91–100 of 125 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you can localize down to the range of a km? Can't you just shoot down optically? A giant dark plane blotting out the stars...
An airplane at altitude doesn't blot out stars. Optical sensors are nearly useless, especially against a black aircraft at night.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Getting inside an integrated air defense network to take out strategic targets. It's got what is believed to be a better stealth profile than the f-22 or f-35, while having payload comparable to a b-52. The MQ-9 wouldn't be able to get anywhere close to an air defense network.
OK I'm convinced. What's the 52 for, then?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the type of tactic that mostly only works in movies. In the real world interception is very, very hard just due to geometry. Fighters have limited fuel supplies and don't move much faster than bombers. Any no country can afford to keep a lot of them in the air or even on alert status at any given time. So the circumstances have to line up pretty well to get an interceptor in the right place at the right time.…
Well, existing stealth bombers (basically B2 at this point) are sub sonic while many fighters are super sonic. As for range - that's a good point, if your low fregvency or passive radar gives you a big bounding box, your fighters could run out of fuel before they find the stealth bomber. Or it might drop/launch its payload before you catch it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you can localize down to the range of a km? Can't you just shoot down optically? A giant dark plane blotting out the stars...
Yup, it seems to me that the optimal missile would use mid-course guidance before doing IR / visual light homing in the terminal phase.
The techniques they used to decrease the IR visibility are pretty neat. The engine nozzles are over the wings and there are a lot of airflow tricks used to cool it down faster so from below there might not be enough plume to track from a surface launched missile coming, from below at least.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-2_Spirit#In...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not really enough though, which is how they lost all the F117s over Serbia in the 90s. One of which I have a framed picture of on the wall along side an original "sorry we didnt know it was invisible" flyer. Only a single F117 was shot down over Serbia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-117_Nighthawk#Comba...
Perhaps choose a better source than wikipedia, like people who were there. https://images.app.goo.gl/vUd8z2gkWEtKWKcJ8 even your source says they hit 2. They claim they downed 3. Americans denied they lost any for decades.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Small drones will never be banned by international treaty. There is zero chance of that.
Lasers were banned. Where does your certainty come from?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps choose a better source than wikipedia, like people who were there. https://images.app.goo.gl/vUd8z2gkWEtKWKcJ8 even your source says they hit 2. They claim they downed 3. Americans denied they lost any for decades.
A propaganda poster knowingly conflating the words stealth and invisible, a distinction its intended audience wouldn't be able to make, to mock the enemy? I think I'll stick with the Wikipedia source.
Point is with AA missile is that getting them "on target" is almost as effective as a hit. target has to deploy its counter measures and return home, else next time they are destroyed.
The B2 is relatively ancient as far as stealth tech goes. Also, most stealth aircraft are detectable on radar. The question is how big or small is the radar cross section. That’s not something this blog post digs into. Meaning, most of the time a B2 looks like a goose or a small animal. Correction on my part: The B-2 and F-35 have radar cross sections roughly the size of a marble.
It is a game of cat and mouse. Yes, B2 is relatively ancient, but so is the Tamara passive radar (it was capable to detect B2 and F-117, in the 80'ies). Just like there is a newer stealth tech for planes, there is never stealth detection tech in radars.
Prior to that they had no issue going deep into the country and taking out Pantsir S1 and other Soviet-era systems
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps choose a better source than wikipedia, like people who were there. https://images.app.goo.gl/vUd8z2gkWEtKWKcJ8 even your source says they hit 2. They claim they downed 3. Americans denied they lost any for decades.
A propaganda poster knowingly conflating the words stealth and invisible, a distinction its intended audience wouldn't be able to make, to mock the enemy? I think I'll stick with the Wikipedia source.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A propaganda poster knowingly conflating the words stealth and invisible, a distinction its intended audience wouldn't be able to make, to mock the enemy? I think I'll stick with the Wikipedia source.
And even that says: Some American sources state that a second F-117A was damaged during the same campaign, allegedly on 30 April 1999;[61] the aircraft returned to base, but it supposedly never flew again.[62][63] Point is with AA missile is that getting them "on target" is almost as effective as a hit. target has to deploy its counter measures and return home, else next time they are destroyed.