Matrix Games Forums

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

I think Stealth is overrated, given stealth is defeated by Long-wave radar. If you lose your stealth ability and you designed a plane primarily for stealth you have just made an inferior weapon platform.

Do you acknowledge that stealth is defeated or degraded by long-wave radar?

As far as it is publicly known stealth is designed to "beat" the X-Band Radar! [;)]

The long-wave radars were always able to detect that "something" is coming (heck in late 1980's I was shown "tape" how would F-117 look like on our long range long-wave radar for our SA-3 battery) but that doesn't mean that you can successfully target it and attack it (i.e. that's the X-Band for)...


Leo "Apollo11"

They didn't even put cannons on the Phantom that is how sure they were of no need for dogfighting.

Both the F-35 and F-22 are cannon equipped. However for me at least I'm not a huge fan of the 35 as I feel it has too many issues and faults, and that has nothing to do with its maneuverability. Now just like the F-111 back in the day I'm sure the military will throw enough money at the thing until they get it 'acceptable'.

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

I think Stealth is overrated, given stealth is defeated by Long-wave radar. If you lose your stealth ability and you designed a plane primarily for stealth you have just made an inferior weapon platform.

Do you acknowledge that stealth is defeated or degraded by long-wave radar?

Do I even need to? I just looked it up. It has serious drawbacks and is far from a sure thing - and the only time it was used successfully was way back in the 90s.

Stealth technology has come leaps and bounds since then.

Yes, it has serious drawbacks. So does designing a plane to be "stealthy"; degraded dogfighting capabilities.

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

I think Stealth is overrated, given stealth is defeated by Long-wave radar. If you lose your stealth ability and you designed a plane primarily for stealth you have just made an inferior weapon platform.

Do you acknowledge that stealth is defeated or degraded by long-wave radar?

As far as it is publicly known stealth is designed to "beat" the X-Band Radar! [;)]

The long-wave radars were always able to detect that "something" is coming (heck in late 1980's I was shown "tape" how would F-117 look like on our long range long-wave radar for our SA-3 battery) but that doesn't mean that you can successfully target it and attack it (i.e. that's the X-Band for)...


Leo "Apollo11"

Stealth may defeat X-band, but not Long-wave radar. It doesn't do that, unless Lockheed repealed the laws of physics. The plane doesn't exist that can hide itself from Long-wave radar.

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

I think Stealth is overrated, given stealth is defeated by Long-wave radar. If you lose your stealth ability and you designed a plane primarily for stealth you have just made an inferior weapon platform.

Do you acknowledge that stealth is defeated or degraded by long-wave radar?

As far as it is publicly known stealth is designed to "beat" the X-Band Radar! [;)]

The long-wave radars were always able to detect that "something" is coming (heck in late 1980's I was shown "tape" how would F-117 look like on our long range long-wave radar for our SA-3 battery) but that doesn't mean that you can successfully target it and attack it (i.e. that's the X-Band for)...


Leo "Apollo11"

Stealth may defeat X-band, but not Long-wave radar. It doesn't do that, unless Lockheed repealed the laws of physics. The plane doesn't exist that can hide itself from Long-wave radar.

You can't guide a weapon with low frequency radar. All you can do is see that something is coming.

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

I think Stealth is overrated, given stealth is defeated by Long-wave radar. If you lose your stealth ability and you designed a plane primarily for stealth you have just made an inferior weapon platform.

Do you acknowledge that stealth is defeated or degraded by long-wave radar?

Do I even need to? I just looked it up. It has serious drawbacks and is far from a sure thing - and the only time it was used successfully was way back in the 90s.

Stealth technology has come leaps and bounds since then.

Yes, it has serious drawbacks. So does designing a plane to be "stealthy"; degraded dogfighting capabilities.

But if the drawback doesn't matter... then it doesn't matter.

I can see I'm talking to a brick wall here. Later tater.

Brickwall? You didn't know Stealth was defeated by LW Radar till I told you.

https://news.usni.org/2014/07/29/chines ... -s-stealth

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

Brickwall? You didn't know Stealth was defeated by LW Radar till I told you.

https://news.usni.org/2014/07/29/chines ... -s-stealth

Oh dear...[&:]

Few post above I posted that stealth as such was primarily designed for X-Band (as far as publicly known) and that tracking of stealth aircraft was possible even in the 1980's (I was stationed in SA-3 SAM base for 1 year) by long-wave radars.

This is all old old old news and known for decades... [;)]

But the long--wave radar will only tell you that "something is coming" (with very very bad info - no accurate range and height especially)... you can't lock-on on that target and you can't engage it... for that you need lower-band radar (i.e. X-Band)... and that's where the stealth is "doing its magic"!


Leo "Apollo11"

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

Brickwall? You didn't know Stealth was defeated by LW Radar till I told you.

https://news.usni.org/2014/07/29/chines ... -s-stealth

Oh dear...[&:]

Few post above I posted that stealth as such was primarily designed for X-Band (as far as publicly known) and that tracking of stealth aircraft was possible even in the 1980's (I was stationed in SA-3 SAM base for 1 year) by long-wave radars.

