[Nimrod48]

Originally Posted by FormerViperDriver

Hey, thanks Nimrod. Glad to see you kept your perspective.

Any TSR.2 fan has got to be a good man in my view...

FVD

Not a problem FVD the faux pas is mine apologies to you & to OC

[jim]

Originally Posted by FormerViperDriver

Jim,

There are two kinds of Rapier batteries: the original version (as used in the Falklands) is optical-tracking only, and if they mean they optically tracked a B-2 on final approach to an airbase where Rapier units usually are located) in broad daylight and slow speed, that's a very weak claim. So what?

It is possible however, that this referred to the newer Rapier systems which were retrofitted with radar tracking capability. In this case, two things: US stealth planes normally fly with radar-enhancing devices tacked on when they are not on a combat mission or a combat training mission (let's say they just fly to an airshow, or on a ferry mission). This is true of the F-117. B-2, and F-22 (and presumably F-35, though I don't know for sure in that case). So again, what's the big deal? And even if it were true that they tracked one without these devices on, remember that the Rapier is a very short range, and low altitude missile system designed for point-defense. A B-2 is not completely invisible to radar, only much more difficult to find/track compared to normal aircraft. If it gets very, very close to a Rapier battery, it's quite possible it could be picked up anyway, at least temporarily. This is irrelevant to a combat situation, however, where the B-2 would be flying at altitudes and ranges where it would be practically impossible for the Rapier to track it (in fact the missile couldn't even reach it anyway, even if it could track it).

Bottom line: story could be true, but likely has no relevance any assessment of the B-2's capabilities. Or else I'd have to know much more about he actual circumstances.

FVD

Thank you for your reply FVD,
I have been racking my memory trying to recall this story , then I read your answer and it helped me a little.
It must have been as you state because I think this happenend at Farnbrough airshow.

So they would be speaking the truth perhaps but then again the F22 must have been almost on top of them so that makes your point exactly.

Its no good being able to track something at short range when the plane can zap you from over the horizon.

[Old Crow]

FVD, thanks for the further enlightenment.

Another question: I understand the need for careful planning before applying stealth assets. Is it necessary to limit the number of stealthy assets in a given area in order to avoid creating a recognizable radar signature (in other words due to the combined radar return) in that given area?

Not a problem FVD the faux pas is mine apologies to you & to OC

Hey Nimrod, no need to apologize.

[FormerViperDriver]

Originally Posted by Old Crow

FVD, thanks for the further enlightenment.

Another question: I understand the need for careful planning before applying stealth assets. Is it necessary to limit the number of stealthy assets in a given area in order to avoid creating a recognizable radar signature (in other words due to the combined radar return) in that given area?

Interesting question, but unless the two (or more) stealth aircraft were flying really, really close to each other (like the Thunderbirds or Blue Angels), I don't see how that would make them more visible to radar.

And we don't fly that close to each other in combat. Combat formations are more typically thousands of feet, or miles apart.

FVD

[kwiky]

ive just found another source that states that the raptor and the typhoon did indeed meet and take part in a red flag exercise,

Stars and Stripes: Japanese pilots get taste of F-22As during Kadena training

By David Allen, Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Tuesday, May 1, 2007


in this article a certain Lt. Col. Wade Tolliver, commander of the 27th Fighter Squadron states “This is the second joint training we’ve done with other nations,” Tolliver said. Another U.S.-based Raptor squadron trained with jets from Great Britain and Australia in February during the Red Flag exercise in Nevada"


so again the question is raised, why havent we heard more about it, is it Britain who dont want to admit that the typhoon sucks or the US dont want to admit the raptor faired badly? In the above article we're told about it because its was against F-15's and we already know the F-15 is no match for the raptor because of US exercises, so noone looks bad when a US built fighter is defeated by a newer US built fighter, they throw in a sentence about how good the jap pilots are and everyones happy, but the raptor defeating the typhoon with as much ease would be a disaster for all the nations involved in the develpment of the typhoon, this isnt some ageing fighter, its supposed to be a cutting edge aircraft, a match for anything,

the same would happen in the US if the raptor didnt fair as well as expected, imagine finding out your super stealth jet can be beaten by some peice of euro garbage, i bet there'd be hell to pay

the answer to the stealth or no stealth question has already been answered during that exercise but it seems for now at least, someone is hiding their embarresment and both sides are keeping quiet.


regards...........kwiky

[Old Crow]

Unless I mised it, I do not see where the article you cite mentions the Typhoon specifically.

Here is a link to an article apparently referring to Red Flag in February 2007 which identifies some of the British jets participating but does not mention the Typhoon. I cannot vouch for the accurcy but it seems to be a reliable source.

British Defence Staff-US | RAF Red Hot at Red Flag

[kwiky]

damn your right it doesnt, and that means i made abit of a arse of myself

oh well not the first time lol

[smartd]

Back in the early days of Stealth when the F-117 had been making the rounds of airshows, the folks at NAS Oceana, roped off an area at their airshow. Just had a crew ladder sticking out of the ground and an APU. They included a rather detailed info sheet on the Navy's new stealth fighter, which as was explained, was really stealthy.
Had lots of civilians taken in, was rather funny to listen to the comments.

I only have slides of this so I cannot post a pic,.... bummer.

