When did you realize that stealth is now a first world meme when

>>32461865
>radio frequencies
>GHz
You're fucking retarded.

>>32461901

2.4GHz and 5GHz is today's standard wireless frequencies on duel band routers.

>Still living in 2008.

>>32461971
>Microwaves

What a shitty bait thread. Not even worth a you

Skyking can see stealth at 8992 USB

/thrad

>>32462014
(U) is ded m8

>>32461865
if its the size of a tennis ball and if its made of metal, it can be detected on a radar
a radar can detect objects at different frequencies, if you disagree, than different radars can do it.
No matter what flies, it CAN be shot down.
Its the risk we are ready to take nonetheless.

>>32462668
The point isn't to be invisible, just to make it a lot harder to target you. And at relevant bands for targeting stealth aircraft are nearly impossible to spot.

And that doubles down with the F-35, and likely the B-21, since they can actively map the RF battlespace and maneuver in real time to further minimize return signature.

Rather sure stealth is optimized for S band

>>32462422
>tfw no more radio chatter ww3 imminent threads

>>32462744
God I miss them.

>>32461865
>stealth is now a first world meme
>now
It was a meme since the beginning. It's better to be as stealth as possible but it's not a strategic feature, it just helps. The media and maybe the political propaganda pushed it as the ultimate shit, but it is not.

>>32465038
>I am retarded, the post

>>32465109
By instance:
Range
Speed
Load
Stealth

Which one would you cancel if you were forced to?
Being stealth is not the mission of a plane, it just helps its mission, but if you don't have it you can still perform the mission. It is not strategic.

>>32465383
>Range
F-35 significantly beats the planes it replaces
>Speed
Still excellent
>Load
See range
>Stealth
Better than the F-22's.

I hold firm that you are retarded. Stealth is not optional in the modern age.

>>32465383
Speed.

Range? Needs to get there.
Load? Needs to carry enough to be worthwhile
Stealth? Needs to avoid being detected 400km away and simply blown out of the air before it can perform its role.

Speed? If it has all the above to a good enough degree, it isn't needed.

F-117 couldn't even go supersonic at all and was successful.

>>32461865
>When did you realize that stealth is now a first world meme
Ever since I was interviewed for a job developing bistatic radars.


> when we have ground radio frequencies in the GHz now?
We have ground radio emitters ranging from kHz to GHz. Stealth is just
Sitting duck
Trying to
Extract
A
Large
Tonnage of moohlas.

>>32466663
How do bistatic radars work? Like, wouldn't they get a return twice as often, but still be dependent on the stealth aircraft geometry being aligned between the two radars, which is unlikely due to the aircraft continually moving?

>>32461865
>I don't fucking know what frequency is
>I don't know what electromagnetic radiation is
>I didn't take a basic physics course

>>32466812
Basically the emitter and receiver are NOT co-located.

First of all you use an existing emitter, say a broadcaster (TV, radio, DAB or even GPS). Use one receiver to get direct signal and a second to get a reflected signal. Correlate and voila: you get a radar.

Present day stealth massively assumes
- radar emitters are used (bi-static systems can use VHF easily)
- emitter and receiver are co-located (or mono-static) whereas a bi-static receiver changes this geometry.

So assumptions fail. You cannot even know you have been illuminated as civilian long standing emitters are used, or signals you cannot turn off like GPS/GLONASS/Galileo/Beidou/Compass

Amateurs using RTL-SDR have demonstrated this: https://youtu.be/-k2ZuhAz0ac
http://www.rtl-sdr.com/?s=radar

Source code is typically available.

>>32466908
But even still, won't the second receiver only get inconsistent signals like the main receiver, just at different times?

>>32466908
>radar emitters are used (bi-static systems can use VHF easily)

VHF is still a radar emitter.

Love it when people out themselves as total retards.

>>32466908
While useful for building a picture of the airspace, I cannot see this being used for targeting, not saying that you are wrong though.

>>32466965
I believe he meant emitters other than radar operating in the band, television for example

>>32466990
>I believe he meant emitters other than radar operating in the band, television for example

You're not going to get a reliable IAD system working from that, and bi-static implies an emitter system.

>>32467017
Yes, but it would complement conventional sensors, say the system detects something in certain volume of space, and then you point your AESA pencil beam there and see if it's an actual target.

I assume he meant a multistatic system working on scatter from multiple sources and not bistatic

>>32466663
>>32466908
You are either retarded, a Spreyfag (much the same thing, really) or a 50 center if you think any of that actually invalidates stealth.

"Slightly better detection" doesn't mean jack fucking shit if there's a system like, say, the AN/ASQ-239 Barracuda that can detect, ID, and map everything transmitting in the battlespace. And anything with slightly better detection of stealth is going to make standard/LO aircraft light up like a christmas tree.

>>32466965
>calls someone a retard
>fails the reading comprehension test
nigger

File: 1481928960410.png (191KB, 448x461px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 448x461px

>radio waves
>GHz


Am I being trolled? Have I been here so long I just take everything seriously?

>>32467804
Its poor english to begin with, but he was probably giving that anon the benefit of the doubt that he didn't actually mean a system with no emitter using random VHF waves fucking around as background noise.

>>32461971
>duel
That was a good movie.