This is all old old old news and known for decades... [;)]

But the long--wave radar will only tell you that "something is coming" (with very very bad info - no accurate range and height especially)... you can't lock-on on that target and you can't engage it... for that you need lower-band radar (i.e. X-Band)... and that's where the stealth is "doing its magic"!


Leo "Apollo11"

Thank you, Leo!

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

Brickwall? You didn't know Stealth was defeated by LW Radar till I told you.

https://news.usni.org/2014/07/29/chines ... -s-stealth

Oh dear...[&:]

Few post above I posted that stealth as such was primarily designed for X-Band (as far as publicly known) and that tracking of stealth aircraft was possible even in the 1980's (I was stationed in SA-3 SAM base for 1 year) by long-wave radars.

This is all old old old news and known for decades... [;)]

But the long--wave radar will only tell you that "something is coming" (with very very bad info - no accurate range and height especially)... you can't lock-on on that target and you can't engage it... for that you need lower-band radar (i.e. X-Band)... and that's where the stealth is "doing its magic"!


Leo "Apollo11"

I suspect you didn't read the USNI article on how LW with and is working with SW radar.

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

Brickwall? You didn't know Stealth was defeated by LW Radar till I told you.

https://news.usni.org/2014/07/29/chines ... -s-stealth

Oh dear...[&:]

Few post above I posted that stealth as such was primarily designed for X-Band (as far as publicly known) and that tracking of stealth aircraft was possible even in the 1980's (I was stationed in SA-3 SAM base for 1 year) by long-wave radars.

This is all old old old news and known for decades... [;)]

But the long--wave radar will only tell you that "something is coming" (with very very bad info - no accurate range and height especially)... you can't lock-on on that target and you can't engage it... for that you need lower-band radar (i.e. X-Band)... and that's where the stealth is "doing its magic"!


Leo "Apollo11"

I suspect you didn't read the USNI article on how LW with and is working with SW radar.

No, we suspect you didn't actually read it.

Because it says what he said:

long--wave radar will only tell you that "something is coming" (with very very bad info - no accurate range and height especially)... you can't lock-on on that target and you can't engage it... for that you need lower-band radar (i.e. X-Band)... and that's where the stealth is "doing its magic"!

Literal direct quote from the article that you claim to have read and have linked at least once now:

In other words, Russian and Chinese radars can generally detect a stealth aircraft but not clearly enough to give an accurate location to a missile

And they say kids these days can't read good... Yeah, the kids can't. That's for sure.

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,



Oh dear...[&:]

Few post above I posted that stealth as such was primarily designed for X-Band (as far as publicly known) and that tracking of stealth aircraft was possible even in the 1980's (I was stationed in SA-3 SAM base for 1 year) by long-wave radars.

This is all old old old news and known for decades... [;)]

But the long--wave radar will only tell you that "something is coming" (with very very bad info - no accurate range and height especially)... you can't lock-on on that target and you can't engage it... for that you need lower-band radar (i.e. X-Band)... and that's where the stealth is "doing its magic"!


Leo "Apollo11"

I suspect you didn't read the USNI article on how LW with and is working with SW radar.

No, we suspect you didn't actually read it.

Because it says what he said:

long--wave radar will only tell you that "something is coming" (with very very bad info - no accurate range and height especially)... you can't lock-on on that target and you can't engage it... for that you need lower-band radar (i.e. X-Band)... and that's where the stealth is "doing its magic"!

Literal direct quote from the article that you claim to have read and have linked at least once now:

In other words, Russian and Chinese radars can generally detect a stealth aircraft but not clearly enough to give an accurate location to a missile

And they say kids these days can't read good... Yeah, the kids can't. That's for sure.

Changing. It is changing. Did you read that? And I thought you were gone?

stick around; you'll learn something like you did yesterday.

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,



Oh dear...[&:]

Few post above I posted that stealth as such was primarily designed for X-Band (as far as publicly known) and that tracking of stealth aircraft was possible even in the 1980's (I was stationed in SA-3 SAM base for 1 year) by long-wave radars.

This is all old old old news and known for decades... [;)]

But the long--wave radar will only tell you that "something is coming" (with very very bad info - no accurate range and height especially)... you can't lock-on on that target and you can't engage it... for that you need lower-band radar (i.e. X-Band)... and that's where the stealth is "doing its magic"!


Leo "Apollo11"

I suspect you didn't read the USNI article on how LW with and is working with SW radar.

No, we suspect you didn't actually read it.

Because it says what he said:

long--wave radar will only tell you that "something is coming" (with very very bad info - no accurate range and height especially)... you can't lock-on on that target and you can't engage it... for that you need lower-band radar (i.e. X-Band)... and that's where the stealth is "doing its magic"!

Literal direct quote from the article that you claim to have read and have linked at least once now:

In other words, Russian and Chinese radars can generally detect a stealth aircraft but not clearly enough to give an accurate location to a missile

And they say kids these days can't read good... Yeah, the kids can't. That's for sure.

