>stealthy cruise missile fired from a stealth bomber
>can hit almost any point on earth undetected
ITT we’re laughing at every country that doesn’t have this capability
>stealthy cruise missile fired from a stealth bomber. >can hit almost any point on earth undetected
Really only the US can do this
The crazy part is that this tech is a few decades old already
It just goes to show how far ahead the US is. Hell, the US is the only western nation with any sort of stealth aircraft design under its belt
no longer entirely accurate, ignoring the chinese aircraft which may or not be stealthy and the russians which almost certainly arent, the british had BAe replica which demonstrated a full understanding of the principles and the british and french Neuron and Taranis projects were fully capable stealth UAVs
had it the longest, and have the most certainly, only ones with the technological capability almost certainly not.
No other western nations have developed and fielded any stealth aircraft. Not a single one. I’m sorry you don’t like this fact
Australias cardboard drones are stealth aircraft
No they show up on radar.
>No they show up on radar.
How does radar bounce off cardboard?
Are you pretending? Even if it just passes through the cardboard (it doesn’t) what do you think is inside of the cardboard? What are the props made out of
The engine is still metal. That gives it a RCS like a melon rather than a golf ball but it's still pretty good.
The crazy part is that the plane is just made out of plastic
you forgot about something else, the stealth communication node flying at 60,000 feet between the bomber, cruise missile and the commanders a few thousand kilometers away
known spammer. filtered per usual
Because I’m proud to be an American
It’s insane how long of a range they fit into a JASSM sized package.
>looks iconic
>not cool, just iconic
>never used for any significant purpose
It’s a propaganda machine and a waste of taxes
Stealth ain't gonna secure your sothern border lmfao
This was the AGM-129. A stealth cruise missile capable of delivering nuclear warheads to targets at 2500 km ranges. They retired it due to concerns that it would spark a stealth nuclear cruise missile arms race.
One thing about stealth anons should know is that low-frequency radars can easily see even the smallest stealth vehicle in the sky. The issue is that the radar will narrow it down to a 100 meter block of the sky and you can't guide a missile to 100 meters of an aerial target with any kind of effectiveness. Back in the 50s during the infancy of SAM systems, analog radars were quite crude and couldn't narrow down the position of a target to anything less than 100 or 150 meter blocks in the sky. That's why they put nukes on the SAM missiles because anything within 500 meters of a nuke would be assuredly destroyed.
You need high frequency fire control and target acquisition radars to guide the missile within 5-10 meters of its target.That is where stealth becomes an effective countermeasure and strategy. It's quite good at weakening the returning signature of those kind of radars and deflecting it elsewhere. This ability does degrade when the emitting source is powerful enough, though.
So, think of stealth as a combination of strategies including SEAD, reconnaissance, decoys, and EW all being used together to confuse and overwhelm enemy air defences. Anyone, even the most technologically inferior countries, can set up a weather radar utilizing low-frequency waves to detect any object in the sky no matter how stealthy it may be. OPs idea doesn't work for that reason. The enemy would know that there is a plane in the sky. They would also know exactly when that plane dropped something. Can they shoot those things down? Depends.
Would using low-frequency for initial guidance and IR for terminal guidance work against stealth aircraft?
>Would using low-frequency for initial guidance
You can't really guide missiles to targets using low-frequency long wave radars. It would be like someone telling you over the radio that a plane or missile flew near them and you launching a SAM at the area he designated. By the time that missile arrives even the slowest targets are long gone. Low-frequency radars are pretty bad at giving real time discernment. The best use of those radars are for early-warning systems. Like those massive arrays that the Americans and Russians still use. Then you overlay the system with all known and friendly targets in the sky and you could easily tell what doesn't belong over vast ranges in sky. A maneuvering plane being chased by a missile that gets intermittent spotty data from low-frequency radars is just not effective.
>IR for terminal guidance
You could use IR for terminal guidance but active homing via a seeker in the front of the missile is much better and has been proven many times in the battlefield in dynamic situations like seeking an aircraft. IR seekers are ideal when being fired from an aircraft to a target than isn't that far away (<10km) and isn't moving that fast. But yes, IR/ultraviolet is definitely a good alternative and had a long operational history.
>A maneuvering plane being chased by a missile that gets intermittent spotty data from low-frequency radars is just not effective.
What I meant was using LF to get the missile in IR range, then it chases using IR
In theory, that is possible. In practice, the guidance of a missile in a dynamic environment (chasing a moving target) is a very complex system that requires a distinct target and constant, frequent data. A missile is going to move a lot as it homes in on a moving target. Those deviations need real-world accurate data. Also, how would the missile know when to turn on its seeker or which target to hit? High-frequency radars are a must for effective SAM missiles against high altitude maneuvering targets.
