obsolete in the close future?
>>27929161
No and no.
>>27929161
It will never be obsolete, even with more powerful radars. Anything that retards detection and guidance systems is a significant boost to survivability.
>>27929161
What is that protrusion coming out of the fusilage?
>>27929181
Not OP, but somebody claims that "fundamental physics are unchangable"(of course) but that there's a limit to stealth technology, and that it's useless because low frequency radars can detect it already. And he goes on to claim that with just a simple help of improved software, such radars can be improved to make identification and locating better and more accurate to the point where it's useless.
He claims that just the fact that you can detect it with WWII radars makes it fully obsolete and that despite being inaccurate, it's still enough to guide a missile and intergrate it with other systems.
He then attempts to make parables with past problems in US aviation, like the unreliability of A2A missiles and that stealth is going to be the same fuckup, and that it has not been proved effectively otherwise.
Is he just full of shit?
I read somewhere that the F-35s stealth would be relevant for another 10 years or so, but the f-35 contract runs for 35 years.
>>27929220
Not him, but if this counter measure was viable, we'd have seen it done by now. There's a reason every nation with a proper budget is buying into stealth aircraft.
>>27929220
There's a massive, massive difference between a radar telling you "there's a target in this general direction somewhere", and actually getting targeting data from it. With the first all you can do is launch missiles in it's general direction and hope the missile's seeker can find it from a closer distance without getting degraded.
And even when an aircraft's stealth is defeated by closing to it, it's stealth still forced you to close to that distance, and it's stealth will help it's ECM countermeasures spoof the missile.
>>27929220
Russians keep saying that they're gonna invent some magical bullshit radar that makes stealth obsolete but its 2015 and they still don't have it.
>>27929203
refueling probe
>>27929272
Thanks.
>>27929161
everything ever will always have room for improvement
stealth is the past, present and future and will continue to be the most effective way to get a unit behind enemy lines until we have the ability to see into the past, present and future and know where the enemy's phase-cloaked planes are going to strike
also
>F-35 entering Marine corps service next month
I can't help but be a bit excited about this for some reason
>>27929161
>radar detection will improve and make it obsolete in the close future
It s already obsolete in symmetric warfare because of IADS.
Somebody refute this ;_;
>>27929359
>>27929359
>L-band
>tracking
>>27929359
>>27929440
I see four seperate trailers in three seperate locations
Knock out any one of those with cluster munitions/cruise missiles/orbital bombardment/whatever, and suddenly radar don't do shit
>>27929234
>>27929245
>>27929260
Thanks for the answers!
>>27929449
>>27929440
Long band radars are susceptible to the weather, so in anything less than clear skies your radars will have trouble distinguishing between clouds and aircraft.
Absolute best case, you now know there's *something* out there, but you can't identify it and you sure as hell can't track it. You can try to aim a true targeting radar in its direction, but it'll only be able to detect the stealth aircraft at a significantly reduced range, all while broadcasting its location to everyone. Given that most stealth aircraft include a shit ton of passive sensors, the target aircraft will quickly be able to pinpoint where the radars are and either avoid them or hit them with standoff weapons.
Alternatively, an interceptor could be sortied. The issue there is that they still are reliant on the very radars stealth aircraft are meant to counter. Any interceptor is still going to have to get far closer to the target to fire a missile than the target would have to be to do the same.
In effect, even if you can "see" a stealth plane with long-band radars, you're still going to have a shit ton of trouble shooting at it.
>>27929450
>Knock out any one of those
Too bad it is deep in the rear behind the metric fuckton on SAMs specifically designed to repel missile attacks of all sorts.
>cruise missiles
Too bad cruise missiles have pre-determined strike coordinates and are not suitable for this kind of a task.
>orbital bombardment
Too bad only operational orbital bombardment system in history was developed in the USSR.
>futuristic stealth technology
>detected by slavshit WWII-tier radar and shot down
Surely, it's the future to fuck up your plane
>>27929516
I don't think you understand how Russian IADS work. They don't produce radar imaging for every radar separately and then put them all together like the US does, but rather produce radar imaging right away using data from all radars at once, extremely increasing the effectiveness of detection.
>>27929531
>it was already obsolete 20 years before it was even invented
>>27929516
>and either avoid them
There is nowhere to run, Jonny. That's the whole point of IADS. It has nothing to do with lone SA-2 sites in the middle of the desert that USAF encountered.
>>27929559
The point still stands. Only the long-band radars are going to be able to see anything at a distance, even if you're using that to point everything else in the right direction.
>>27929491
Okay. Now figure out how to put that on a fighter plane. I'll wait.
>>27929517
>Too bad it is deep in the rear behind the metric fuckton on SAMs specifically designed to repel missile attacks of all sorts.
SAMs can magically deal with it without the very tracking systems we're discussing first getting a full weapons track on it? Intaradasting.
>Too bad cruise missiles have pre-determined strike coordinates and are not suitable for this kind of a task.
So you're trying to say that cruise missiles cannot be programmed with a targeting and terminal guidance package in 5-10 minutes? Intaradasting.
>>27929531
>doesn't understanding the resolution difference physically inherent in L-band VS X-band radiator/detectors
>still talking
>>27929559
So, exactly like Aegis has been doing in fleet defense since the 80's, and with AWACS integration since the early 00's?
>>27929601
That's cute. Now reduce your RADAR coverage circles from 20m^2 target size to .001m^2 target size and see what it looks like.
>>27929517
>Too bad it is deep in the rear behind the metric fuckton on SAMs specifically designed to repel missile attacks of all sorts.
Yes, I suppose in your fantasy scenario where a every farmhouse has a government issued CIWS and SAM battery capable of intercepting stand-off munitions and missiles, it would be tricky to take out the air defense network.
Oh wait no, misisle spam can still defeat it since all it takes is one successful missile strike to knock out radar capabilities.
It's being tested in Syria. It has probably detected the B2 a few times already.
LM employee here.Just as 5th Gen-ness of a aircraft was decided by RCS reduction,The Sixth Generation will be defined by extreme electronic countermeasures and EW capabilities.
Stealth has gone to the point of redundancy. You can't make your aircraft invisible. not yet,so for now that's what 6th Gen will be based on,ECM and EW
>>27929654
Are you implying that 5th gen isn't already focused on ECM?
You do know that the "stealth" on F-35s isn't to remain undetected, right?
>>27929667
As convincing as his "my dad works for nintendo" claim is, I think the point is that 6th Gen will ideally progress to LOGH-tier jamming.
>>27929667
No,the defining feature of a stealth aircraft isn't the ECM.That's the only thing I'm implying.
>>27929689
5th Gen stealth aircraft*
Forgot to mention that
>>27929667
Not that Anon, but, no. 5th gen is primarily focused on RCS reduction, EM radiation LPI tech and datalink bandwidth increase while probability of intercept decreases, as well as maximization of battlefield information gathering, parsing and low-workload delivery to the pilot from all available sensors (both native to the airframe and external).