Yes, I read it...here, did you not see this quote, I mean you like to quote...

"But that is starting to change.

“Acquisition and fire control radars are starting to creep down the frequency spectrum,” a former senior U.S. Navy official told USNI News on Monday.
With improved computing power, low frequency radars are getting better and better at discerning targets more precisely.

“I don’t see how you long survive in the world of 2020 or 2030 when dealing with these systems if you don’t have the lower frequency coverage,” the former official said.

Further, new foreign rival warships are increasingly being built with both high and low frequency radars.

“Prospective adversaries are putting low frequency radars on their surface combatants along with the higher frequency systems,” the former official said.

Chinese warships like the Type 52C Luyang II and Type 52D Luyang III have both high and low frequency radars, the former official said."


So yeah, I read it, and I didn't cherry-pick the quotes. But, it was just yesterday you didn't know that Long-Wave Radar could detect any and all Stealth Aircraft.

Ya' learn something every day, huh?

And from Wiki....

In 2005, Colonel Zoltán Dani confirmed this in an interview, suggesting that those modifications involved using long wavelengths, which allowed them to detect the aircraft [4]. In addition, the Serbs had also intercepted and deciphered some NATO communications, and thus were able to deploy their anti-air batteries at positions best suited to intercept NATO planes.[4]

Looks like Col. Zoltan contradicts your hypothesis that Long Wave Radar can't detect and lock-on to Stealth.

Kind of funny how a state of the art plane such as the F-117 could be downed by some 1961 vintage, archaic SA-3. Yeah, I'm sure those F35s are as invisible as a Klingon Bird of Prey with it's cloaking device on.

Everybody who knows anything knows stealth doesn't mean cloaked or invisible. Don't put words in my mouth.

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Everybody who knows anything knows stealth doesn't mean cloaked or invisible. Don't put words in my mouth.

It's the same level of interpretation that is driving the whole discussion: all or nothing. There is something that can be used (in some circumstances, in some ways, to some degrees) to counteract stealth: ergo stealth is worthless!

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

Kind of funny how a state of the art plane such as the F-117 could be downed by some 1961 vintage, archaic SA-3. Yeah, I'm sure those F35s are as invisible as a Klingon Bird of Prey with it's cloaking device on.

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

And from Wiki....

In 2005, Colonel Zoltán Dani confirmed this in an interview, suggesting that those modifications involved using long wavelengths, which allowed them to detect the aircraft [4]. In addition, the Serbs had also intercepted and deciphered some NATO communications, and thus were able to deploy their anti-air batteries at positions best suited to intercept NATO planes.[4]

Looks like Col. Zoltan contradicts your hypothesis that Long Wave Radar can't detect and lock-on to Stealth.

Oh dear... [&:]

As I posted earlier I was in SAM SA-3 base for 1 year in old state (i.e. 10+ years before downing of F-117) and things are much more simple than most think... [;)]


#1
What brought down the F-117 was complacency - plain and simple.

The packages went using same routes, same altitudes and same timetable day after day. The Serbs just placed their remaining SAM batteries on obvious / best places and waited for the opportunity.

#2
The SA-3 that shoot down F-117 didn't have lock-on the whole flight of the missiles that engaged it (they had a very very brief radar lock with targeting radar but that was just for dozens of seconds only) - they practically fired blindly several missiles and relied on close proximity fuse.


Please note that SA-3 SAM uses:

SNR-125 "Low Blow" (X-Band) Targeting Fire Control Radar

P-12 "Spoon Rest" Surveliance radar


BTW the SA-3 SAM had local modification made by Iskra (now Slovenia - also member of NATO for many years now) which enabled TV guidance when there was radar lock-on on target. We often trained with it late 1980's and were good to the point that we would be able to maintain lock on helmet of pilots that were passing near us for training purposes.


So... in essence... there was no "magic" in downing of that F-117... it was pure luck by the Serbs and big complacency problem with package tasking...


Leo "Apollo11"

What brought down the F-117 was complacency - plain and simple.

The packages went using same routes, same altitudes and same timetable day after day. The Serbs just placed their remaining SAM batteries on obvious / best places and waited for the opportunity.

Yup, same with 'Black Hawk Down'. Can't keep doing the same op time after time expecting your opponent not to adjust. Unless of course you're playing the AI, that is.[:D]

Thanks Apollo 11 for your insights on the capabilities of the SA3.

Now add into the mix the infrared guidance as well as optical and LWR with the S400's 9M96E's already impressive performance and I can only imagine the difficulties the Stealth pilots will have going against first-line air defense systems.

ORIGINAL: rustysi

What brought down the F-117 was complacency - plain and simple.

The packages went using same routes, same altitudes and same timetable day after day. The Serbs just placed their remaining SAM batteries on obvious / best places and waited for the opportunity.

Yup, same with 'Black Hawk Down'. Can't keep doing the same op time after time expecting your opponent not to adjust. Unless of course you're playing the AI, that is.[:D]

Yes, agreed, but that LW was still needed to guide the missile in. It wasn't all optical.