Talk:Stealth aircraft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
Note icon
This article has been selected for use on the Aviation Portal.
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Error[edit]

"An F-117 was also detected by a British ship during the first Gulf War, in this case because the wavelength of the radar was twice the length of the aircraft. This caused the entire aircraft to act as a dipole, leading to a very strong radar return" Hello derrick The F-117 is over 20m long, so was the radar transmitter 40m wide? Seems unlikely! Guinnog 20:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC) It says elsewhere that components inside Stealth planes may acts dipoles. That makes the dipole about 1m say, which is reasonable for a radar antenna. But if this is true ( and I can't see why the British radar might be unique )then Stealth planes are easy to detect in any case . 145.253.108.22 14:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

40m wide radar transmitter? Read this: Wavelength 72.220.222.195 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Still an error. This would make it an HF radar which UK ships don't carry. All of this is pure speculation and unless it can be substantiated with some reasonable evidence beyond hearsay has no place in an encyclopedia. Paul (talk) 09:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment on List of Stealth aircrafts[edit]

It seems to me that there has been an effort by some editors to elongate the list. Honestly, US is the only stealth aircraft producing country currently.

It's unnecessary to put aircrafts that "kinda" look stealthy. Some of them aren't stealthy at all.

(Wikimachine 04:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC))


If you would actually read the articles associated with each of the aircrafts (sic) you deleted, you would see that there is rationale to their inclusion in the list that extends beyond "kinda" look stealthy. I'm fixing the list to the way it was. Give Peace A Chance 05:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

A lot of what press calls stealth is simply reduced RCS[edit]

We must differentiate between the few "full" stealth aircraft like the F-117 and B2 and the many limited radar signature (reduced RCS) planes like F-22, JSF, MiG 1-44 or Rafale. Because of the great cost and awkwardness of operation with true full stealth, the future of manned combat planes is with reduced RCS. Unmanned planes are more likely to become full stealth however, as the lack of a cockpit and canopy simplifies stealth design and their lower manouverability and lack of onboard brain means complete non-detection is more desirable. In a manned plane you can count on the pilot to do impressive aerobatics if needed, to save his/her own precious rear from a SAM. So full stealth is less desirable there, they choose supercruise instead.

So I split the manned list into full stealth and reduced RCS paragraphs and also added the Rafale, which is low RCS (and quite beautiful, as you would expect from a chic french airplane).

The swedes claim JAS-39 Gripen is low radar observability, which is laughable if you look at its boxy air intakes, so I did not include that. 195.70.32.136 18:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

So because you THINK that swedes are not a reliable source you remove it? what makes them less reliable then USA sources????? anyway Gripen has a very low RCS because it's way smaller then any other current fighter. The RCS is lower then a F-16C/D. Which is a joke because it's way easy for a radar to detect a F-16. But because USA sources say it's low radar observability you include it? stop your american bs in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.69.229 (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Full Stop - Define "Full Stealth"[edit]

What's full stealth? Give a citation for it, or it's getting deleted. This article is a horrible accumulation of original research and speculation. Not suprising given the secret nature of it, but still, this is fairly bad. --Mmx1 22:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Stealth is the science of reduced radar cross-section,reduced dependence on aerofoil lift and reduced dependence on chemical propulsion. Demonstrated on B2A during 1999 UK. This article almost seems like disinformation. One of the potential drawbacks is defecting? This has never happened with any stealth aircraft. Only a Mig 25 that I am aware of (not stealth, though advanced for its time). Also, bombers like the B-2 very rarely circumnavigate the globe on an 19 hour flight based on a tactical mission. Instead many such aircraft B-1's, B-2's are on standbye in and around hot spot regions. The article also refers to shooting a stealth down with a canon mounted on an airliner. That is hard to do if you can't detect a plane on radar. The days of sacrificing performance for stealth are over...as evidenced by newer designssuch as the F/A - 22 an YF-23. Survivable future combat systems will combine stealth (visual, acoustic, ir, and radar) combined with supercruise and high performance to render a very low probability of intercept. Future stealth aircraft will be very lethal combat systems. 143.166.255.17 01:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Hans

No, this article is the way it is because the people that know, don't tell. And the people that write, don't know jack shit. I fall into the "I have better things to do than speculate on highly classified info" camp; but it's sort of amusing to watch. --Mmx1 01:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


I have tagged this article for expert review. Besides lack of source citations, it has undefined categories, technical errors, and seems to portray a negative POV on the subject. As it stands, I don't see any reason to have such an article as this; it could be more tidily handled in the Stealth technology article. --Askari Mark | Talk 04:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I will help if I have time. I by no means expert, rather technical enthusiasts. Because, it may take a long time before I start, I provide some good paper : [1], [2], [3]. In these paper, explanations are quite good. Try to see them. Draconins 12:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup work[edit]

