Well here it is. The off topic presentation.

 

Seriously, get on topic. You want toi know if signal management can be defeated? 

It has been in the past, and then it has not. That is why I said yes or no.

 

That wasn't a joke. Example: camouflage paint and flying so high that ground detectors could not hear or see you, was a form of this signbal management between World War I and World War II. Then came radar and that form of crude signal management was defeated.  First counter to radar was to fly fast and low, using the Earth's curvature  to hide  from groind based radar. The invention of radar equipped planes defeated that. Then came false radio broadcast, and then false target signal return (Window is the example), then signal and object decoys, as well as dozens of other obvious methods to defeat radio and heat. That is ongoing today with various other signal management methods today, with the Americans winning the offense/defense signal management battle on both ends. Will the latest iterations be defeated? Most likely NOT in your generation, if atmospheric opacity remains as is and an enemy follows your false concepts that you bit picked off some internet site.. Real  physics is; electromagnetism is.   

 

Now,  you can pretend to an understanding that you do not have, to maintain that a network of IR detectors and long wave radio detectors or even a specific set of UHF or VHF commercial broadcast systems with a scattered network of separate receiver nodes can somehow make moving three body missile engagements possible. Problem is that here you enter into the realm of stuff that you do not know, where my understanding of how electromagnetism works holds sway. You didn't even know that radio was part of the electromagnetic spectrum. And you try to tell someone else not to pretend?

 

Please return to the subject of signal management and try to discuss THAT.

 

   

 

 

This may be, just don't expect me to accept for instance the superiority of the F-22 for the next 30 years without giving me some damn good reasons for doing so. What I've seen of non American designs that show to me that these guys are every bit as good as your best engineers. Thinking that no-one outside of the US will come up with an effective counter to stealth in the next 30 years is unrealistic in my opinion.

 

 

Nor do I see anything on increasing the bandwith of frequencies at which radar absorbent materials absorb radar waves.  No talk about how with signal processing you could pick out a marble sized return out of all the other background noise. Or, possibly a material that blocks radard waves coming one way and lets radar waves coming from the other way pass. (transparent in one direction, blocking in another)

 

Or that the number of suitable ingress routes for plane into former Yugoslavia was limited, which goes a long way explaining why the F117 that was shot down was following the same routes.

 

Etc, etc...

 

 

 

 

Britain maybe. Italy certainly. Russia certainly. Germany likewise, though their engineers screwed up NeuRON so they have serious knowledge gaps to cover. The rest of them are decades behind and clueless. 

Depends on much material science. Some schemes conflict as well as complement. Also nobody will go into much detail since it will give the clueless enemy  ideas.

I did mention that obliquely, actually.

And so forth.

He has now reappeared as Hamilcar.

Hello all

 

I am not a big blog/discussion board user, in fact, I never really involve myself on a discussion board outside of my domain (movie making) . To be honest, i am kind of disappointed, but thats my fault. It was my mistake to focus on unlogical/unimportant argument. I will focus on poster that bring some "proof" or have some reputation.

 

not sure how that is measurable.  in real terms the US has had fielded operational LO platforms in service since 1958.  They've gone through 4 manned generations - all of which use different LO management concepts.  That indicates iterative concurrent development.  No one else has fielded an operational let alone battle tested platform.  the rubber has to hit the road at some point.  that doesn't mean that anyone else isn't going to be competitive, but in engineering terms, a staged iterative development demonstrates more than latent ability.  actual to latent is a huge difference.

I don't think that anyone is going to discuss actual concepts and contemp solutions on a public forum, but it has been discussed (I know I've done it when talking about different types of sig management features)  I can think of at least one comms specialist who has because I ended up contacting him through my my work to see if he was the real deal.  he was and is.

there wasn't a shortage of ingress routes, like every event its a legacy of multiple minor events leading up to a catastrophic outcome.  if you look at nearly every air accident/fatality its due to a series of minor events cascading into a major catastrophic and unfortunately avoidable outcome.  in the case of the stinkbug pilots, they became operationally indolent, and bad planning and a degree of hubris coupled with a local serb battery commander who used lateral thinking generated an outcome.  LO aircraft are not invisible and/or invincible.  they are going to be subject to the perfornance of the lowest possible link - and in this case it was sloppiness on the pilots part.