6th gen will have a much more prioritized focus on active ECM/EW measures built into every airframe. Remember that the F-35 as a stock airframe has nowhere near the EW capabilities of a Growler.
>>27929161
Stealth isn't the game changer and ace-in-the-sleeve it was 20 years ago.
New radar technologies and doctrines have been created by both the Russians and the Chinese to counter US stealth technology.
Today it's just another capability in your vast arsenal. EWAR, cyberwarfare, intelligence gathering and planning are more important today.
>>27929607
You're not supposed to, you use datalinks to provide information to your own fighter aircraft. You can't hide from IRST, simply moving through the air makes you warm enough to be detected.
Stealth has reached the point where you cannot entirely rely on it anymore (F-117, for example), extensive electronic warfare and ECM capabilities are far more important, and will become more important.
>>27929449
AWACS uses L band too you dumb fuck
>>27929726
Yes. For search. Track is handled by X-band.
You dumb fuck.
>STEALTH INVISIBLE TO EVERYTHING
>MUH BVR MISSILES
>SEAD ALWAYS WORKS, LITERALLY CANNOT BE COUNTERED
This is why we can't have nice things. As soon as you try to have a discussion on something retards spout shit like this and the thread devolves into USAF fanboy circlejerking.
>>27929161
As far as we know, the F-35 and F-22 have maxed out our ability to make planes stealthy. There's a certain theoretical optimum RCS reduction design. There's also a theoretical optimimum RAM design. We've probably maxed those out.
Though stealth will slowly be countered more and more as time goes on, just like physics, it doesn't change the fact as stealthy F-16 will almost always beat a regular F-16.
Stealth gives an advantage. This advantage will deteriorate as countermeasures are made, but it will still help. Electronic warfare, sensors, and more advanced missiles are the 6th-gen future.
>>27929161
Stealth is worthless, which is why everyone and their mother is trying to make stealth planes and munitions.
>One reference to superior Russian IADS is enough to detonate /k
Neat, never gets old.
>>27929607
For what purpose? There's a whole fleet of mini-AWACS interceptors that can exchange data with it.
>>27929613
>without the very tracking systems
Without for what particular reason? Besides yes, there are SAMs designed specifically to cover all kind of targets from missile attacks.
>a targeting and terminal guidance package
As provided by what?
>So, exactly like Aegis
So exactly like Aegis does not. Nebo is the only radar system in the world that does that.
>>27929624
>.001m^2
Communist lies, it is 0.000000001m^2.
>>27929643
Gee, too bad that unlike in your fantasy scenario with all NATO assets in the world magically teleporting to Russia's borders, Russians don't actually need to go anywhere to defend themselves. And yes, there are SAMs covering every significant target and part of the country and every, I repeat, EVERY Ground Forces regiment.
>Oh wait no, misisle spam can still defeat it since all it takes is one successful missile strike to knock out radar capabilities.
Oh no, SAMs can still defeat it since all it takes is one successful missile strike to knock out any plane with all its missiles.
>STEALTH IS USELESS
>MUH WEATHER RADARS
>SEAD NEVER WORKS, RADARS LITERALLY UNBEATABLE
This is why we can't have nice things. As soon as you try to have a discussion on something retards spout shit like this and the thread devolves into slavshit fanboy circlejerking
>>27929742
SEAD has proven to beat the fuck out of IADs every single occasion its been tried, anon.
>>27929732
It's enough to provide adequate information to fighters in order to intercept the target using IRST.
Or to set up their SAMs properly so they're able to illuminate the target from multiple angles where the target's RCS is highest.
>>27929802
>One reference to superior Russian IADS is enough to detonate /k/ and BTFO of me
Fix'd that.
>Gee, too bad that unlike in your fantasy scenario with all NATO assets in the world magically teleporting to Russia's borders
Radar Horizon.
>>27929817
>SEAD has proven to beat the fuck out of IADs every single occasion its been tried, anon.
>Arabs
>Competent
>>27929838
>Slavs
>Competent
>>27929817
When?
Against Iraqis? Against Serbians?
>>27929838
Like it or not, Iraq had one of the best IADS in the world in '91. If he was using the Bekaa Valley as an example, I'd agree with you, but the Iraqis weren't completely incompetent.
>>27929844
>Americans
>Competent
>>27929855
>implying I'm even from the western hemisphere
kek
>>27929847
>Iraq
>Serbia
>Libya
>>27929844
>Any group with shitty equipment and leaders
>competent
We can all play this game
>>27929245
ECM countermeasures: Electronic countermeasures countermeasures. Gj anon
>>27929867
Maybe he's talking about home-on-jam seekers
>b-b-b-b-but muh glorious Russian IADS!
>>27929850
The big problem with Iraq's IADS was that it was practically completely static. They were also focused on point-defence, rather than area defence, so Coalition forces had a fairly easy time exploiting the massive gaps in their air defences.
Not to mention their systems were outdated.
A modern mobile IADS is far, far scarier to face than a static IADS. Which is exactly what the Russians and Chinese have, and it's why the USAF is worried about them. They aren't confident in their abilities to combat them.
Of course, conversely, the Russians and Chinese aren't completely confident that they can combat F-22s, F-35s and B2s properly. So we're back to the Cold War standards again, where both sides respect and fear their enemies.
>>27929181
Passive Radar tech will make stealth obsolete.
>>27929862
What?
Iraq was heavily armed, but they were vastly outnumbered, overextended, and unexperienced.
Looking at their performance against Iranian air, Iraq's air defence was always subpar.
Serbia had 80 functioning SAMs in 1995. Versus 1,200 airplanes.
Libya was hundreds of American planes versus a few Libyan SAMs. Libyan's had no experience or preparation.
I can guarantee our SEAD versus Russian IAD will have a different experience.
>>27929820
And the incoming fighters are just sitting there patiently, waiting for all these radiators to get closer and closer until they finally have target track. They never fire back, or preemptively long before target track can be achieved. The F-35 also totally doesn't have IRST, oh no.
>>27929887
how can you passively transmit radar energy?
>>27929878
>bait
>>27929873
>home-on-jam seekers
Those are useless against aircraft since they're incapable of getting any range data.
Another enemy aircraft out of range of your missile can jam it and draw it away from his friends.
>>27929883
Ehh Iraq's IADS wasn't as bad as people claim. They had a mix of Western and Russian equipment (yay Iran-Iraq War) and an impressive network of command and control. They weren't as pants-on-head retarded as the Syrians:
>leaving Kub batteries in place for literally years
Their biggest failing was the poor training of individual crews. Once their command centers were hit, batteries were unable to operate independently.
>>27929894
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_radar
>>27929889
>I can guarantee our SEAD versus Russian IAD will have a different experience.
Today, it would probably result in a status quo. NATO doesn't have air superiority, Russians don't either.
But that's the problem, the Russians want it to be that way, since they do not rely as heavily on air support as we do.