I've tagged this more accurately. Not only does it read like a school essay, it also contains enough bullet points that Jimbo may start having to ration them. Paragraphs, people. Sourced, verified paragraphs. Chris Cunningham 00:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

"In July 1999 two days prior to the Royal International Air Tattoo at RAF Fairford UK, a single B2A Spirit penetrated UK airspace at 01.30 hours. Passing overhead reporting point Whisky Delta 2 at approx. 250 feet it was traveling at just above stalling speed and was completely silent. The anterior half of the aircraft structure was covered in a green-white condensation cloud." I noticed this tacked into a bulletted bit in the Drawbacks section. Da hell is this?Dxco 01:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No idea. I've just removed it though as it didn't seem to fit anywhere in the article (which I agree is of poor quality). --Nick Dowling 06:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek[edit]

Where the hell do we get 'plasma screens' on russian aricraft? Is there a basis for this ( apart form watching too much Star Trek )? 145.253.108.22 14:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is theoretically possible to create a "plasma bubble" around an object that traps incoming radio waves, thus getting the RCS of zero. Two problems with this idea are too big to be currently feasible. First, it's really hard to maintain the plasma around an object and aircraft's small size makes it difficult to carry all necessary equipments. Second, any object surrounded by plasma literally "shines" to someone watching it. It's almost like wearing black clothes to hide in the dark and then carrying a lantern around to find the way.--Revth 09:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_stealth ric — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.220.220 (talk) 08:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

From a page comment[edit]

User:69.88.253.62 added this in-page on 19:14, 7 March 2007:

[I don't have enough time to incorporate this fact in, but the F-117 is able to carry AIM-9's. Someone with more time should be able to fix this.]

Chris Cunningham 20:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Can stealth aircraft glide relatively silently, with engines off? kabbelen 22:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome! First, new questions should be posted at the bottom of a talk page, rather than the top (so I have taken the liberty to move it).
As to your question, it would have more to do with the design of the airplane's aerodynamics, flight controls and – particularly – the engines, not whether the airplane was "stealthy". Tactically, I'm not sure you would want to turn off your engines in mid-flight; it could make you an easy target for an enemy fighter who could visually acquire you. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

missing?[edit]

The list of full stealh manned vehicles does no include the B-2. I assume this was just an oversight. Rugz 19:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Also no mention of British Aerospace's 'Grove'. Perhaps it has morphed into something else since then. 160.84.253.241 06:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


Sidewinders on the F-117[edit]

Theoretically the AIM9 could be used for defense, but the F117 would be toast when the wingman (or wingmen) of whatever was being shot at would see the trail of the missile, likely the aircraft, and have a nice clear radar return from the open weapons bay. The F117 at the same time can't hit afterburners to get out of dodge, and some opposing aircraft could likely do barrel rolls around an F117 attempting a max angle of attack turn. Aki Korhonen 03:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Mark Askari, I recommend you check your sources on the use of these missiles. It's not worth it for me to keep correcting you. But I recommend you read my comments on my personal page on the responsibilities of those who cut content other than vandalism.Aki Korhonen 03:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I never intended the wording to be such that it could be interpreted to include use of Sidewinders on a ground target. Aki Korhonen 03:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the basic wikipedia guidelines is that all articles should consist of referenced material only. i.e. content should be backed up by citing reliable sources in order to prevent "original research". Please see Wikipedia:Attribution, Wikipedia:Original research. In this case, theorising as to what the real purpose of the AIM9 is would constitute "original research" and should not be included in the article. --Deon Steyn 07:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. However I was under the impression that Mark Askari's objections were not based on lack of references but on his view that the Sidewinders are for self defence. There are several references to the Sidewinders and their application purposes that are available via standard internet searches.Aki Korhonen 15:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
My mistake on the GA; that was a suggestion elsewhere by someone else. Operationally, F-117s are escorted by fighters, so the purpose of having such missiles on it is purely for self-defense against "leakers" based on the principle that some means of defense is better than none at all. As for using it against AEW&C aircraft or such, those too are protected by fighters, and an aircraft not designed for air-to-air combat would be too vulnerable against them to risk. I should clarify that the USAF has indicated that Sidewinders can be carried internally, but other sources report that they can also be carried on wing pylons (and some of these sources say they cannot be carried internally). External carriage would seem unlikely since it would have a negative impact on its stealth qualities. Enemy ground-based air defenses and air force would have to be seriously weakened, but fighters not completely suppressed, and there would need to be a scarcity of friendly fighters available. In such a rare situation, their carriage would make some sense. I doubt that the carriage of AAM was thought through more than a vague desire for some form of self-defense capability that wouldn't need a more sophisticated and expensive radar with the necessary AI modes. It's pretty much the same reason guns are still installed in fighters, even though the odds that two modern, high-speed jets would be dogfighting in such close range is extremely low. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Reduced RCS Design Section[edit]

