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In other words: Stealth is just useful if the enemy has outdated technology - so with reference to wt it depends on their approach how they want to implement stealth planes; i would not bet that your expectations would be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.
2 Likes
…you are referring to the 1999 incident (117 shot down) with outdated technology - whilst i was referring to a 2024 incident based on latest technology.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.
I still don’t get why Gaijin doesn’t allow F-117 to use it’s foward looking IR sensor ( the one just below the canopy )
because its gaijin.
Can you find any sources that Gajin would accept? I’d love for this thing to get Aim-9s.
“Only times the F117 can be detected is when the bomb bay doors open”
The Serbian report disagrees from this. Source (quotes comes from the primary source, Đorđe Aničić’s book) with relevant reply.
"But combat experience allows us to make an estimate. It’s well known that one F-117 has been shot down by a rather outdated radar-guided missile.
Some early media reports of the shootdown have speculated that the missile was “eyeballed”, or that bomb bay doors were open. The former is impossible: the crew’s located inside a windowless room, and the missile isn’t on a turret. Open bay doors would explain detection, but not a shootdown, since these older SAM have separate, mechanically steered search and targeting radars, taking about a minute to launch. There’s a Hungarian-written SAM simulator which shows the controls and operation of the S-125.
The reports available today show the SAM was operated in radar mode, as intended, tracked / lost track of the target 4 times, and ultimately one of the two launched missiles achieved lock and hit; the other missed. Here is the report from the battery’s commander, translated from Serbian:
I arrived at the firing position around 20:30. There were no nearby targets in the air, but some were at greater distances in various azimuths. Suddenly, on the observation radar display, at an azimuth of 195, I spotted a target at a distance of 23 kilometers.
At a distance of 14-15 km and an azimuth of 210 degrees, the firing officer, Lieutenant Colonel Zoltan Dani, ordered to search for the target. The targeting radar’s radiation was turned on. We radiated for more than 10 seconds unsuccessfully.
I saw the target again at an azimuth of 240 degrees and a distance of 14 km. The guidance officer’s dials clicked, but the operators lost it. Just when I thought this attempt would also fail … The dials clicked, and the operators locked on. Stable tracking, azimuth 242 degrees, distance 14.5 km. The first missile launched, then the second after 5 seconds. Muminovic reports the first launched and locked, the second launched but not locked. (20:55, end of engagement)
This report is consistent with how the SAM operates. It shows that the S-125 was able to detect an approaching F-117A at 23 km and engage it at 14.5 km. That was its very limit, as indicated by spotty tracking. The aircraft was detected and lost again 3 times, until the final lock on and shot. The exact missile used was “5В27Д” aka “В-601Д”. Its specifications are as follows: minimum target RCS - 0.3 m2, maximum range - 28 km.
From this, we can estimate that, even if the missile’s “minimum RCS” is specified at maximum range, the F-117’s RCS, with RAM, can’t be lower than (14.5/28)^4*0.3=0.02 m2, and is likely closer to 0.3 m2. Or, in dBsm terms, between -16 and -3 dBsm. The former figure is optimistic, since minimum RCS is normally specified at the best-Pk range, which is usually around half of maximum range."
1 Like
And are we supposing those multipliers are multiplying some base value of 1m^2, or do we know more info on it? Anyhow, multiplying just front/side/rear at whatever angles they chose is a tad simplistic, hopefully they’ll implement proper RCS profiles.
no because every thing is heavily classified, and me asking my friends who were in the air force will get a silent treatment every time.