>>27929903
That's only if:
>they see the missile incoming in time
>the missiles don't have an active homing mode to switch to for terminal at a certain signal strength threshold
>attendant AWACS and fighter craft don't light the radiating target up for the missiles passive seeker head for terminal with a track grade radar
>>27929912
Is there any evidence at all for this viewpoint? I mean, seriously, even during the Vietnam War, when IADS was at the height of it's effectiveness for SAMs, the US was not stopped from enforcing its will on ground targets.
You kids keep making all these claims, but there's literally no conflict in history which bears them up.
>>27929928
During the Cold War, the Soviets had comparable aircraft in enough quantity alongside their ground based AA to interdict NATO air strikes and contest air superiority
>>27929928
>I mean, seriously, even during the Vietnam War, when IADS was at the height of it's effectiveness for SAMs, the US was not stopped from enforcing its will on ground targets.
What are you talking about? Our operations into North Vietnam got BTFO by SAMs before they started formulating Wild Weasel missions, and even then our operations sucked ass and accomplished nothing.
Air support in South Vietnam against NVA or NFL (vietcong) was uncontested since they didn't have SAMs or MANPADs.
>>27929359
L band has to be large and stationary, so they are easily killed with standoff cruise missiles.
>>27929949
>comparable aircraft
No, anon. Not since the MiG-15/F-86 rivalry, really. Not in aircraft capabilities or training/readiness levels. The gap only opened as time went on.
There is not a single war, conflict or incident since WWII in which Soviet pilots claimed a positive kill ratio against NATO pilots or countries operating US fighters.
>>27929952
Really? Perhaps you should be fucked to read some history before opening up that moronic dickholster you call a mouth. Go research the Linebacker campaigns, for a start. North Vietnam brought down a lot of US airframes with SAMs and AA, sure. But it was also the first war where ground based radar and IR guided missiles were a threat. Of course new tactics and equipment had to be developed. Once they were, no IADS in the world has stopped the US from delivering ordnance where it wants to.
>>27929911
>In a passive radar system, there is no dedicated transmitter. Instead, the receiver uses third-party transmitters in the environment, and measures the time difference of arrival between the signal arriving directly from the transmitter and the signal arriving via reflection from the object.
Do you even read good? You still need a transmitter. It's completely worthless without one.
>>27929928
The USSR's (and today the Russian's) doctrine regarding air war was centered around high levels of cooperation between SAMs, Air Defence Forces and Air Force.
Their primary mission was to protect their ground troops against NATO air strikes. To do so, their mission was defensively orientated and multi-layered to make enemy incursions as difficult and costly as possible.
So they had a mobile, integrated air defence system. They would always be moving, so any enemy intelligence on their positions would be outdated, and they also made extensive use of decoys.
SEAD against the USSR/Russia is basically the USAF's worst nightmare. SEAD is bad enough as it is, but against an enemy like the Soviets/Russians it is nightmarish.
You might lose too many planes, or your forces will get stuck in a stalemate which prevents you from supporting your ground forces, or due to the density of SAMs and enemy aircraft your forces would be too busy to support ground forces.
It's important to remember that the Soviet's mission wasn't to outright gain air supremacy, it was to deny it and keep it contested. If they managed to gain air supremacy, that's fantastic for them, but they can still operate effectively as long as air supremacy is contested.
reality check:
- stealth is not guaranteed invisibility. A stealth plane was shot down by a radar guided missile before. One that was designed in 1950's. Technology had moved on since then. Especially russians spent the last 20 years developing ways to counter stealth.
- BVR missiles are untested in real combat. There was only a handful of confirmed BVR kills so far. We do not know their reliability against passive targets, much less against targets using active ECM.
- any signal emissions compromise stealth. That includes radio, datalinks, ECM gear, radar. Yes, even LPI radars can be detected by advanced sensors.
- even without radio emissions, the plane is detectable in infrared spectrum, at distances 50-100 km depending on the weather. It is not possible to hide IR emissions.
- AWACS planes are vulnerable, CAP is not bulletproof. Especially not against air-to-air missiles with 400km range.
>>27930000
What are civil Radio Stations? What are cellphones? It can exploit any active transmitter.
>>27930013
Ah shit, here we go, the 'Reality Check to prove American doctrine is the worst'.
>>27929975
There was no gap to begin with, it was only after the USSR collapsed when NATO pulled away from Russia in aircraft development.
All throughout the Cold War, both sides were on par with one another, having advantages in different areas.
But one thing was certain: The only way NATO had a chance in a Western European war was if they deployed tactical nukes.
>>27930009
All of this is self evident when considering even basic modern A2AD strategies. What you fail to recognize is the amount of specialization, strategy and tactical training NATO has devoted to just this sort of threat.
Again, I will point out that at no time in history since Vietnam has any IADS system succeeded in keeping the US, NATO or US-produced airframe operators from delivering ordinance or collecting intel where they please. But it has failed many times.
Defensive air denial strategies do not work. They cannot win, only exact a price and delay/harass the inevitable result. It's a losing strategy for countries unable to keep up in military aviation tech.
>>27930013
>BVR missiles are untested in real combat
>What is Bekaa Valley
>What is Gulf War
>What is Iran-Iraq War
The Gulf War showed that your missiles don't even have to hit to "win" the engagement. As long as it forces the enemy to disengage and leave, you've still got the same effect. And given that slavshit doctrine tends to involve disengaging almost immediately after the combat begins, it makes BVR pretty damn effective.
>>27930041
He's right about BVR missiles though, we've only got a handful of definitive BVR victories, two or three of them at night at relatively "close" BVR distances.
>>27930044
Oh? Really? Then surely, at some point after WWII, during the many incidents and conflicts in which Soviet and Soviet-trained pilots have clashed with US and US/NATO-trained pilots, surely ONE of these incidents would have a positive kill ratio for Soviet air.
Don't worry. I'll wait for that example.
>>27930054
Even Vietnam was incapable of preventing the USAF from striking targets at will. Best case, they could ambush a strike package with MiGs and force them to abort, but there weren't really any targets that were completely off limits due to the air defense network.
>>27930058
>What is Bekaa Valley
>What is Gulf War
>What is Iran-Iraq War
most of the kills were WVR, even though they were made with BVR missiles.
>>27930054
Your failure is that you're using countries with noticeably poor, flawed and outdated air-defence systems as proof that all IADS fails against SEAD.
We never faced the Soviets or Russians air defence systems, but they've certainly seen how we operate.
>>27930073
I said pretty much the same in an earlier post. Parsing the statement just gets too complicated for slavs once you add realistic qualifiers.
>>27930058
>>27930081
BVR is the opening salvo of an air-to-air engagement. There are two outcomes:
1) One side breaks away and concedes that airspace to the enemy
2) No side breaks, take either zero or 1-2 casualties and then they find themselves in a WVR engagement
>>27930016
>It can exploit any active transmitter.
That doesn't make stealth "obsolete". Anything that transmits is detectable and destroyable.
>cellphones
>Implying a cellphone signal is relevant beyond a few miles.