I would like to remove this entire section. It really is meaningless. What is the threshold for inclusion in this list?? I would also like to thin out the full stealth list. Some of those entries are pretty suspect. Any objections/comments???--Downtrip (talk) 05:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. It refers to designs –while not fully stealth– that resulted in a reduced RCS, which is after all the aim of stealth designs. — Deon Steyn (talk) 08:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree because there isn't such a thing as full stealth. Therefore "stealth" planes like B-2 have just a reduced RCS. Anyway, almost any airplane today is designed with the focus of reducing stealth. That doesn't mean it's a stealth aircraft. For example F-22 is NOT stealth it can be easily detected by radars. Of course, more difficult to detect, but still easy, this is very different from truly stealth aircraft like B-2. USA DoD refers to F-22 as a SEMI-stealth aircraft. And then there's the case where measures were taken to reduce RCS. for example F-18 superhornet. any radar can detect it. it's a common aircraft. the only thing is that the RCS is lower then the previous F-18. or for example the grippen, which has a RCS even more reduced then the superhornet despite the fact it doesn't have any stealth characteristics. I agree that it must be re written or if not, removed.

Anyway, the list should be STEALTH: F-117 B-2

and SEMI-STEALTH: F-22 F-35 Su PAK FA


nothing more fits on the list. F-16? it must be a joke. Anyway, the point is, every plane developed and or redesigned or upgraded has a "REDUCED STEALTH". that doesn't mean whatsoever that is stealth or semi stealth. an F-18 despite having a reduced stealth, it can be detected hundreds of miles away from a radar. That is not true for truly semi stealth aircrafts like the F-22. and even completely different for full stealth ones like B-2 and F-117 (and even those can be dectected in certain conductions but that's another discussion). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.69.70.156 (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The entire section is sourced from the same article, an article that does not match any other sources when describing the RCS of several airframes. If the section is going to remain then it will need more sources, otherwise it needs to be deleted. -Nem1yan (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Downtrip changes[edit]

Can we please discuss changes made by the editor User:Downtrip, because the situation is teetering on an edit war. I don't agree with two paragraphs added by this user. The first centre on the intro to which has added a blurb on the F22 when the F22 is but one example of stealth aircraft and not even a very good one at that (it's a compromise). If an example HAS to be cited an F117 would be more appropriate. Can we rather keep the section as it was? My second concern is with the capabilities claimed following directly on the new example of the F22.

an aircraft can be made whose characteristics are such that even the most powerful and sophisticated radars cannot detect them at a great enough distance or track them accurately enough or soon enough to be able to effectively fire upon the stealthy aircraft before it makes its attack

There is no citation provided for this dubious statement. I don't see how anyone can make claims pertaining to the capabilities of the most powerful and sophisticated radars. These capabilities would be highly classified and vary between many companies and nations. Without citation this section had to be changed. — Deon Steyn (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

    • "the sky is blue and the sun goes down at night" Do we need citations for the obvious?--Downtrip (talk) 03:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
"The world's most powerful radars can't adequately track stealth aircraft" is something quite different. — Deon Steyn (talk) 06:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
To add to that, this very page mentions several common technologies (e.g. bi/multi- static radars) and an actual current radar system, the SMART-L which claims to be able to effectively track stealth aircraft. Your citation doesn't back up this claim and the SMAR-L in fact contradicts is completely. I have refined it to qualify the radars in you paragraph to be conventional radars. – Deon Steyn (talk) 06:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments on "Reflected Waves" Section[edit]

This section discusses the role of passive radar against stealth designs and the use of TV and FM radio frequencies in particular. People keep changing the section to state that the use of these frequencies causes resonance. This is not true. TV signals typically have a wavelength of a few centimetres and FM has a wavelength of about 3m. An aircraft which is 20 or 30m in length will not have significant resonance. Far more relevant is the fact that it is difficult to make light-weight radar absorbent paints and materials at these frequencies, where designs typically rely on coatings being a quarter wavelength thick, or need ferrite, etc. A small cruise missile could plausibly resonant at FM frequencies, but not the type of aircraft being discussed here. Resonance is more likely at HF, where the major structures on the aircraft could be half a wavelength or so in size. Although remember, resonance can work against you as well as for you... Paul (talk) 06:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments to Deon[edit]

