How long will STEALTH be effective?

Long wave infrared search and track is a proven counter-stealth capability and the IRST system currently on the F-14D is a quantum leap over any other passive detection system in the world. The ability to passively detect, track and destroy enemy aircraft will be a crucial advantage in future aerial combat. Aircraft employing low observable/stealth technology cannot hide from the proven combination of the IRST and the APG-71 radar. Only the F-14D Super Tomcat can accomplish this today!

Source

Mod Edit: Deleted external source that did not have a link.


[edit on 6/4/07 by FredT]

Mod Edit: Please read the following:

Posting work written by others. **ALL MEMBERS READ**

[edit on 6/4/07 by FredT]

Mod Edit: Please read the following:


Posting work written by others. **ALL MEMBERS READ**

[edit on 6/4/07 by FredT]

Your totally asking for a mod to delete that work and just put in a link. You should give the ATS guidelines a read. Beside that I'm wondering what exatly you think of the article there really much point in me giving mine if you don't have one. Just a couple friendly suggestions I'm not trying to be too harsh

[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]

I did put in a link, I put everything in external text to emphasize the meaning of the topic, in other words not to be distracted.

Actually the old Russian radars are able to detect any of the stealth crafts, just they're not advertising it. It was one of our first question at our Air Force Academy. And the answer was... yes, we're able to detect them, only the U.S. doesn't know it. Now the fact is, the radars of the U.S. are scanning the territory in square-meters. The Russian radars are scanning the air in square-centimeters. The stealth crafts are cannot be seen on the U.S. radars, while it can be seen on the old Russian radars.

The stealth capability is pure propaganda, such as the next generation laser targeting systems. The only stealth capability will be if someone will be able to disguise the craft with a cloaking field. Until that moment, stealth crafts are useless (Especially in cold and some weather conditions due to their laser systems.). They're effective in hot weather (Which is in Iraq or Afghanistan), but in cold weather, various weather, both the laser guidance of the M1 Abrams Tank, the U.S. Aircrafts, Helicopters are out or their performance is reduces to 2-10 percent. The Russian technology advantage comes here, because in cold weather, various weather conditions an old T72 with it's manual targeting system will be able to take out any U.S. tanks without any problem, because in the cold or various weather conditions, the U.S. tanks will have problems with their targeting system. The Mig29 is also the same. It will be fully operational in Siberia or in Europe, where the Stealth crafts are completely useless (In Kosovo, the F117, some AH64D Apache and additional U.S. crafts are also proved this. They aren't that effective as they're advertising.).

Originally posted by Dark Crystalline
The stealth capability is pure propaganda.

That's the question : why would USA pay so much for something that is ineffective? I would rather go for the EF-2000 cause one of it's key characteristics is supermanuverability meaning better roll rate, and turn rate, and it carry's more weapons externally then what the F-22A carry's internally.

I had a chuckle reading those listed "disadvantages", where are the proven advantages, not to mention the disadvantages of conventional fighters? Eh, stealth will remain effective so long as we use electromagnetic waves for detection. It might be compromised in certain cases (noting is perfect) but in the end it will always be bundles better than a conventional design because you will have to work an x number of times more to defeat it.

And what's this cold weather rubbish? Unless you're talking absolute zero that is...

Originally posted by Oxygen
That's the question : why would USA pay so much for something that is ineffective?

Because it's not "ineffective"?

Originally posted by Oxygen
I would rather go for the EF-2000 cause one of it's key characteristics is supermanuverability meaning better roll rate, and turn rate,...

Oh please, I have yet to see a Typhoon perform anything impressive publicly, let alone with external stores and weapons. The F-22 was also designed for extreme maneuverability and it has shown it. I don't have classified turn and roll rates for the two, do you? Didn't think so.

Originally posted by Oxygen
and it carry's more weapons externally then what the F-22A carry's internally.

Great, except, what's the point when you can't put those weapons on target because you've just been shot down? Know what that means? More money and resources wasted. The F-22 on the other hand has just completed the mission with it's oh so limited payload (sarcasm). Now it can reload and fly another sortie. Mission effectives not meaningless figures is the object.

[edit on 4-6-2007 by WestPoint23]

The Eurofighter doesn't need to display it's preformance to a crowd. The F-22A just wants attention cause the Yanks know it's second best.
Don't be too sure I don't know the roll rates and turn rates, I could be flying in on your next airshow.

Originally posted by Oxygen
Don't be too sure I don't know the roll rates and turn rates, I could be flying in on your next airshow.

You don't, but anyway, with comments like this... "cause the Yanks know it's second best." I really hope you don't, I enjoy being safe. In all seriousness how long will non stealth be ineffective?

And what's this cold weather rubbish? Unless you're talking absolute zero that is...

From the Air Force Academy, Mister. Two words. Fulcrum trainee. Plus, I had some comrades at the Army, T72 crews and chief instructors whose also stated this. If you don't want to believe it, it's not my problem. It's not going to change the facts. Cold weather and various weather conditions (I also mentioned this) are completely wiping out the U.S. equipments (Best examples, M16 = weather of Vietnam, Patriot laser guidance mistakes, i.e. Patriot vs. U.K. PanAvia Tornado = weather of Iraq, Heli crashes = weather of Iraq and Afghanistan, L.G.S. F.O.F. I.D. mistakes = weather of Iraq and Afghanistan, etc, etc... The list is long. Most of these casualties are caused by the sudden weather change.). Other best examples, Israeli casualties of nowadays (Plane crash, heli crash, plane crash, heli crash. All of them were U.S. F16s, F15s and AH64Ds.). The weather conditions are completely able to crush the U.S. systems. But after the Russian systems are not really automatized, i.e. most of the Fulcrum systems, T72, T80 systems, they can work in all weather conditions.

This also goes for the F117 over Kosovo. The weather is suddenly dropped below the standards (Standard weather condition for us in Europe, when the weather is dropping from 32 Celsius degree to 15 Celsius Degree or below within few minutes.), and most of the U.S. systems are already out or works on reduced performance. Somehow they cannot adapt to the weather conditions. That's why most of the U.S. stuffs have fought only in hot and dry weather conditions. But after the Russian stuffs were made to be completely operational in -80 Celsius degree, it's not a problem for them (Plus the square-centimeter scanning and some additional hidden surprise.).

[edit on 4-6-2007 by Dark Crystalline]