We're talking about detecting stealth aircrafts here not your mom's 4G. You'll need transmitters that can give fry you and give cancer.
>>27930054
The difference between Vietnam, Iraq, Serbia, etc and a WW3 scenario is that Soviets had the tactical aircraft to contest the skies.
>>27930087
>the US has never performed reconnaissance over Soviet/Russian assets
Also, continuing to make the same lofty claims with zero historical evidence to back them is a losing strategy. Just as you say, there has never been a full air war over mainland Russia. This means also that Russia has never had to face strategies tailor made for the challenges of destroying their IADS.
What we can extrapolate from history points conclusively to the failure of an A2AD strategy, a completely defensive strategy, to stop an aggressive, well trained and well equipped air force, much less cover any sort of advance on the ground.
>>27930054
in Kosovo war, Serbians employed proper air defense tactics and their (hopelessly outdated) SAMs were a constant pain in the ass for NATO aircraft.
>>27930054
>What you fail to recognize is the amount of specialization, strategy and tactical training Russia has devoted to just this sort of threat.
>>27930112
>Vietnam did not have tactical aircraft
>Iraq did not have tactical aircraft
kek.
>>27930121
Did they stop NATO from dropping ordinance anywhere they damned well pleased? No. No, they did not. They just raised the cost a little. The only Serbian strategy that had any real effect was the use of obfuscation and camouflage of ground assets and the use of decoys.
>>27930121
It was rather hilarious since NATO claimed to have destroyed the Serbian's military and air defence capabilities.
After the operation ended, it turns out that NATO had been bombing inflatable decoys. You can count the amount of armoured vehicles and SAMs they actually destroyed on one hand.
>>27930132
You're the one assuming that all Russian gear would work exactly as they advertise, despite individual systems failing time and again whenever combat tested elsewhere.
>>27930108
Have fun bombing all possible illuminators including satellite radio.
>>27930143
And you think the use of decoys and camouflage will be a winning strategy in any sort of large scale conventional conflict, especially considering the exponentially expanded number of recon options for US/NATO forces since Serbia?
>>27930116
>Just as you say, there has never been a full air war over mainland Russia.
>>27930147
You're the one assuming that all NATO gear would work exactly as they advertise, despite individual systems failing time and again whenever combat tested elsewhere.
>>27930160
>And you think the use of decoys and camouflage will be a winning strategy in any sort of large scale conventional conflict,
Against forces of comparable size and training, yes. Did you ever study history? The Soviets made great use of military deception on the Eastern Front.
As did the US, UK and Canadian forces on the Western Front. The world's largest decoy operation in history drew the Germans away from the actual landing beaches during the Normandy invasion.
>especially considering the exponentially expanded number of recon options for US/NATO forces since Serbia?
See
>comparable size and training
>>27930143
>it turns out that NATO had been bombing inflatable decoys
According to the Serbs.
Meanwhile they failed in their stated goals of even denying any air space or even hampering any aircraft movements even over their capital.
>>27930176
Yeah, what? Name a single conflict since WWII in which NATO air failed to achieve complete and dominant air superiority and the ability to deliver ordinance at will.
>>27929161
Who gives a fuck. The future is fighter drones, and no one is gonna buy a fucking 100 million dollar stealth drone when they can shit out hundreds of cheaper drones, armed with cheap missiles and bombs.
>ITT salty fighter jockeys on the edge of obsolescence
>>27929878
>russia BTFO by a guy in a slow as fuck piper
>>27930181
There is a vast difference between use of decoys in strategic deception and constant tactical camouflage and decoy use to disguise the location and number of tactical assets in a large scale conventional conflict. Do you even history?
>>27930185
>According to the Serbs.
And to every independent observer group.
>Meanwhile they failed in their stated goals of even denying any air space or even hampering any aircraft movements even over their capital.
I never contested that, they absolutely failed to deny airspace to NATO. But they did successfully manage to withdraw their forces intact.
>>27930200
>There is a vast difference between use of decoys in strategic deception and constant tactical camouflage and decoy use to disguise the location and number of tactical assets in a large scale conventional conflict. Do you even history?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fortitude
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military_deception#In_practice
m8....just stop embarrassing yourself.
>>27930189
umm, americans lost like 2000 aircraft in vietnam?
and since then NATO never fought an opponent on the same level of technology and training.
>>27929220
Low frequency radar is also the easiest to jam.
>>27930202
The point is that your forces surviving doesn't mean much if they're prevented from doing anything during the conflict.
It's a huge thing people ignore with BVR engagements as well - you don't need to actually hit the enemy planes so long as you get them to disengage. It's the very tactic the NVAF relied on in Vietnam - force the enemy aircraft to abort their mission. It leads to very low kill ratios, but it's very effective.
>>27930223
Don't forget Operation Bodyguard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bodyguard
>>27930157
>Have fun bombing all possible illuminators including satellite radio.
>Implying you need to bomb anything with standardized radio signals that can be jammed easily.
>>27930223
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fortitude
>>27930244
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bodyguard
Completely failed to understand the difference between strategic deception for a specific goal and constant, ongoing decoy/camouflage operations at the tactical asset level while operating in a large scale conventional conflict. Par for the course on /k/, I guess.
>>27930433
>Completely failed to understand the difference between strategic deception for a specific goal and constant, ongoing decoy/camouflage operations at the tactical asset level while operating in a large scale conventional conflict.
You do realize that the two aren't mutually exclusive, right?
>>27929220
>that "fundamental physics are unchangable"
This is why radars can't counter stealth. Stealth reduces RCS by 1000-10000 times. To counter that completaly you need to increase radar power by same 1000-10000 times. Case closed.
>>27930516
> To counter that completaly you need to increase radar power by same 1000-10000 times
You need to increase power by ten fold actually because of the inverse square law for intensity and distance. If an RCS is reduced by 10 then you need to increase power by 10^2=100 times to get the same image.
hi all, where can I read more about air doctrine that's not on this kurdish basketweaving imageboard?
>>27930625
Books. Lots and lots of books. War memoirs from pilots and other books like Sled Driver, mentioned in this thread. There's plenty of good nonfiction in book and essay form out there as well. Hit the library and git to reading.
>>27930681
>nonfiction
by which I meant strategy and tactics breakdowns in addition to memoirs.
>>27930685
right, I can find memoirs pretty easily, but I'm having trouble finding more nonfiction, any point in the right direction? All I can really see are pubs and pieces from thinktanks
>>27930767
Start with memoirs. Then move on to other books written by the people that ghostwrite/cowrite the memoirs with the pilots. Then read the books/essays they mention in their books either to refute or reinforce, and the books in their bibliographies.
>>27930795
You can also go through certain publishing houses, like USNI Press (US Naval Institute), which usually has accurate but also often bland assessments of evolutions in tactics and strategy.
>>27930808
>>27930795
thanks!
IADS won't stop thousands of cruise missiles and dummy targets flooding the airspace. The minute they start using active radar or launching SAMs they will become targets.
Stealth is there to protect US fighters after the IADs is mortally wounded.