There no longer is any practical compromise in stealth designs when it comes to performance. Should you wish to include a statement to the contrary it should be backed up with a source. Your opinion is not enough. The B-2 can fly 12000 miles and drop 80 SDBs. Two of them can wreck an airforce, sink a battle fleet or decimate a mechanized division in a single mission. The F-22 can be used to take out enemy air defenses or attain air supremacy. They perform two totally different missions and they have different capabilities due to the missions they perform. The level of stealth in relation to th B-2 and F-22 is irrelevant to the missions they perform. They are both said to be stealthy enough. The USAF did state 2 years ago that the B-2 had a much greater level of stealth than an F-117, in fact twice as good. The F-35 is even stealthier then the B-2. In fact the F-22 is stealthier still.--Downtrip (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link that backs up what I am saying above. http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20051125.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Downtrip (talkcontribs) 04:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the link about the B2. The fact remains that if you built an aircraft with today's technology and you had absolutely no interest in it's stealthiness you would build an aicraft that performed much better than one which had to make concessions to stealth (funny materials, shapes etc.). — Deon Steyn (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

    • I am not so sure about that. Look at the SR-71, it had a very low radar cross section. It's no longer non aerodynamic shapes that make a jet stealthy. How much more maneuverable should the F-22 be? It's rated at 9.5Gs. The fact is that it's pointless to make it have any more performance than it already has because the human body can only take so much punishment from high G forces. As for speed it was said that the F-23 prototype was faster and stealthier than the F-22 but the F-22 was chosen instead. How much faster than M 2.0 do you need to go? What is the difference between a M 1.6 fighter and a M 2.0 fighter? Their missiles both travel at M 4.0 and pull 30gs. The whole idea about stealth is to not get into a dogfight in the first place. I think the two biggest enhancements to stealth lately is the ability to super cruise and AESA radars. These two advances enable modern stealth fighters to more effectively fight while remaining stealthy. So I guess I agree with you if engineers decided to build an aircraft where flight performance was the paramount requirement then it would be done, but that has nothing to do with stealth--Downtrip (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
      • This thread neglects to consider budget. No programme has an infinite budget, so compromises will always be required to deliver a capability to a certain cost. Whatever else stealth may or may not be, it is certainly not cheap. Therefore spending money on a stealth capability will inevitably prevent the budget from being spent on other aspects of aircraft capability. In that sense, stealth will always result in compromises. --Paul (talk) 11:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't think it's really relevant because if you really look at what stealth brings it does in fact do the job for less cost than legacy aircraft. Lets first keep in mind that every time someone trots out the "astronomical" cost of the B-2 or the F-22 they neglect to take into account the effect that Congress has on the cost. They are the ones that fund inefficient production runs. It's not the air force that only wanted 21 B-2s or 187 F-22s. Build 750 as originally planned and the unit cost comes down. While no one knows the final cost of the F-35 we do know it is going to be cheaper than the F-22 if only for the fact that it's production run is much bigger. Second lets keep in mind that all of these planes have other cutting edge tech besides stealth built in which adds to cost. Last consider the purpose of these planes and the fact that now it takes one or two of them to perform the same mission that that required literally dozens of legacy aircraft to perform in the past.--Downtrip (talk) 06:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Generations[edit]

It would be interesting to have the generations of stealth mentioned. 1st gen = SR71, 2nd is F117, 3rd is B2, 4th os F22. http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=597 AThousandYoung (talk) 11:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?[edit]

It seems like there is a large amount of vandalism occurring on this page. Would it be worth requesting a protect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.97.44 (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"Stealth Bomber"[edit]

