Strategies to detect stealth aircraft using passive radar technology.

[Tyro]

Originally posted by S = k log w
Doesn't 'one million' bombs beat ten stealth fighters?

Unless the stealth fighter has a bomb with a nuclear warhead. Or is capable of carrying one. The value of a stealth fighter transcends its actual utility, it is like nuclear submarines. There could be one just outside the capital of a hostile country ready to reduce it to radioactive cinders.

 

[Tyro]

Originally posted by russ_watters
The bbc still isn't the source there. It says that right in the title: "Serbs say..." Without REALLY good evidence, there is no reason to believe that just as there was no reason to believe Bagdhad Bob when he said there were no American tanks in Bagdhad. The picture shown doesn't suffice for me (though a military expert could probably identify the markings). Also, it says they captured two crew members. An F-117 has a crew of ONE.

It is not really my job to speculate on the competence of a news agency or its sources. I might add, neither is it yours. I respect your opinion, and your right to present it. So you think that the Serbs were exaggerating. That is OK - I respect that. Keep in mind that there are political reasons why the DoD might not want to admit its prized stealth aircraft got downed by hostile fire. But it also did admit to losing one plane during the conflict (possibly more later, because the report is dated).

In wartime especially (or a report from a combatant in a war), it is essential to step back and consider the credibility of the sources - and the sources sources. I wasn't trying to be coy there. What I meant was it is stealthy enough at all aspects to evade radar. And that should be obvious: if it weren't, it would be of little use in an environment where a threat can come from any direction. One of the other errors in the article about the Australian radar for example was the part about detecting the stealth fighter from above by looking at the cockpit, engine intakes, etc. Thats false - those things are most certainly stealthy. Again, if they weren't the plane would be of limited utility. Those two things did however present major engineering problems - engine intakes are covered with grilles because otherwise you'd be able to see the engine itself. And the cockpit glass is coated because otherwise radar would be able to see the pilot's head. Use radar to "see" the wake left by a plane for example. Yeah ok, S, I've heard of that. But that's not "passive." And decoupling the transmitter and reciever is also not "passive." "Passive" means no transmistter at all, a la infrared.

Of course, I am fully aware that truth is the first casualty of war. But don't forget it works both ways. I'm not saying the F-117 is crap, all I am saying is that it has its vulnerabilities.

As for "passive", I wish to draw your attention to the underlined & bold part of my post regarding the matter:

Originally posted by Tyro:
As for the suggestion on "passive radar", that is, partly, the idea behind one of the types of detection I mentioned, where you have a separate transmitter and receiver (in the developed case it was actually supposed to use mobile phone transmitters! Which, as you know, are scattered nicely across a country). Unexpected and unexplained changes in the 'background' signal suggest the presence of stealth aircraft.