>>27930888
in the real war, platforms that can fire these cruise missiles will be the first targets.
>>27930969
In a real war both sides get turned into nuclear slag.
>>27930992
why bother spending on conventional assets then
>>27931016
Browns are fun to bomb and you want to be able to do it without having to worry about what little IADs they have doing any real damage.
>>27929832
>Radar Horizon.
MiG-31.
>>27931506
>MiG-31.
A highly overspecialized fighter fulfilling a long obsolete role.
>>27931582
That suites exactly well for #rekting his argument.
>>27929517
>Too bad it is deep in the rear behind the metric fuckton on SAMs specifically designed to repel missile attacks of all sorts
>SDB-I can bullseye a 10 meter target from over 65nmi with zero detectable emissions.
>>27929709
Stealth has never been just the physical "hard to detect" elements. Is also planning, emission detection and evasion, and active elimination of anti-air. Shaping and RAM are valuable, but not as much as the intel and tactics they enable.
Is there a radar fag that can ballpark emitter detection over object detection distance ratios? Like, ballpark X emitter broadcasting at Y power will be detected by A aircraft at roughly D distance. This over A aircraft with B RCS detected by X emitter at E distance. Plot it out on two superimposed graphs, with different power emissions and different RCS return thresholds.
Yes, I realize detection threshold will depend largely on the node geometry and number in the emitter, along with processing efficiency. Just ballpark.
Even a vague ballpark will show why even modest RCS reductions pay big dividends in distance between when the aircraft detects the emitter and when the aircraft itself is detected, even in L band emitters. Inverse square law and all that.
>>27930009
They still have to transmit to work, which feeds target data to SEAD operators. And if they are super mobile, even to the point of making HARMs useless, then guess what? SDB-II, motherfucker!
>>27930013
>A stealth plane was shot down by a radar guided missile before. One that was designed in 1950's. Technology had moved on since then. Especially russians spent the last 20 years developing ways to counter stealth.
> ignores that it was a miracle that that happened at all, due to a combination of complacency, pure balls on the operator side, and the coincidence that the bomb bay was open right when they tried for a doctrine breaking third lock after it had been flying the same route for weeks
>>27929959
>L band is clearly mobile in the picture
nice meme
>>27930108
>You'll need transmitters that can give fry you and give cancer.
Reminder for the clearly stupid: Sub-visual light EM radiation is non-ionizing and cannot give you cancer. Only possible effect is surface heating.
>>27930194
> Fighters that can be disabled via wide-spectrum jamming
> the future
Don't you dare even try to imply we'll ever go full-robotic on a machine that makes a kill decision.
Dear Air Force,
YOU SORRY PIECES OF SHIT NEED FUCKING RADAR RETARDING SHIT TO BE STEALTH WHEN ALL I NEED IS MY NAKED MARINE BODY AND A BUNCH OF DIRT.
CHECKMATE YOU CUM-GARGLING SISSIES!
Sincerely,
your local Marine Staff Sergeant.
stealth is the closest thing to an "i win" button in the history of warfare
anyone complaining about it is obviously a butthurt republican guard
>>27929909
the equipment was exactly the problem- static shit has no place in modern warfare. blufor would blow up the main search radars, and HQ with cruise missile spams then work at the remaining nodes with HARMs.
>>27930116
>What we can extrapolate from history points conclusively to the failure of an A2AD strategy, a completely defensive strategy, to stop an aggressive, well trained and well equipped air force, much less cover any sort of advance on the ground.
and what makes you think Russia would be on the complete defensive against NATO airpower? the same shit you can do to them, they can do to you too- only that theirs offensive air campaign would be a lot more successful given that you dont have much IADS worth mentioning (seriously lol at the gap between patriot and some manpad) and the aircrafts on the defence are diluted since they are also main means of attack.
>>27933692
>Russia
>Offensive air operations against the US
Haha, that's a good one. Most Russian plans won't even reach the continental US and between the USAF and Navy, the US' air assets outnumber Russia's by several times.
>>27932182
>SDB-I can bullseye a 10 meter target from over 65nmi with zero detectable emissions.
expecting GPS to work in retard thick ECM environment. go back to elementary school.
>>27930888
yes they could- ofc. as long as you have deep pockets and could get the newest shit from voentorg. fun fact: the latest Russian SAMs have multiple times the earlier versions targeting and tracking channels, and number of ready to launch missiles. like seriously each launcher now has:
S-400: can use 4 9m96 for every big ass 40n6 or 48n6
pantsir-sm: got pantsir-on-head retarded, missiles are doubled from earlier 12 to 24, ofc. you have to dispense with the gun but considering new missiles have up to 40km range and could engage tactical BMs...
S-350: meant to replace some old S-300 P models. has 12 9m96 missiles that are comparable to the 4 old big ass missiles in performance.
Buk-M3: 6 missiles on TELAR vs 4, but a TEL vehicle with no radar can mount 12.
all systems got at least corresponding increase in targeting and tracking channels, but more importantly for those vehicles with dedicated launchers the targeting vehicles got more channels to pick up the slack in case other such vehicles get blown up.
see- saturation is not just used by the offensive side- heck any increase on the defensive side needs to be matched in even greater and not 1:1 ratio by the attacker. in the end the wheel just rolls on...
>>27933830
>expecting GPS to work in retard thick ECM environment. go back to elementary school.
>Implying it uses only GPS and can't use inertial nav from release point if necessary
>>27933849
>expecting inertial nav to get it within seeker range from max range.
>>27933901
Assuming the target doesn't change course, you bet your ass it will.
>>27933901
>thinking internal nav SDB doesnt have a 10m CEP from 60mi
>>27933915
assuming the initial targeting data fed by the launch platform isnt tampered with or distorted which such an ECM environment tends to do...
>>27933933
>wow gee whizz holy shit this is some revolutionary inertial nav. we have here- beats even the ones on our most sophisticated planes that still use GPS inputs.
>>27933950
INS got us to the moon. With 50 years of advancement, it should be able to ensure a 10m CEP for a bomb.
>>27933950
Kek. You're in over your head, Donny.
>>27933941
Jets have INS as well...
Modern INS is insanely accurate as well. Can fly thousands of miles and only be off course by a few hundred feet, depending on the jet.
>>27929161
RCS is useless against satellites.
Stealth vs Digital broad spectrum sensors (not JUST radar) is one of the big arms races that we'll continue seeing over the next 30-40 years.
Two data points.
One: Anecdotally, a credible source (recently retired intelligence officer at the time) describe the Soviet leadership's reaction to the discovery that the US had a stealth program capable of putting a nuke anywhere they wanted it to go, in spite of their existing defenses- well, it wasn't a response so much as a demeanor. Leaning back, hands spread, eyes wide and and unfocused, kind of a universal "oh, well that would have been bad".