Since "Stealth Bomber" redirects here, shouldn't we include a prominent reference to the B2 Spirit in the lead for researchers wanting to read more about this aircraft (the B2)? When one types "stealth bomber" into an internet search engine, this aircraft comes up almost without exception. To my knowledge, this is the only stealth heavy bomber in service to date. Please educate me if this is not the case. I suppose in the alternative we could redirect "Stealth Bomber" to the B2 article.Critical Chris (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not really a nickname, just lazy journalism by the media who don't bother to learn the actual name, or who assume their readership is too stupid to learn the real names. We can't include every nickname for every aircraft every time it's mentioned. And what about "Stealth Fighter", the common (media) nickname for the F-117 Nighthawk? Why leave that one out if you include the B-2? There are more aircraft out there than the B-2, with over 5000 of them now having article on WP. We can't play favorites just for the B-2. (Note the "dash" - it's fine to leave it out on talk pages, but please try to include it in the articles so others don't have to fix it). BillCJ (talk) 15:33, October 20, 2008
I agree that it's not a nickname like the "Blackbird" however, the difference is: among stealth technology aircraft, is the B-2 not the only known "heavy bomber" to date? Whereas if we tried to call the F-117 the "Stealth Fighter" a reader might more easily confuse it with other aircraft, the ones already in the hangers in Block 30 configuration, and others under development by the Chinese even, no? From a political science standpoint, because of it's astronomical total program costs on the order of US$2.1 BILLION per plane in 1997 dollars, I argue the damn "lazy journalist"/Congressional Record name: "Stealth Bomber" has trancendant importance over the 5000 other aircraft on here, and therefore merits special exception for inclusion. Sorry about the missing dash, we're all human and make mistakes from time to time such as not signing our comments.Critical Chris (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for catching the unsigned comments - I almost always sign it. My point on "B2" was that I had not seen you use the dash yet, and that it only matters in links; there are some redirects without the dash, but not at every permutation (I think that's the right word). I guess I should add "congressional staffers" to my "lazy" list ;) I think you're on the wrong path with this "trancendant importance . . . merits special exception for inclusion" - that's highly POV to me. You almost seem to driven by some reaction to the high cost of the B-2s. Yes, it's expensive, and has been highly politcal, but why treat it any differently when it comes to coverage in tangental articles? I can't see it as encyclopedic to treat the B-2 as special every time it's mentioned! The main article is is where such emphasis should be, though how is of course up for discussion.
I'm not being flippant or rude with this next comment: If you intend to keep applying this "special exception" to B-2 mentions in a variety of articles, then perhaps we need to get some input from the broader community. I would recommend contacting WP:AIR and WP:MILHIST, and you can feel free to pick a couple of projects that you believe are relevant. Perhaps doing this as an RFC would be the best format, but I've not started one of those as yet. I don't want to be arguing with you on every aircraft- or military-related talk page of articles that mention or list the B-2 - it's not productive for either of us! - BillCJ (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
That's not flippant or rude at all. I seek to emphasize a collective, collaborative editing process as per WP:CONSENSUS. Yes congressional staffers can be ignorant, lazy layman, but this doesn't change the fact that the "lazy media" and the "lazy Congress" regards the aircraft with this albeit inaccurate label. This "misnomer" could be pointed out in the article itself to make it more educational and encyclopedic, no? Perhaps the this is a part of the B-2's infamy, but it cannot be easily wiped from the pages of history.Yes I have a POV, we all do. What's important is that my edits have neutrality and a dearth of POV. I still strongly feel that when someone types: "Stealth Bomber" into a WP search, that there should be some easy path to lead the reader to the B-2 article, since this aircraft remains the only "heavy bomber" with stealth technology....is that innacurate? Maybe a redirect to the B-2 article is in order. As per WP:CONSENSUS, I'm asking your considered opinion of that suggestion. If you agree to this redirect, maybe on the B-2 article itself there should be a redirect line, right up at the top that says something to the effect of: "For the article on Stealth aircraft technology visit..."Critical Chris (talk) 00:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I think a hatnote to the B-2 page at the top of this page would be the best choice. Since both Stealth Bomber and Stealth bomber, redirecting the first one to B-2, with the hatnote, would be fine too. - BillCJ (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, good call. I need to take a look at the current direction paths and git 'er done.Critical Chris (talk) 08:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Request for move...done. If anyone cares to help with the hatnote, please feel free. Need to find the proper template that won' make the article a mess.Critical Chris (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
There's a new "hat note" on the B-2 page. If anyone wants to remove stealth bomber from the description of the B-2 in THIS article's lead, aviation and military experts...you have my blessing. I certainly don't want to give stealth technology any more of "lazy reporter" context than is appropriate. Besides, the Chinese will probably be rolling out their own 'stealth bomber' any day now anyways, and at that point, it could just be confusing. I will defer to other editors here though, and the political scientist and public expenditure scrooge in me does see a modicum of encyclopedic value in including the "lazy reporter" nickname here actually. Again, I will put that back to you all.Critical Chris (talk) 21:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Gripen[edit]

Any reason the JAS 39 is not in the RCS section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.195.240 (talk) 05:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

yes there is. Gripen is not an american plane, therefore it doesn't belong in this article. This article is full of american bs. The grippen wasn't design with any kind of stealth characteristic in mind. it doesn't have any technology intended for that objective. But that doesn't mean anything, the Gripen is known for example to have an RCS LOWER then the new F-18 superhornet wich was designed with some stealth characteristics in mind in order to reduce RCS. So, like wikipedia is ruled by narrommindded americans, all sources of information that are not american will be disputed, even if they are indeed very credible and the usa ones are not. For example, saying F-22 is a stealth aircraft is a false assumption, even USA DoD doesn't use that terminology. It's semi-stealth, that's what they say and that's what is true. If some Sweden or Saab claims something about Gripen RCS you will see here a shitload of rants disputing that claim even if they are totally true. That would never happen in the case of the F-18 for example. The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with North America and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. that's why there's no gripen on the list and that's why there's a list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.140.95.103 (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Horten Ho 229[edit]

