From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 F-22 refueling probes? 2 "How stealthy is it?" section 3 Stealth (movie) 4 factual inaccuracy 5 Not always soldiers wanted to hide 5.1 Stealth ship 5.2 Stealth Radar section 5.3 Why not rotary bomb bay doors?

[edit] F-22 refueling probes?

One possibility is that two pairs of F-22 could be tasked to intercept an invading force of aircraft, with one pair flying stealthily and the second pair flying 50 km behind them with refuelling probes extended so as to be visible on enemy radar.

The F-22, like almost all USAF aircraft, uses a drogue refueling system. A drogue from the tanker is inserted directly into a receptacle on the fuselage rather than attached to a protruding probe. Perhaps the tactic description above could be changed to refer to opening of the refueling port doors? As the port is mostly obscured by the cockpit rise though, it does not seem likely that this would be a realistic method of increasing RCS (at least at high aspect angles).

My personal opinion is that this hypothetical maneuver should be removed entirely from the page, but I'm eager to hear what others have to say... ✈ James C. 04:21, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)

ok, I rewrote the fighters part of the "Stealth Tactics" section. ✈ James C. 19:54, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)

---

I'd say the bomb/missile bay doors being opened would increase the radar signature plenty. However, chances are the F-22 carries a towed decoy with signature augmentation, like many other modern US aircraft (so that if a missile is fired at it, it can deploy the decoy and have the missile hit it rather than the aircraft). Radar augmentation is not terribly difficult; you basically receive incoming radiation and re-broadcast it so as to appear "larger" on the radar scope. Installing such a device, to be able to appear and disappear from radars at will, might be useful. Nvinen 02:01, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, the F-22 does not carry a towed decoy, unlike the F/A-18E/F. I'm familiar with the concept of "radar augmentation," though I had always known it as a form of jamming (cf. gate stealers, noise etc.). ✈ James C. 19:16, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

And months later I'd like to now add... I don't think the pilot can manually open the weapons bay doors. Opening is automatic with weapon launch, and very quick (I've seen the testfiring videos). ✈ James C. 02:44, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "How stealthy is it?" section

Does anyone else feel most of that section, especially the second paragraph, belongs in radar cross section? ✈ James C. 04:19, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

I felt that way about the second paragraph in the introduction. I have moved it to the RCS section. It fits better there. -Amatulic 04:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stealth (movie)

IMDB entry Trailer Need disambig, but too lazy to do it myself. ✈ James C. 19:14, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

[edit] factual inaccuracy

The article says: The technology was first used on a large scale during the Gulf War in 1991. This is nonsense, even if we restrict the meaning of "stealth technology" to just mean measures to reduce radar signature. During World War II, the Mosquito fighter-bomber had a very low radar signature which allowed it to evade German ground radars and night fighters. Using "stealth tevhnology" in the wider sense, i.e. all technologies that reduce the probability of being detected, it has been in use for millenia. For example, the Romans painted their warships blue to make them harder to spot -- Cabalamat 18:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Very good point. I'll change it from "the technology" to "radar avoidance technology". --Apyule 01:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the first aircraft to use this technology (or an early version of it) was a WWII German aircraft, the Horten Ho 229. The article really needs a history section... bogdan 14:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the statement "The aircraft must be painted by robots, because the solvent used is highly toxic." In my experience working in this area, toxicity isn't really the reason to use robots. Rather, robotic sprayers are used to control thickness accurately. I have made a minor edit to say so. Also, I added the USS San Antonio to the list of ships that incorporate shaping. There are others such as the Arleigh Burke class destroyers, but the San Antonio is a more advanced design with greater attention to shaping details (I was involved in RCS aspects of its design). --Amatulic 17:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not always soldiers wanted to hide

Being able to operate without the knowledge of the enemy has always been a goal of military technology and techniques. Is it really so? Before the modern ages it was usual in europe that troops wanted to be seen. They made loud music, had coloured clothes and they gathered at open fields to face the enemy. This was due to concepts of honour, manhood and fairness. 193.65.112.51 09:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stealth ship

The main wiki article on the Arleigh Burke class destroyer does not mention stealth at all. The referenced article says that it is "stealth-like". To name it as a significant stealth forerunner is to reduce the meaning of the word, as the radar signature of that ship will be substantional, as all the armament is still above deck. I vote to strike the reference, as the Visby and similar ships are the first "true" stealth ships, with reduced visibility both in radar and IR.--Mossig 20:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"stealth" is not a binary condition. The language "incorporated some signature-reduction features" is accurate, as it implemented evolutionary changes that reduced its radar and IR signature. No, it should stay.--Mmx1 21:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. As the article stands now, it's OK. Mossig 08:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one who added that bit about the Arleigh Burke in the article based on personal experience working on the stealth features of that ship. There's more to it than you might think, and its measured signature isn't "substantial" compared to other ships of similar size. Surface-ship stealth isn't intended to make a ship undetectable, it's more to make the ship's own countermeasures more effective against threats like anti-ship missiles. This whole article is far too aircraft-centric. There's more to stealth than what aircraft deal with. -Amatulic 04:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stealth Radar section

The Stealth Radar section needs a massive rewrite in order to be readable, or should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mossig (talk • contribs) 14:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

I agree, it's almost unintelligible. I was going to attempt to copyedit it, but found it to be too big a job, and I don't have the time right now to attempt a complete rewrite. -Amatulic 18:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why not rotary bomb bay doors?

The Blackburn Buccaneer has a rotary bomb bay doors, instead of bomb doors that open externally. Wouldn't rotary bomb bay doors make more sense on a stealth aircraft instead of externally opening bomb doors that can be seen on radar?204.80.61.10 15:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Bennett Turk

I could be wrong, but the way I understand how a rotary bomb bay works, the bombs are mounted on the inside of the door, and the door is flipped around in flight to drop the bombs. During that event the bay is open, and not stealthy, so there isn't really a stealth advantage to it, other than perhaps a shorter interval of being non-stealthy. I believe a conventional bomb bay can also store more bombs in the same volume, because there is no internal volume swept by the rotation of bombs and doors. -Amatulic 18:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)