Two: The computer scientists in charge of bringing Russian radar up to speed have described the problem of detecting stealth aircraft as "detecting swarms of bees". It isn't that there is nothing to detect- it's that the signal reflected back is distorted in such a way as to give a false negative on radar, or to reflect it in a different direction. Because of this, while the perception of the radar from the cockpit sensors is the same, the perception of the aircraft by the radar has greatly improved. This is somewhat countered by the extent to which aircraft are now being made 'spooky'- even helicopters and short range fighters are 'stealth' aircraft these days, mostly to allow them to penetrate short distances behind defenses, such as the raid that killed Bin Laden.
Also, hi. Are we doing something about ISIL?
>>27933990
>satellites
>real time weapons tracks
Nigger what are you doing?
>>27933989
thats because they have all these nice sensors feeding inputs- the sdb has what, an accelerometer, a laser gyro and a pitot tube, while a jet has a lot more of those and the last spread across the plane to ensure accurate velocity measurements.
>>27933976
the moon is a big ass target mang, actually you just kind of need to get in the gravity well and boom just ensure safe landing and its touchdown.
>>27933979
look whos talking.
>>27934459
This is hilarious. Look at the damage control. Poor fuck has no idea how little he knows.
>>27930160
Well yes, if the enemy spends 2/3rds or more of it's time & munitions hitting wooden/inflatable decoys
That's easily going to result in a victory in any somewhat even confrontation
>>27934515
>2/3 of the units on the field are camouflaged and decoyed at all times in a large scale conventional conflict
My fucking sides
>>27934054
>One: Anecdotally, a credible source (recently retired intelligence officer at the time) describe the Soviet leadership's reaction to the discovery that the US had a stealth program capable of putting a nuke anywhere they wanted it to go, in spite of their existing defenses- well, it wasn't a response so much as a demeanor. Leaning back, hands spread, eyes wide and and unfocused, kind of a universal "oh, well that would have been bad".
nice pasta, the version i read had the sides flipped and its about the Dead Hand system.
>>27934054
>Two: The computer scientists in charge of bringing Russian radar up to speed have described the problem of detecting stealth aircraft as "detecting swarms of bees". It isn't that there is nothing to detect- it's that the signal reflected back is distorted in such a way as to give a false negative on radar, or to reflect it in a different direction. Because of this, while the perception of the radar from the cockpit sensors is the same, the perception of the aircraft by the radar has greatly improved. This is somewhat countered by the extent to which aircraft are now being made 'spooky'- even helicopters and short range fighters are 'stealth' aircraft these days, mostly to allow them to penetrate short distances behind defenses, such as the raid that killed Bin Laden.
good thing any half-decent IADS has a lot of radars spread across tens of miles to catch those reflected signals and using different bands to detect and cross reference with huh?
also you cant really make helos stealthy afaik- well not in the way that it would matter anyway.the stealth blackhawk was supposed to be just really silent and really hard to see in the dark- presumably even with thermals. low flying aircraft and helos are more concerned with IR based threats anyway.
>>27934535
Why not?
You could have entire divisions of decoys
The US or anyone else does not have unlimited missiles, after a couple weeks of bombing, they will run low.
>>27934543
The issue being that if you've got the battlefield saturated with enough decoys that they outnumber actual equipment 2:1 and the enemy's actually attacking that sector, you're thoroughly fucked once ground forces inevitably start moving.
>>27934543
The fact that you seriously think you'll keep all those vics, armor and logistics decoyed while executing combat maneuvers is just precious.
>>27934483
This is hilarious. you can only spout damage control since you dont know jack shit.
>>27934573
You are still greatly reducing the effectiveness of bombing
They need to figure out how to use an electromagnetic field to bend radar waves around the airplane.
Then radar becomes fucking useless.
Does anyone here have any fucking clue what JASSM-ER, JSOW, MALD-J, home in on jam, AN/ALR-94, AGM-88, SDB-II, AIM-120D, AIM-9X Block II is, or anything else for that fucking matter, stop taking the bait from S-400 posters, the ball is in the attackers court, all it takes is one node down, and it opens up a corridor for the attacker to enter, there's a reason its called delamination, a rip becomes a tear.....then IADS roll back.
>>27929161
Metamaterials open up a shitload of possibilities regarding stealth, so there's still significant improvements to be made.
Stealth will continue to develop, just as the detection methods continue to develop.
I wonder if ground scanning radar on satellites could be re-purposed to spot aircraft.
>>27934459
When we fly INS only we have exactly those instruments. We have the capability to update our position to account for drift, but we rarely have to. Drift is pretty much only due to wind.
>>27932182
>Operational range 110 km
>They still think IADS means lone SA-2s in the middle of Iraqi desert
This is what unitedstatians are told by their media.
>>27930888
>thousands of cruise missiles and dummy targets flooding the airspace
That will magically appear on the Russian border? No one will allow you to just fly around launching it, your piece of shit anti-towelhead rustbuckets from the 70s will be knocked out from the skies before they even see it coming. That is of course if they won't fell apart in the air by themselves.
>>27935325
>>27935473
>>27934668
And do you have any idea what are Tor, Osa, Buk, Tunguska, Pantsir? Home on jam won't help you when there is a metric shitton of SAMs under every tree waiting for every plastic anti-towelhead toy you could still launch after long-range SAMs will rape the shit out of your bombers, fighters and AWACS.
>all it takes is one node down, and it opens up a corridor for the attacker to enter
That is how it works when all your enemy has are lone SA-2s in the middle of a plain desert. Too bad this is not the case with echelon Russian IADS.
>>27935514
Burgerclap amerilard is mad again.
>>27935567
No, it's just hilarious how you make these unsubstantiated claims while Russia's economy collapses around you under the Putin kleptocracy.
It confuses me to no end how someone can make the argument that
>NATO will run low on missiles, i promise
and then turn around and assume their IADS won't run low on missiles, especially considering the economic standings of the owner of the IADS.
>>27934668
>MALD-J
This right here is a real game changer. Deception goes both ways.
>>27935856
>>27935856
>especially considering the economic standings of the owner of the IADS.
I know, right?
Russia managed to somehow spend nearly 8 times what Vancouver did, and (adjusted for inflation) over 32x the Salt Lake City games for the Sochi games for unfinished, garbage quality venues. And we're supposed to be afraid of their military prowess when they can't even present world-class hotels athletes have to beast mode out of the bathrooms.
>>27929161
HOL UP FAMILY
does that thing have TWO refueling points? i see a probe and a receptacle on the body. talk about dead fucking weight. when will the branches agree on a single standardized system?
>>27935923
Dumbass.
The F-35A has the centerline dorsal refueling port.
The F-35B and F-35C have refueling probes.
Neither have both.
>>27935923
That's a B, so I don't think it has a boom receptacle. Probably another access panel.
>>27935558
>And do you have any idea what are Tor, Osa, Buk, Tunguska, Pantsir?
I'd love to see how these systems can operate without their radars advertising their positions or getting jammed/degraded.
