an interesting article about the F-117 that was shot down over Serbia

a reply to: Zaphod58


have you ever seen the one myth busters where they make the outside of a car the same texture as a golf ball.

I wonder if anyone has ever made the outside of a aircraft look like that.

I know in WW2 the U boats used dimpling to cause cavitation so the little air bubbles would absorb the SONAR I wonder if doing the same on the outside of a air craft would do the same with RADAR

a reply to: penroc3

They sort of do that with laminar flow control. One of the early experiments was to put tiny dimples all over the airframe. They were so small you could only see them up close. You had to keep the airframe incredibly smooth though.

They did end up using that in the intake of some engines, like the CFM56 used on the KC-135.

Your science was given a false direction supposedly invisible to radar aircraft, he discovered the Soviet radar 1980s , your cruise missiles cost $ 1 million + can deaden gps homemade device for $ 5 and a missile self-destructs, we can turn on microwave and your missile accuracy perceive as armored vehicles or car , from your thermal or infrared sight makes a shield from the mesh with cold foliage continues to spend billions of $ for weapons, we destroy him thousands of rubles

a reply to: mangust69

Um no. I always love posts like this. Russian GPS jammers were used in Iraq. They were destroyed using GPS bombs. Missiles use multiple frequencies to target. IR targeting is so far beyond what you think it's not funny. They also use optics to target. A Tomahawk Block IV was just steered to the target by an aircraft, changing targets in flight.

a reply to: Zaphod58 Science does not stand still and our aim is to defend not attack, by the way as there sailors with Donald Cook - diapers change?

a reply to: mangust69

You mean the story that never happened? That magic system that allegedly turned off the ship is a low power self defense system not capable of doing what was claimed.

You're right science doesn't sit still. For every counter out there there's a counter for it. So your goal is only to defend, but you're building stealth aircraft, new ICBMs, new bombers, etc. All offensive weapons.

a reply to: mangust69

Cheaper things always win out? Tell that to the USSR who spent themselves into oblivion while the US was spending billions on more expensive things.

I'd rather have a lower quantity of more expensive assets that are the best money can buy than lots of cheap assets that are unreliable.

a reply to: mangust69

why are you here?

you seem super ignorant or are a super troll.

if your a troll good job.

If your serious....wow.... you clearly have zero idea what your talking about. Russia is a powerful force no question. It's people like you that make others snicker

originally posted by: justwanttofly
a reply to: mangust69

Cheaper things always win out? Tell that to the USSR who spent themselves into oblivion while the US was spending billions on more expensive things.

I'd rather have a lower quantity of more expensive assets that are the best money can buy than lots of cheap assets that are unreliable.

Low quantity expensive assets put you in a real bind though when someone develops an effective countermeasure or in the event that you simply need to avoid being overwhelmed by numbers.

Ideally you want a mix of quality and quantity. 90% of the quality for 10% of the cost for example is way more effective when funding isn't unlimited.

I was confused by this part of the story,

"Lt Col Zelko hadn’t received any warning of the incoming missile, as his jet was reportedly not carrying radar."

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

I wasn't aware that radar is required to alert you that a radar guided missile was launched at you? I thought the RWR did that passively.

originally posted by: Flipper35
I was confused by this part of the story,

"Lt Col Zelko hadn’t received any warning of the incoming missile, as his jet was reportedly not carrying radar."

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

I wasn't aware that radar is required to alert you that a radar guided missile was launched at you? I thought the RWR did that passively.

Zaphod. You're needed again mate

a reply to: Flipper35

I'll go into more detail later when I have time, but it's partly because the reporter is an idiot.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Flipper35

I'll go into more detail later when I have time, but it's partly because the reporter is an idiot.

That was my impression. There were a few other tidbits that didn't make sense.

originally posted by: Flipper35

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Flipper35

I'll go into more detail later when I have time, but it's partly because the reporter is an idiot.

That was my impression. There were a few other tidbits that didn't make sense.

It doesnt have radar but it has a warning system

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: sg1642

They're already retired and in storage at Tonopah. There are a small number flying as test aircraft but none active in service.

yesterday's big thing is tomorrow's junk I suppose.

The problem with duplicating technology is it sometimes impossible. The Russian tried to copy the B-29 during WW2. It took three years before it flew as the TU-4 Bull. It took them three years to develop a nuclear bomb with their stolen blueprints.

If Christopher Columbus had a modern ship could he reproduced it?

originally posted by: buddah6

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: sg1642

They're already retired and in storage at Tonopah. There are a small number flying as test aircraft but none active in service.

yesterday's big thing is tomorrow's junk I suppose.

The problem with duplicating technology is it sometimes impossible. The Russian tried to copy the B-29 during WW2. It took three years before it flew as the TU-4 Bull. It took them three years to develop a nuclear bomb with their stolen blueprints.

If Christopher Columbus had a modern ship could he reproduced it?

i bet china could...

a reply to: sg1642

www.jpost.com...


no radar needed

originally posted by: buddah6

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: sg1642

They're already retired and in storage at Tonopah. There are a small number flying as test aircraft but none active in service.

yesterday's big thing is tomorrow's junk I suppose.

The problem with duplicating technology is it sometimes impossible. The Russian tried to copy the B-29 during WW2. It took three years before it flew as the TU-4 Bull. It took them three years to develop a nuclear bomb with their stolen blueprints.

You realize that those are good examples of "really awesome job of duplicating technology ASAP?"

Kurchatov making a bomb despite his poor country just having been half obliterated? Vs the richest country in the world sitting tight without a scratch? We're talking about eating rats and people vs not getting quite as much fresh butter type of war experiences. And it looks like they invented their H-bomb all on their own.

a reply to: boomer135

Ever hear about the fourth 727 in China?

a reply to: Flipper35

There are other reasons too but part of it is lazy reporting.

The RWR system doesn't always play well with long frequency radars. You can't target with them so it doesn't always react to them.

Russian SAMs also have a optical tracking system so they can be launched and track without using radar for the RWR to react to.