The article as it currently stands asserts in two places that this late-WW2 German experimental plane had 'stealth' characteristics. As far as I'm aware, 'looking a bit like a B-19' is not a stealth characteristic as such; does anyone have anything to back these claims up, or should they just be removed? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Flying wings are inherently stealthier designs than typical constructions, but I'd be in favor of just removing them if there isn't any indication that it was an intentional factor in the design or had some operational effect. SDY (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Unless a source can be found that indicates that German designers used shapes and materials in a deliberate attempt to decrease radar detection, the mention of this aircraft should garner no more than a passing mention in this article. From nearly all historic reports, the flying wing design was selected for its drag considerations. Also, as it currently stands, the section discussing this topic reads like a lift straight from the Horten Ho 229 article. I am calling for editors of this article to attempt to reach consensus on this issue. ViperNerd (talk) 02:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Evidence that the Horton Brothers used special carbon containing glues in the construction of the Ho-229 specifically to reduce its radar signature has already been referenced and cited. Please read the article before you challange it. - Ken keisel (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but one single line from a reference that cannot be easily checked by other editors does not prove a deliberate effort at designing this aircraft for stealth characteristics. Three editors here have expressed concerns with this claim and you haven't offered anything concrete that overrides the need to seek consensus. ViperNerd (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Straight from the National Geographic website detailing the special that will be airing on June 28 about this aircraft comes the following statement by the producer of the project, Michael Jorgensen. He describes his communication with the curator of the Smithsonian Institution's holding facility for artifacts (emphasis mine):

I wrote a letter to a curator at the facility inquiring about the rumored stealth properties of the Ho 229 aircraft and received a detailed response: "I have examined the aircraft and many primary and secondary sources of information about the Hortens' work, and I have found no reliable evidence to confirm this idea. Reimar Horten described these low RCS [radar cross section] techniques during the early 1980s as news reports began to appear that described the stealth qualities of the Northrop B-2 bomber. I have examined the Ho 229 V3 numerous times and found no evidence of a "mixture of charcoal and glue" applied to the skin that would lower the RCS. I believe Horten 'invented' the notion of the stealthy Ho 229 to draw attention to other interesting and innovative aspects of his work."

The observations of someone in such a position at a prestigious museum institution who has examined both the remains of the aircraft in question and "many primary and secondary sources" detailing the history of its design and construction would seem to carry more weight than the interview of the designer decades after the fact by a single author who might be trying to add some attention-grabbing material to pump up his latest book (and confirm his theories). It certainly appears that the issue is far from being an open and shut case, and hard facts are clearly difficult to come by on this particular subject. At any rate, speculation does not belong in an encyclopedic article. ViperNerd (talk) 10:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Have the curator analysed the glue beteween veeners? No! Why should the Hortens apply glue on the skin? The need the glue between the veeners for bonding and the glue beteen the veeners are black. When this layer are conductiv then acts this as a multilayer RAM. At time is only secure the cone material damped HF. "A team of engineers from Northrop-Grumman ran electromagnetic tests on the V3's multilayer wooden center-section nose cones. The cones are three-fourths of an inch thick and made up of thin sheets of veneer. The team concluded that there was indeed some form of conducting element in the glue, as the radar signal slowed down considerably as it passed through the cone." --HDP (talk) 07:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I watched a documentary on the Horten Ho 229 a couple of days ago where the company that manufactures many stealth aircraft tested the aircraft using the same design and materials. They concluded that it was indeed built for stealth and that it did greatly reduce its Radar returns. Therefore, I think you can class the Horten Ho 229 as the first stealth aircraft. --Plane Person (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well after the Northrop Grumman re-creating of the Ho 229, which clearly revealed that the Ho 229 has stealth abilitys, has been succeeded and results were published, i will remove the consenus tag. StoneProphet (talk) 02:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

History[edit]

How long was this technology in development or available for military deployment before it was revealed to the public? -- Beland (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

3 day time out (article is full protected for 72 hrs)[edit]

Ok, this little edit war was not helpful. Both of you are on notice that WP:EDITWAR policy will be applied evenly and swiftly if the edit warring returns in 73 hours or beyond.