>>27935923
>Not wanting to be gangbanged by tankers
>>27935558
Actively scanning radar is like shining a flashlight in a pitch black forest while hiding, you're begging for an SDB-II or TLAM up your ass. How are those systems going to differentiate between real aircraft and extremely advanced decoys with jamming equipment onboard that are deployed by the hundreds at different altitudes?
>implying contesting US military omnipotence
We can do anything we want, wherever we want and whenever we want and nobody can do jack shit about it, heck for all they will be ever able to know he plane/tank/building simply exploded on it's own accord
>>27936072
um, each of those systems have optical/thermal backups. not to mention your analogy is wrong- with support EW systems its going to be like finding that flashlight in a disco for the SDB-II and TLAM.
>>27936072
>How are those systems going to differentiate between real aircraft and extremely advanced decoys with jamming equipment onboard that are deployed by the hundreds at different altitudes?
extremely advanced relative to what? ancient system operating only in 1 band? and you mention onboard jamming suites on those- hahaha fck good luck surviving against big ass truck mounted ones- theyll burn through your jamming and allow a cheap ass 9m96 up your ass.
>>27935856
>MALD-J is a real gamechanger, i promise
kek, do you even 9m96 and pantsir-sm? not to mention the missile trucks for MALD/JSOW which are some plain jane cargo planes arent immune to ultra long range missiles. plus relying on onboard jamming in defeating ground based ECCM is kind of a losing proposition given that whatever system you have they can field their own much, much bigger and much, much powerful.
>>27935856
>and then turn around and assume their IADS won't run low on missiles, especially considering the economic standings of the owner of the IADS.
helps that the missiles are really cheap for the Russians, abnormally so that its almost Soviet.
>>27935914
>Russia managed to somehow spend nearly 8 times what Vancouver did, and (adjusted for inflation) over 32x the Salt Lake City games for the Sochi games for unfinished, garbage quality venues. And we're supposed to be afraid of their military prowess when they can't even present world-class hotels athletes have to beast mode out of the bathrooms.
because they kinda piggy backed the whole "lets turn Sochi region into a modern domestic travel destination" on the olympics preparation. none of those cities need a virtual rebuilding cause they are fine as is.
>>27935576
its, even more hilarious given that this long running meme of "Russia economy will collapse soon" is steadily proven wrong as time goes by. wait, maybe you meant collapse as in geologic timescale hahahaha.
>>27930013
>stealth is not guaranteed invisibility. A stealth plane was shot down by a radar guided missile before. One that was designed in 1950's. Technology had moved on since then. Especially russians spent the last 20 years developing ways to counter stealth.
>>27932325
Fucking this.
The argument is analogous to claiming that attack helicopters are obsolete because you can "conceivably" down one with a machine gun.
>>27929887
Active stealth tech will make radar obsolete.
>>27935975
And why would they operate without their radars?
Their positions can be changed in a matter of seconds. Inb4 proofposing:
>Time for a short stop for the firing start reduced to 2–3 seconds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_missile_system
As for getting jammed, any aerial EW assets are laughable compared to the land based ones. Krasukha-4 will jam the shit out of anything, was it NATO military or our Father who art in heaven.
>>27936072
>SDB-II Operational range 72 km against moving targets
Stop embarrassing yourself, whatever rustbucket will be carrying these will be knocked out from the skies at least a hundred kilometres before it could even try to launch these in perfect conditions.
>or TLAM
Good luck, I'm behind seven Pantsirs.
>>27936549
>not to mention the missile trucks for MALD/JSOW which are some plain jane cargo planes
Hahaha. All the better for slavaboo to get BTFO by.
>>27929990
kek'd
>>27934605
At the cost of completely fucking your logistics and maneuvering capacity. Those decoys don't build and place themselves.
>>27936846
>implying Russia is capable of fighting US 4th Gen on even terms, much less 5th
>>27929763
this. Stealth is the ability to stop signal from getting back to where it came from.
As long as we can make information black holes, or even false images, then stealth is relevant.
>>27932325
>and the coincidence that the bomb bay was open right when they tried
was this ever confirmed? i see this claim repeated often as if it was a fact, but no sources are even given.
>>27932963
>AA missiles are the closest thing to an "i win" button in the history of warfare
said everyone everywhere, before Vietnam hapened
>>27936757
good job on reading comprehension. my argument was more like
>attack helicopters are not invincible, because MANPADS exist
>>27938036
>Implying implications
US is only capable to fight towelheads with ZU-23-2 mounted on toyotas and lone SA-2s in the middle of the desert instead of air defence.
>>27938980
Kek. Tell me, how did Russia/USSR do in Afghanistan, Georgia and Chechnya again?
>>27939005
just as well as usa in vietnam, afghanistan and iraq
The idea of reducing the range at which your opponent can get a targeting solution on you, eg from 100nm down to say 15nm, will never be outdated.
Why is this so hard to grasp?
>>27938980
>Implying Russia's capabilities go beyond fighting towelheads.
>>27939077
Why is it so hard for you to grasp that this solution only works against lone standing radars and is neglected when the supposedly stealth aircraft gets highlighted from all possible angles by various types of radars simultaneously?
>>27939152
>Implying the US can
>>27939156
you're begging SEAD to come over and fuck your wife m8
>>27939156
That's scientifically false you ignorant fucking nigger. Stealth reduces detection range NO. MATTER. WHAT.
>>27939171
It has on numerous occasions.
>>27939174
Too bad IADS don't even need to come over to fuck your SEAD.
>>27939176
>Stealth reduces detection range NO. MATTER. WHAT.
>Calls anyone else an ignorant nigger
Comedy gold.
>>27939189
Go on, tell me more about how "Iraqi army was one of the strongest in the world" with all their SA-2s and 1S12s in the middle of nowhere.
>>27939294
>Too bad IADS don't even need to come over to fuck your SEAD.
When the US rolls up you won't have an IADS anymore.
If there's one thing the US excels at, it's SEAD. They've dealt with the most complex and deadly IADS on multiple occasions.
>>27939294
>thinks multi aspect RCS reduction doesn't REDUCE RADAR CROSS SECTION FROM ALL ASPECTS
>thinks this doesn't mean reduced detection thresholds to varying degrees from all angles
Nigger, you really need to take a minute and go read a fucking book.
>>27939294
Why are you denying facts of physics?
>>27939304
When you come close to Russia's border you won't have air forces anymore.
>If there's one thing the US excels at, it's SEAD.
Yeah, sure, against towelheads with ZU-23-2s mounted on toyotas and lone SA-2s in the middle of the desert instead of air defence.
>>27939326
>Yeah, sure, against towelheads with ZU-23-2s mounted on toyotas and lone SA-2s in the middle of the desert instead of air defence.
You've said this multiple times. It's hilarious how little you know about the Iraqi IADS in Desert Storm.
>>27939294
So your argument is that an F-15 and F-22 would be reliably detected at the *exact same range* if multiple types of radars from different angles were attempting to track them?
This is how we all know you're retarded.
>>27939294
If stealth is so useless, why are Russia and China scrambling to get VLO fighters operational?
>>27939294
You should give the Chinese a call.
