its not a fighter that was a deception technique used by the military same reason why the f-111 is labeled as F
this is correct listen to this guy he knows his stuff! c[] (poor attempt at a thumbs up emoji)
1 Like
The remark was soposed to be sarcastic.
It is still a fighter according to its name ;)
fighter*
Yes, that is mostly correct. The F404-400D on the F-117 does not have an afterburner (hence it being weaker)
1 Like
I made a bug report about the F-117’s stealth, you can find it here:
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/uTttwYDNfsuP
Luckily it was accepted as a suggestion, so I’m excited to see what comes of it
3 Likes
Seems that they changed the F-117’s stealth in the last update before the dev closed:
Slightly worse on the side than before, but much better on the rear.
3 Likes
We’re so back
2 Likes
It is still a problem, I guess. According to the F-117’s RCS simulations from many research papers in the public domain, it is the side, not the rear, of the F-117 that has the largest RCS.
If you followed closely some reports from an attack of allegedly “stealth” F-35s (with a lower RCS than the “old” F-117) a few days ago, you might find out that some sources claim that the F-35s got locked on 70 miles (some say 70 km) outside the contested airspace, so they launched their stand-off weapons at this range (~600) and went home. It looks like that the planned SEAD mission was not really successful…
In other words: Stealth is just useful if the enemy has outdated technology - so with reference to wt it depends on their approach how they want to implement stealth planes; i would not bet that your expectations would be fulfilled by gaijin.
they hit their targets, which did little to nothing at all and their own EWS has the plane glowing up on radar as a giant fuzzy hole that any radar operator with a brain could see and ask " why is their a mass of flying fuzzy voids object on my radar approaching my country? "
Its like the people haven’t figure out being too " stealthy " gives your position away.
2 Likes
Have you cobra’d your F-117 yet?
1 Like
It’s actually quite the opposite in this case, the Russians used WWII-era radar bands to detect if there was an aircraft in the sky. Not target, or lock, but detect. All they knew was that there is some sort of aircraft in a general direction, basically. They’ve still got about four steps to go in order to actually take down an F-35.
1 Like
…you are referring to the 1999 incident (117 shot down) with outdated technology - whilst i was referring to a 2024 incident based on latest technology.
Apples and Oranges.
Based on your believes.
Have in mind that such an incident should never happen; the consequences would be fatal. And even if WW III won’t be a direct result - the US haven’t faced an opponent able to fight back on equal terms since 1953.
Imagine a F-35 would have been shot down a few weeks ago - who is gonna buy this expensive piece of military hardware if it can’t do the job it was developed for?
So the current situation makes everybody happy - the guys selling “stealth” aircraft and the guys selling air defense systems as both sides can claim whatever they want.
I am also talking about the 2024 incident, where the Russians used WWII-era radar bands (i.e. radar bands that were used during WWII as a “there is something in the air over there” signal rather than a modern “I have a lock on the aircraft, launch a missile” signal) to detect F-35s.
Unless I am missing some details, I’m not going off of belief. In order to take out a stealth aircraft, you have to detect, fix, track, target, and neutralize the aircraft. They’ve done step one out of five.
Based on what?
Do you really believe what you wrote?
No offense, but you might have to wait 10-20 years to get actually reliable and not classified data / details about who has eventually locked who whilst using which technology.
-
There is no reason for both sides to tell anything near the truth. Deterrence plays on both sides an extremely important role. So if your deterrence is that based on your air power you are able to hit anybody anywhere at any time - every data questioning this ability would be suppressed. Same as the the air defense guys claiming that aircraft attacks could be prevented or would be way too costly for attacking forces.
-
Therefore you can just assess subsequent actions - so if there is no danger to get shot down, why were there no (announced) follow-up attacks? Or if air defense (including non-radar based) systems are able to shoot down stealth aircraft - why haven’t they killed one?
-
Until then everything is just speculation, some things never go public - everybody wants to use his version of the reality in order to pursue his specific goals, no matter if these goals are based on political or economic interests.
Example - Hidden as imho off-topic
-
One of the 2 aircraft carriers within the “Emire Strikes Back” RN fleet on their way to the Falklands / Las Malvinas (1982) was allegedly torpedoed by the ARA San Luis. Some say 6, others claim 8 torps were launched - other say they missed and the main group claims that the warhead refused to explode.
-
You find barely any reports about this in the web, just here and there hints citing magazines in the late 80s/early 90s…
-
It is still unclear if the torpedoes failed to detonate or if a local technician fumbled with the guiding wires - others claim that no torpedoes were launched as no sub could have penetrated the escort screen - whilst similar subs were able to infiltrate way better protected US carrier groups.
-
So one group denies that this attack ever happened and call it a hoax whilst the other group is either blaming the torpedo manufacturer (AEG) or a technician on the sub.
-
Another small group tries to defend AEG and claim that they were not allowed to defend themselves in order to avoid public humiliation of a NATO partner.The competitors of the torpedo manufacturer allegedly advertised that these foreign products were allegedly unreliable therefore their own products would be the better choice.
-
The only thing we know:
The RN stated that they would have turned home if they would have lost one of their 2 carriers.
Therefore - feel free to believe what suits you best.
Have a good one!
Because the Iranian Army Air Defense Force only says they have detected every aircraft over the Persian Gulf (source), rather than target, and Russian state media when talking about anti-stealth-aircraft radars only mention being able to detect the aircraft (source).
Also just in general the wavelength of the radars needed to detect stealth aircraft at such long ranges don’t have a high enough resolution to be used for targeting purposes (without being excessively massive).
Except the danger is that once your opponents can detect you, they’re one step closer to being able to actually shoot you down. If you keep being predictable in where your stealth aircraft take off, the enemy could position their targeting radars closer to where you are likely to be, and potentially close enough to get an engagement-quality lock on you.
the gulf war saddam had one of the largest tank armies with battle hardened troops. We had thermals, night vision and air dominance and GPS, had any other force went up against saddam in 1991, they would have lost.
You refer to the same Saddam which was actively encouraged to attack Iran ~ 10 years before? The US sponsored this previous war massively. Allegedly he was even promised to keep conquered oil wells in Iran. As then this war ended (not really successful) he chose to try his luck with Kuwait, but he forgot to ask for permission upfront - so he became (for him out of nowhere) the bad guy, despite he has done nothing different than the years before.
I specifically mentioned the US haven’t faced an opponent able to fight back on equal terms since 1953. The pure lack of trained / actually qualified pilots in mostly hopelessly outdated fighters (in a massive technical and numerical disadvantage) made the air war extremely one-sided.
The subsequent tank-plinging (after SAMs were neutralized) is therefore nothing to write home about and can’t be seen as a fight on equal terms.
[quote=“Uncle J Wick@live, post:34, topic:174067”]
As then this war ended (not really successful) he chose to try his luck with Kuwait, but he forgot to ask for permission upfront - so he became (for him out of nowhere) the bad guy, despite he has done nothing different than the years before.
[/quote] and he was given an ultimatum to leave Kuwait, which he ignored.
the republican guard did everything right, had defensive positions in all the right spots. Had scout and land mines. all of which would have stopped any other invading force in its tracks.