h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

OK, they've won us a couple of small wars, but they're not actually all they are cracked up to be. They most certainly aren't stealthy, for instance, if

a) one of the bloody great buggers almost knocks you over flying at low-level

b) it's raining (which means that merry old England is well protected from American attack, if nothing else).

Recently, a couple of second-string countries released something saying:

"Hey, we can see your stealth planes now because you designed them in the late 70's and early 80's and they still gotta have heat exaust from air friction"

at least thats what I remember about it...

When Canada (yes Canada) can see 'stealth' planes... they sure as hell ain't stealthy.

(no offense to those of that fine nation, but War isn't your main export... thats supposed to be our racket dang nabbit...)

When a stealth fighter flew into Britain for an airshow- yup we saw it as well. On the Radar rather than by heat. Press releases at the time muttered something about 'cloaking shield not being on' - mmmm, yeessss....

If it had left the bomb bay or undercarriage doors open then it would be visible to radar. They're not actually that stealthy when they're attacking, you see.

It wouldn't have been much of an airshow if they'd have kept the thing hidden......

In any case, in peacetime, Stealth aircraft carry a radar reflector just so they do give a surface radar return. In addition, most if not all Air Traffic Control surveillance radars do not rely on spotting radar blips as such (by that I mean straight returns of reflected radar energy from the surface of the target). They mainly use transponder returns; that is, a sort of radio device which, when 'interrogated' by a radar pulse, emit a coded response pulse similar to an IFF code. In this way, any aircraft with an active transponder, whether Stealthy or not, will emit exactly the same kind of radar return as any other, from a Cessna up to a 747 (or a Stealth fighter). Only if an aircraft's transponder is not working do radars rely on a surface paint return. Finally, even a Stealth aircraft gives some return, it's just several orders of magnitude less than that which you would get from a non-Stealth aircraft of similar size.

'Heat exhaust from air friction'- actually, both will give a heat emission signature, but they are really two different things.

The ridiculous thing about the B-2 is that, when it's raining, the things so bloody large that the huge area of 'non-rain' underneath can be detected.

But then the Yanks wouldn't have noticed that as they tested the aircraft in the desert, where there is no rain and therefore no dry patches would have appeared. It is therefore reasonably safe to postulate that they do not know about this loophole yet.....
Perhaps we should tell them...

I heard about the same thing. Some of our SAM crews were messing around and just to see what would happen, turned their radar and there it was. $2 Billion worth, detected by £2 Million of SAM.
This happened at the air show last year.I think it was a Napier SAM System.

Also very soon after, just to cover their backs (the Americans), their told the world that the paint comes off in Humid conditions, just like that day at the air show, and that rain also affects the stealthyness (is that a real word),of the plane.

Is it also rendered 'stealthless' by the
wrong kind of leaves on the track?

Can I just say three things. The first being, Stealth Doesnt mean invisable. Stealth Aircraft are just by definition harder to detect than other non stealth aircraft. For a brief second, lets discus the Premise of 'Stealth'. It is to have a small radar cross section (RCS), so it is not recognised as a aircraft. a B2 bomber has a RCS of a sparrow. Because of the large amount of automation in modern Radar, Radar has been dumbed up so to speak. Targets travelling below 50 Miles an hour are discounted because those could be birds. Targets which are tiny are discounted,, becuase they could be birds, or false radar returns. Stealth therefore tries to make itself seem small as possible. Also Stealth Aircraft are meant to reflect radar waves away from the Transmitter, (some will always return, but becuase of the above, is dicounted, and the operators never even see it). As well as Reflect radar returns, and being a 'small' as possible, Planes can 'absorb' radar waves, using Radar Absorbant Material (RAM), which turns the Radar waves into Heat. The first time this concept was tried was in Lockheed Skunk works, where the SR-71 (Blackbird) was fitted with it. So I hope this answers the common misconception that Steatlh means Invisable.

Secondly, though I dont know the circumstance of the detecting the B2 or F-117, but both were designed to avoid detection from primaryily Airborne radars. It is possibe to detect any aircraft, its just a question of how close the Aircraft is to the radar. Where as A typical Fighter can be detected by an E-3D at over 200 miles a way, a B2 bomber (several times larger than a Fighter) can only be detected by an airborne radar within Forty Miles. This is due to the immesne power being emmited from the radar and the Radar absorbative material can not cope, and hence a recogniseable radar return is created. The closer you get to a radar, then more likely you are to be detected. So in modern warfare, Air crews have Intellgence of Suspect SAM sites, and plot course to avoid them. They have their own passive sensor to detect operating SAM's that werent forseen and avoid them also. It is unwise, to say the least to fly directly over a radar, becuase your liable to be shot down, and have several unhappy natives jumping up and down on your head (as a F-117 pilot almost learnt in Kosovo, as he was shot down by either a Unkown AAA battery or SAM site, and was just rescued). So if the B2 or F-117 was flying in close range, then they will be detected.

3. Also as mentioned before in this forum, it is extremely unsafe to have a 'Stealthy aircraft fyling about, and so must have a transpoder turned on.

4. Its not a Napier SAM, its a Rapier SAM.

Nice to see we have someone who knows their stuff on board. As the guilty party who started this forum, I should like to point out in my defense that

a) I was being slightly sarcastic

b) I don't think anyone who's contributed so far has managed to confuse how stealth technology works with invisibility of any degree

c) It's simply brilliant fun mocking the American military. (But don't mention friendly fire to the Marines)

d) It's also great fun to mock the British military. SA80, anyone?

e) And finally, you can pick holes in any weapon system, however advanced, groovy and generally lethal it may be. So chill out.

Trust me, I go to college with Anxer... He won't shut up...

Damn you Mr Grunt... all I was doing was laying down and coprrecting some common misconceptions... Anyway, I cant help it, if I'm intrested in the Military... better that than Genesis :P

Which, as I'm sure you'll remember, was the name of a terraforming device from The Wrath of Khan which could be used to destroy a planet.

Much better then stealth fighters.

Or the surreal seventies prog rockers whom Anxer really hates

I thought it might have been a biblical reference, actually.