>>27939316
>Thinking RCS is significantly reduced from all aspects and not just direct front view
>Thinking it even matters when there's more than just a lone radar straight in front of the aircraft
Indeed, go read a book, nigger.
>>27939321
Fact of physics is that RCS is reduced on a different scale depending on the angle of view. Fact of physics is that simultaneous highlight of an aircraft from different angles by different types of radars neglects its stealth effectiveness.
>>27939340
>the Iraqi IADS
This is what unitedstatians really are told to believe.
>>27939387
Nice damage control faggot. You directly implied stealth does literally nothing only to just now admit that statement is false.
>>27939387
>Thinking RCS is significantly reduced from all aspects and not just direct front view
>Thinking it even matters when there's more than just a lone radar straight in front of the aircraft
Are you really this dumb? The maximum return aspect for the F-22 is still two orders of magnitude smaller than the best aspect of the F-16, and three from the F-15. Jesus, you're one dumb nigger.
>>27939387
> claim multiple radars make stealth completely useless
> say that stealth still reduces rcs
Good job proving yourself wrong Dr. Dipshit.
>>27939343
No, my argument is that advanced IADS vastly neglects the advantages of stealth. You may proceed with your clownery though, this is amusing.
>>27939357
Gee, maybe because it is not useless in every situation other than a /k neckbeard's a suicidal intention to attack Russia?
>>27939387
>Fact of physics is that RCS is reduced on a different scale depending on the angle of view. Fact of physics is that simultaneous highlight of an aircraft from different angles by different types of radars neglects its stealth effectiveness.
What are common deflection angles?
What is RAM?
What are S-ducts?
What are endemic air frame protrusion reduction measures?
Why are you so uneducated yet still talking?
>>27939425
>The maximum return aspect for the F-22
Was never published. Your argument is invalid.
>>27939404
So you're actually going to argue that the Iraqis only had SA-2s and ZU-23-2s? My fucking sides.
>>27939443
And yet you are still admitting that stealth reduces RCS while simultaneously completely ignoring the fact that several countries are actively pursuing stealth aircraft.
Do mankind a favor and go hang yourself in the woods.
>>27939453
Nigger, even Russia's most pessimistic estimates put it two orders of magnitude less than the F-16. Go read a fucking book.
>>27939443
Stealth reduces detection range compared to a comparable non-stealth aircraft no matter what type of radar is used.
In what way is that useless?
>>27939417
Stealth does nothing when the enemy has IADS as developed as the Russian one.
>>27939437
Mr. Dumbfuckistanian can't put together 2 and 2, it seems. Stealth does reduce RCS, IADS makes it irrelevant.
>>27939446
Why are you still talking about means to reduce frontal RCS when the talk is obviously about multiply simultaneous radar highlight? Better get your insulin injection, your mind seem to be failing you once again, nigger.
>>27930227
>americans lost like 2000 aircraft in vietnam?
Yes. But that never stopped them from bombing places that they wanted to bomb.
>>27939508
No one can be this dumb about basic physics. Gotta be a troll.
>>27939508
You're still denying physical facts and contradicting yourself.
It's fucking embarrassing.
>>27939508
>Stealth does nothing when the enemy has IADS as developed as the Russian one.
Russians keep saying that they're going to invent some magical bullshit radar that can see all but it is 2015 and they still don't have it. Moreover, there is no reason for the USA to ever go back no nonstealthy fighters because the F-22 and the F-35 have both proved that you can have a stealthy aircraft without making any significant design compromises.
>>27939508
You admitted that multiple radars don't mean stealth doesn't still reduce detection range.
You're literally backpeddling within a single sentence.
>>27938782
No, it was more like "if you could down one with a machine gun". The example you used maters here.
Your single sole example (and the example most loved by all of the "but stealf is a not usefohs" fucktards, not that I'm necessarily characterizing you as one of them) is one of the single most spectacular golden BB incidents there ever was, in the sense that what was achieved was not only incredibly unlikely but also facilitated by institutional stupidity.
Think "attack helicopter overflies known machine gun position at medium altitude multiple times".
>>27939508
What advantage does a non-stealth aircraft offer over a stealth one (all other things being equal)?
Spoiler: The answer is nothing.
>>27939454
So you are actually doind to argue that Iraqis had "one of the strongest militaries in the world", let alone IADS? Tip top kekkity keks, my sides to the orbit. Poor brainwashed dumbfuckistanian niggers still think that fucking up towelheads is some sort of a military achievement.
>>27939459
Who are you talking to, imbecile amerilard?
>Gee, maybe because it is not useless in every situation other than a /k neckbeard's a suicidal intention to attack Russia?
>>27939474
>estimates
Time to eat your daily portion of shit, nigger.
>>27939481
It is not useless, its usefulness is neglected in one particular impossible /k-tier scenario when NATO decides to start a conventional war with Russia. In the real world scenarios it is a useful technology.
>>27939540
>Russians keep saying that they're going to invent some magical bullshit radar that can see all but it is 2015 and they still don't have it.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-Low-Band-Radars.html
>>27939559
>So you are actually doind to argue that Iraqis had "one of the strongest militaries in the world"
Nowhere did I say any such thing. Now that you mention it, however, everyone on the planet ranked them between third and fifth in standing military ground strength before Desert Storm. Even your precious Soviets. Link very much related
>http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/rs-storm.htm
>>27939517
>>27939526
>All lies!
Poor little things.
>>27939540
The "magical" bullshit was invented years ago. It is no wonder dumbfuckistanians keep thinking it is some impossible magic considering their "air defence" consists of fucking Shittriot PAC-shit with ANGLED launchers and launch readiness time of half an hour in the year of our Lord 2015.
>>27939508
>RAM is only a means to reduce frontal RCS
Take off the vata and go away.
>>27939559
>It is not useless, its usefulness is neglected in one particular impossible /k-tier scenario when NATO decides to start a conventional war with Russia. In the real world scenarios it is a useful technology.
This is what damage control and backpedalling look like. Take note, anons.
>>27939559
>Time to eat your daily portion of shit, nigger.
Public, extremely pessimistic, estimates of the F-22's RCS by the Russian MoD are invalid, but the Russian MoD's lofty claims about their vaporware are totally valid?
>>27939579
>MOTHERFUCKING APA
AAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA
>>27939585
>Poor little things.
Oh god you're >>27938988 aren't you?
You are actually this stupid, aren't you?
... 7/10 I guess.
>>27939579
> actually trying to argue that low band radars are useful for IADS
>>27939596
>Lies, backpedalling!
The whole initial point was the conflict against Russia, dumbfuckistanian nigger.
>estimates
Seems like this nigger wants a free shitsteak additive.
>>27939621
Congratulations. You're the dumbest nigger on 4Chan for the month.
>>27939604
>Dumbfuckistanian amerilard birgerclap /k neckbeard is mad
Your tears are delicious.
I think op is reading too much Russia Today.
>>27939627
>LIIIIIIEEESSSS!
Poor little thing.
