renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (09/08/84)
#R:ihuxj:-68300:uiucdcs:29200144:000:1097 uiucdcs!renner Sep 7 21:30:00 1984 > Steve Aldrich (ihuxj!amra) writes: > > Hello, the other night while watching "Late Night America" on local > PBS station, Chan. 11 Chicago, the guest made an interesting statement. > She claimed that the "Stealth Bomber" (B-1?) was only "invisible" to > Short Wave (SW) Radar and that Long Wave (LW) Radar would be more than > capable of detecting these "so called" wonder weapons that the President > intends to use as replacements for the B-52's currently being utilized. The B-1 does not use the so-called "stealth" technology. The term "Stealth Bomber" comes from Jimmy Carter's re-election campaign, when certain details about radar-detection-avoidance technology were somehow leaked to the press. The idea was that instead of building B-1s, we should just use the old B-52s for another 8 or 10 years until the stealth bombers were ready. I don't know if the stealth bomber idea will ever work, and I can't say if the B-1 bomber is worth building. But it wasn't Reagan's idea to replace the B-52s with the "so-called wonder weapons." Scott Renner {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner
sunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) (09/09/84)
Shades of KAL007 and (invisible to Russian radar) companion EC-135:
I believe the stealth technology is based primarily on rounded
fusellage / wing curves to prevent anything like a right angle corner
which is exceptionally good at reflecting radar, and the application of
surface treatment which reduces the radar reflectivity of the surface.
The surface treatments may be applied to existing aircraft, but the
correct physical configuration requires new designs taking years.
Independent of that is the use of Electronic Countermeasures
which actively apply an electronic signal to the environment to confuse
enemy radar into either not seeing you, or seeing you in a different
location than you actually occupy. This technology is available now in
currently flying old-configuration aircraft.
Note that everything which can be said of radar may also be
applied to UV, visible, and IR spectra.
The Russians just got peeved at not being able to find the
EC-135 which was gathering intelligence about the Kamchatka peninsula
defenses, and the latest state of the art weapons the Rusianas were
testing, and shot down the only plane they could see on their radars.
American Enginuity is Scienterrific: Electronic Warfare Works!!!
--
{ucbvax|decvax|ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Sunny Kirsten of Sun Microsystems)david@randvax.UUCP (David Shlapak) (09/10/84)
---------- >> Steve Aldrich (ihuxj!amra) writes: >> >> Hello, the other night while watching "Late Night America" on local >> PBS station, Chan. 11 Chicago, the guest made an interesting statement. >> She claimed that the "Stealth Bomber" (B-1?) was only "invisible" to >> Short Wave (SW) Radar and that Long Wave (LW) Radar would be more than >> capable of detecting these "so called" wonder weapons that the President >> intends to use as replacements for the B-52's currently being utilized. >The B-1 does not use the so-called "stealth" technology. The term >"Stealth Bomber" comes from Jimmy Carter's re-election campaign, when >certain details about radar-detection-avoidance technology were somehow >leaked to the press. The idea was that instead of building B-1s, we >should just use the old B-52s for another 8 or 10 years until the >stealth bombers were ready. >Scott Renner >{ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner Let's see, where to begin correcting this interesting, but somewhat misinformed mishmash. First, `stealth' does not refer to any particular aircraft; it is rather a commonly used descriptor for a variety of technologies and engineering practices used to render one or more of an aircraft's so-called `signatures' (including radio emissions, radar reflectance, infra-red profile and so on) less noticable. Contrary to Scott Renner's remark, the B-1B does in fact use a considerable amount of low-observable technology. As an example, certain structural changes in the airframe give the B-1B a radar cross-section (how big it looks on the Bad Guys' scopes) one-tenth of that of the original B-1, which itself had only one-tenth the signature of a B-52. These changes represent the first fruits of the research that has produced `stealth' technology. The air-launched cruise missiles (ALCM) currently in use with some B-52Gs and scheduled for deployment with B-1B also incorporate features of this techonlogy. The so-called `stealth bomber' (more properly, the Advanced Technology Bomber, or ATB) is currently in development as a follow-on to the B-1B. It should represent as much improvement over that aircraft as the B-1 does over the aging Stratofortress. The ATB is scheduled to enter the Air Force inventory in the mid-nineties. No airplane, however, `stealthy,' will ever be invisible. The idea with both the B-1B and ATB is to minimize their vulnerability to enemy air defenses by making them as hard to see as possible. As for which types of sensor will be most degraded by the technology of either the B-1B or ATB (`long' or `short'-wave radars, electro-opti- cal, whatever), I'm afraid that the lady on "Late Night America" was most likely talking through her hat. That sort of information on this topic exists only at levels of classification she probably doesn't know the names of...She may have been right, but if so it was only a lucky guess... For those of you who are interested, lots of good stuff about the B-1, ATB, and other things that go stealth in the night can be found in any one of a number of back issues of "Aviation Week and Space Technolo- gy." Cheers y'all. --- das INSERT USUAL DISCLAIMER HERE.....
scw@cepu.UUCP (09/11/84)
In article <1975@randvax.UUCP> david@randvax.UUCP (David Shlapak) writes: >---------- > >>> Steve Aldrich (ihuxj!amra) writes: >>> >>> Hello, the other n[...]e interested, lots of good stuff about the B-1, > ATB, and other things that go stealth in the night can be found in > any one of a number of back issues of "Aviation Week and Space Technolo- > gy." > AKA: Avation Leak and Space Technology. -- Stephen C. Woods (VA Wadsworth Med Ctr./UCLA Dept. of Neurology) uucp: { {ihnp4, uiucdcs}!bradley, hao, trwrb, sdcrdcf}!cepu!scw ARPA: cepu!scw@ucla-cs location: N 34 3' 9.1" W 118 27' 4.3"
medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) (09/17/84)
ECM really does work, thats very true. The B-1, while not a stealth bomber, does incorporate 'stealthy' technology in its design. Its radar cross section is 1/150th of the RCS of a B-52, even though they are comparable in size. The lower the cross section, the more ECM helps you out. For example, with 1/150th the RCS of a B-52, the B-1 has a little black box aboard that lets it project its radar reflection on the ground below it when flying at low altitudes. This mean if a Soviet interceptor had a lock on it and fired a radar guided missile, the missile would plow into the ground. Things can be quite difficult for the Russian pilots. I read of one account where a Soviet interceptor fired a guided missile at a target, a target he thought was a low flying bomber, but in actuality a Soviet radar station. He thought it was a bomber despite the fact that it was a stationary emitter. He was dealt with for this action.... Milo Medin ...!ucbvax!medin.UUCP medin@ucbarpa.ARPA