Discuss things here, don't push the article contents back and forth. Please assume good faith about each other's intentions. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no edit warring here on my part, merely an attempt to have editors involved with this article reach consensus on a point of dispute. Clearly one editor in particular seems unwilling to allow that process to take place and is contentiously removing tags that are only placed in an attempt to invite others to help improve an article that desperately needs it. Please don't lump me in with that type of disruptive behavior. Thanks. ViperNerd (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
There certainly is an edit war going on, as ViperNerd continues to contest information that is properly referenced and contains inline citations. ViperNerd continues to be the only one here who is contesting this information, and that does not warrant a "contested" tag. If he has evidence demonstrating that the referenced information is incorrect he may present it. To date he has provide no such evidence, only the hope that someone else will agree with him. That is insufficient to warrant a "contested" information tag. - Ken keisel (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
The edit warring is now only being waged by User:Ken keisel, as there has been yet another unilateral revert of the article by this editor without any further discussion or consensus seeking. Three editors have expressed concerns (two sections above) with certain material in this article and this contentious editor has offered no source that can be checked to allow consensus to be reached on the issue. I have not reverted the most recent warring as I am attempting to follow Wikipedia guidelines and the warning issued by the admin on this matter. I'd like the admin involved to please give this due attention. Thank you. ViperNerd (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Discussion was posted directly above your claim that there was no discussion! The cited source is clearly referenced per wikipedia standards and you offer no references that challange it, only personal opinion. Until you provide supporting evidence against the cited information your "consensus tag" is inappropriate for this article. - Ken keisel (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, discussion isn't over (actually it can't really begin as long as you continue to vandalize the article and remove a tag which is inviting editors to take part) and consensus isn't reached just because YOU say so. Just curious, but why is it that you don't want people to have a chance to discuss a disputed part of the article? Why are you taking this so personally? Tags are not a reflection on you or your edits, they are a way to help improve articles, especially where debatable material is concerned. For some reason you seem to have an agenda to keep that from happening in this case. The single reference which you seem to feel is so unassailable was written by an author who doesn't have the greatest track record for accuracy from what I've been able to uncover on the web, and his article is apparently only available in a journal or magazine that you give the date on as July 2009. Not the easiest thing for other editors to verify. So you need to sit back, relax, and allow the process to run its course. Stop taking article tagging personally, it's not aimed at you, as you don't own these articles or the edits once you've clicked the "Save page" button. Also, I'll let you know here that I won't be taking part in your little mediation game, because I've done nothing wrong that would require third-party intervention. You are the one who seems determined not to let Wikipedia procedure run its course, and I suggest you back off before an administrator takes notice of your actions. Other editors' feedback on this issue and the contentious material under discussion two sections above would be greatly appreciated. ViperNerd (talk) 05:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Limitations of Stealth Technology[edit]

Are there verifiable sources for the section entitled - Limitations? Specifically, the limitations, which are briefly discussed are: Instability of design, Dogfighting ability, Electromagnetic emissions, Vulnerable modes of flight, Reduced payload, Cost of maintenance, Sensitive skin, and, Cost of operations. I can easily see that these are limitations, but are there any sources to which I can refer? Ti-30X (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Although I must recuse myself from assisting in developing this article, I should point out that each of the subsections in the Limitations section currently contains erroneous and/or irrelevant information, much of it having nothing to do with stealth per se and often quite obvious if one just thinks it through.
There are "reliable sources" – that is "reliable" in the Wikipedia sense, not that what is published in them is "reliably accurate" (since they are written by non-experts). I seem to recall that Bill Sweetman, a respected aviation writer, has written a few times on the subject in AW&ST and some other defense- and aviation-related publications. Another way to find some may be to go to the Above Top Secret website, search on "stealth limitations", patiently wade through all the nonsense and look for links to actual reliable sources that may supply legitimate information you're looking for, as well as a clue to what reliable sources are out there to potentially be mined. (That said, nothing on the ATS site or its forums is likely to be reliable; the homepage for ATS should give you some reasons why – aside from the massive amount of OR.) In any case, I hope this is enough to get you started. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Askari Mark Ti-30X (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Askari Mark - you won't believe it but I found about five useable sources on this topic from reading and using one phrase at the Above Top Secret web site. One author of a blog there writes on this topic, and although the blog is not useable, a search using one of his phrases has worked out. Amazing. If I need more, I may continue reading through that blog.
Today, I am at the Aviation Week magazine online to check out your other suggestion - Bill Sweetman. Also, I have noticed that there are a plethora of blogs, at AW&ST , which seem to have something to say about stealth. I am guessing these blogs would be considered more authoritative. It seems to me that someone could pull together enough information to write an entire Wikipedia article on the limitations of stealth. I say that at first glance over at Aviation Week.
What is also ironic is that I would normally never read anything like the Above Top Secret web site. Ti-30X (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

PAK-DA classification in article?[edit]