[Shawn 507]

Originally Posted by smartd

Back in the early days of Stealth when the F-117 had been making the rounds of airshows, the folks at NAS Oceana, roped off an area at their airshow. Just had a crew ladder sticking out of the ground and an APU. They included a rather detailed info sheet on the Navy's new stealth fighter, which as was explained, was really stealthy.
Had lots of civilians taken in, was rather funny to listen to the comments.

I only have slides of this so I cannot post a pic,.... bummer.

Go Navy!!!

[John Youngs]

Originally Posted by FormerViperDriver

Old Crow,

I've been pondering how to answer you on this subject without giving out too much information, which would be easy to do.

I read the article in question a couple of days ago. It makes some good points. However, I wouldn't put too much credence in what the French or British say regarding the worth of their Rafale and Eurofighter respectively. Their argument that the US 5th generation jets (F-22 and F-35) sacrifice too much for stealth is a desperate attempt at salvaging whatever export opportunities they might still get for their 4th generation fighters in the face of the commercial beating they are taking when pitted against the F-35 (or even upgraded F-15s and F-16s, for that matter).

Most countries' Air Forces understand the stakes and are going for the F-35 versus buying other very expensive jets that are only slightly more capable than our own F-16s, F-18s, and F-15s (and then only in certain specific areas, such as pure maneuverability, which is of marginal value in modern air combat). I don't care how maneuvrable an aircraft is, it won't matter much against an SA-10b, 20, or 21. Only stealth can get you through at that point (though even then, you have to understand stealth is not a panacea and must be used wisely. But at least you it give you a fighting chance). There are other methods that might work to help you get through those kinds of defenses, but then you are talking about investing heavily in support aircraft and other systems, and hope that these actually work. The best is a combination of all of the above, because it gives you options against an enemy who can adapt and perhaps is smart enough to counter your own tactics. The Rafale and Typhoon/Eurofighter (or the Navy's F-18) don't give you the same options. And we haven't even talked about the huge advantage stealth gives you in air-to-air when facing AA-10s or AA-12s.

The Eurofighter in particular is a total joke when it comes to any claims of "reduced radar signature." No amount of RAM (Radar Absorbent Materials) can make up for a shape that's all right angles everywhere. If an engineer were given the task of designing an aircraft with the largest radar cross-section possible from all angles, but still be maneuverable, the Eurofighter would be optimal. It's all corner reflectors everywhere. Al least the British and Italian Navy (and probably Spain) will get F-35Bs (carrier based) to give them some real capability on day one of a serious war, but the Germans will be stuck with waiting for other countries to do the job for them. I guess it makes sense for them, since it's highly unlikely they will ever go to war by themselves. Still pretty weak to let the others do the hard fighting and settle for second-string. Our own US Navy will get the F-35C, so they'll be covered, eventually.

All the talk about anti-stealth radars and such is just talk. There may be ways on the drawing board to figure out that a stealthy plane is "out there somewhere" in a general area (read Aviation Week and you can find out about that), but there is no way these methods can be used to track accurately enough to guide a weapon. It's all speculation at this point anyway. The Russians are funny that way: they keep bragging about being able to defeat stealth, but they are working on their own stealth designs anyway (some of their methods are quite distinct from our own, by the way, but they are still very experimental, not operational, and their effectiveness is still to be determined. I'm speaking of plasma field shielding in particular). The F-117 shoot-down in Serbia had nothing to do with any particular brilliance on their part (though it did have to do with some buffoonery on our part).

The bit about stand-off missiles making up for a lack of stealth is incorrect. These missiles are great to have, but there are many missions, particularly Close Air Support, or interdiction against mobile targets, or Time Sensitive Targeting, or high-collateral-damage-potential targets, or deeply burried targets, etc... where stand-off missiles are either not useable or are less than optimal. Again, stealth gives you far more options.

Finally, unlike what the article would lead you to believe, the F-35 will carry at least as much armament, farther, than either of the European jets. It doesn't carry as much in its full stealth mode (due to internal carriage), but if you hang weapons on the wings, it will carry similar loads, with greater range in most cases (in other words, let's compare apples to apples).

So the bottom line is the US Air Force is doing the right thing. Stealth is not a cure-all, but it is a huge asset, far more important than maneuverability for example. Furthermore, the F-22 and F-35 incorporate stealth with practically no sacrifice in speed, maneuverability, range, and avionics. They do sacrifice some weapons load capacity when in full stealth mode, but not when they carry weapons externally. These new jets are marvels of American engineering which other countries just wish they could copy. Since they can't (at least not yet), they resort to wishful thinking. I hope that works for them...

FVD

FVD - I don't disagree with much of what you've said - however, at $338 million per copy (for an F-22 Raptor), THAT, in my opinion, is pure BS!! This sort of crap is exactly why the US is gradually falling behind Europe in A/C design & acceptability. Yes, I understand all about social government subsidies (such as France's Airbus Industries, etc.) and programs which allow aircraft companies to crank out planes that they, themselves, would otherwise never be able to produce. But in the spirit of $600 toilet seats and $700 hammers, etc; enough is enough!! Stealth and avionics technologies are the two remaining aircraft industries the US still excells at - and we're going to lose those soon, if we don't wake up! Witness the recent USAF decision to buy the Airbus for it's tanker needs - 'Nuff said... - JY