>In practice, the guidance of a missile in a dynamic environment (chasing a moving target) is a very complex system that requires a distinct target and constant, frequent data. A missile is going to move a lot as it homes in on a moving target. Those deviations need real-world accurate data.
If you only need a 1km accuracy to the target for the IR seeker to be effective, that doesn't seem too unachievable with low-frequency radar. To actually get even close to hitting the target, it's obviously crap, but that's why the dual RADAR/IR guidance.
>Also, how would the missile know when to turn on its seeker
When it's inside the range where IR guidance is possible, according to the LF radar "track".
>which target to hit?
Yeah, that would be an issue, but it's pretty much an issue with IR missiles anyway. If you add an active radar seeker on the missile, you could check which IR signature doesn't have a radar return.
>High-frequency radars are a must for effective SAM missiles against high altitude maneuvering targets.
To reliably hit, yeah. But to deny stealth strike capability with the threat of launching 10-ish of those radar+IR missiles, maybe not.
I look at it like this
>IR/uv seekers have a hard time discerning targets due to their sensitivity (everything has its own variable heat signature)
>heat dissipates and attenuates easily so range is limited
>it has been proven that fast objects make it even harder for IR/uv systems to track targets
On top of this, all IR/uv systems are launched from some other reference system. Either the human user in the case of MANPADS or a fighter's radar. The anon I responded to was talking about a situation where a SAM is trying to shoot down a maneuvering jet at medium or long ranges and independently turns on its seeker and locks on to the correct target without any way of knowing what that is other than an approximate block given by a low-frequency radar. Yeah, it could work. But to me it looks unreliable. There is a reason why radars are the default for medium to long range anti-air warfare with a long operational history.
sir this is /k/
we don't discuss facts and actual information here.
You're either a butthurt retard that got BTFO'd, or a shill trying to poison-the-well of /k/.
>One thing about stealth anons should know is that low-frequency radars can easily see even the smallest stealth vehicle in the sky
Not really. This myth comes from the F-117 which wasn't designed to be low observable in the low frequency spectrum for the sake of less visibility in all other but all new stealth projects feature more wide and broad capabilities. F-35's coating in particular was designed specifically to be more effective against low frequency waves than anything previously.
>Back in the 50s during the infancy of SAM systems, analog radars were quite crude and couldn't narrow down the position of a target to anything less than 100 or 150 meter blocks in the sky. That's why they put nukes on the SAM missiles because anything within 500 meters of a nuke would be assuredly destroyed.
They put nukes on SAMs that were using command guidance that didn't have an accurate resolution at ranges longer than 40-50km so nuke warheads on the Nike-Hercules was a way to go farther. US quickly switched to semi-active homing that didn't have that problem but still kept some nuke warheads because they were worried about mssive soviet bomber formations that would be harder to target and take out while a nuke can get them all in one go.
You're not wrong about stealth being much more poweful as a force multiplier within combined arms structure rather than a standalone hammer that sometimes is so strong that it looks invincible. It makes SEAD, recon, EW and all other strategies that were hard to counter using conventional aircraft nearly impossible to beat.
Stealth B2 vs Stealth 117 Nighthawk
Hyperactive LIDAR in terminal mode. Superior to active RF and infrared/uv. Power for it now available. Can kill pilots with kinetic alone. Sux to be a flyboy.
>tfw one (1) Yugo got fucking lucky and shot one (1) down and now we can’t have these anymore
I'm pretty sure that its equipment failed, the slavs simply latched onto the idea that someone shot it down.
From what I remember the bomb bay doors jammed open, which greatly increased its radar signature.
they were also flying the same route over and over again.
complacency and hubris were as culpable as Zoltan Dani for the 117 shoot down.
Don't you see the problem with that, though? Simple mistakes like taking the same route too many times or opening the bomb bay doors at the wrong time results in the entire system being vulnerable and no different than other plane being swatted out of the sky by anti air. Stealth by itself is just the ability to easily weaken or deflect returning high frequency waves. True stealth is a combination of that and other strategies. You can see that the Americans realized this and took that route because the F117 is actually the stealthiest aircraft used operationally. Much stealther than the F-35 or even the F-22.
Any system can suffer mechanical failures but you can't base your defensive strategy around waiting for the enemy's equipment to break down.
Yeah yeah that’s cool and all but listen guys… what if we put a giant fucking fission reactor into a cruise missile the size of an Apollo rocket, and just let it skim the surface of the world and irradiate everything in its path? It could stay aloft for literally days and we could have it shit out little nuclear gravity bombs too. We could name it after my favorite planet maybe, although it’s the tiniest one wayyyy out at the edge of our solar system.
all thanks to the germans