I added the PAK DA (note* not the PAK-FA) in the list, but I'm unsure whether it is meant to have full stealth or just reduced RCS[4]. Anyone have any ideas on where to put this entry? 72.229.156.157 (talk) 09:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for citation update[edit]

http://defence-data.com/features/fpage37.htm is unavailable, but it's on the Wayback Machine at http://web.archive.org/web/20071116065249/http://defence-data.com/features/fpage37.htm - can someone more skilled with the ref syntax please have a look at this? (The footnote looks a little ugly in its current form, too, which would be worth fixing if someone has the time.) Same issue as in Talk:Jindalee_Operational_Radar_Network. Thanks! Rosuav (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

1 fully stealth aircraft missing AMCA[edit]

the AMCA (advanced medium combat aircraft) is a fully stealth manned 5th gen fighter jet and is not the on list it should be added ASAP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buklaodord (talkcontribs) 10:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

JXX vs J20[edit]

Are these designs different, or is it the same thing? We need more reliable info, preferably something not in Chinese. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

J-XX is the overall program to develop several stealth fighter designs. The J-20 is simply one prototype that is several steps and around two decades from becoming an actual operational stealth aircraft. Hcobb (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Paper Tigers[edit]

The more i learn about stealth planes the more i believe that they are paper tigers.

1.high maintenance: The F-22 Raptor needs 30 hours of maintenance for every 1 hour of flying.

2.limited loadout: The F-22 Raptor in order to remain stealthy could only carry 6 missile's or bombs and with the F-35 it goes down to 4.

How can a plane be a effective warmachine when after every mission it going to take a better part of a day to turn it around and that only to drop 2 bombs somewhere ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.214.42 (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

1. The F-22A Raptor DID have that 30 hour per flight hour maintenance level at it's initial introduction, but this was due to lack on experience with stealth fighters. Today it is at roughly 20 hours per hour of flight. And anyway, it's not that much compared to other aircraft.
2. The F-22A Raptor actually can carry 8 missiles to remain stealthy. Get your facts straight. The F-35 IS 4 however.

Also they are EXTREMELY effective war machines. The F-22 maintained a 97% sortie rate (flying 102 out of 105 tasked sorties) while amassing a 144-to-zero kill ratio during "Northern Edge" air-to-air exercises held in Alaska in 2007.



"it going to take a better part of a day to turn it around"
Also incorrect, the F-22A has the best manoeuvrability of any fighter in the world.



Heaney555z (talk) 17:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I believe he was referring to the relatively longer maintenance period between operations when he said "It going to take a better part of a day to turn it around" and not the maneuverability of the F-22. And while the F-22 outperforms earlier fighters in terms of maneuverability more modern designs (such as the Su-35BM and Su-37) along with future fighters like the PAK FA perform on par with the F-22 so it would be difficult to class any fighter as "The Best" in terms of maneuverability.
Also stealth fighters can operate in combat zones that would be extremely limited to conventional fighters. The amount of jamming equipment placed on a non-stealth fighter along with the amount of electronic warfare and support aircraft needed to support non-stealth attack aircraft means that it would be far more expensive to send a non-stealth aircraft into denied airspace than it would be to send a stealth aircraft. -Nem1yan (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
The Su-35BM and Su-37 aren't really more modern, because they are just upgrades of the Su-27 Flanker that first flew in the late seventies, while the F-22 first flew in the late nineties. - Heaney555z (talk) 11:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm well aware of all of that, but the similarities between a Su-27 and Su-35 arent even skin deep (different coatings and the Su-35 is made from more composites). And for the most part I was agreeing with you, I also dont see why this section is relevant anymore. Most IP's have a habit of not returning. -Nem1yan (talk) 05:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

RCS Designs[edit]

Considering that fact that most, if not all, recent and future aircraft are designed to have smaller RCS from at least the frontal aspect it is becoming somewhat pointless to list them all here. The listed aircraft should contribute to this article as prime examples, that being said I believe that the following aircraft should be removed unless an argument is presented showing how listing actually contributes to an article on stealth aircraft.

  1. Chengdu J-10B
  2. F/A-18 Hornet C/D
  3. Mitsubishi F-2
  4. Messerschmitt Me 163B
  5. HAL Tejas
  6. Novi Avion -Nem1yan (talk) 03:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

File:F-35 Lightning II in flight.jpg Deleted[edit]

Icon Now Commons.svg

An image used in this article, File:F-35 Lightning II in flight.jpg, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons by Mmxx for the following reason: No permission since 28 April 2011

What should I do?

You can remove the code for this image from the article text (which can look messy), however a different bot may already have done so. You could also try to search for new images to replace the one deleted. If you think the deletion was in error please raise the issue at Commons.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Great quote for this article[edit]

"The techniques of achieving low maneuverability, or stealth as it's popularly known, are fairly well understood."

Is AFP a RS or not? This one news story got pasted up to dozens of sites as usual. Hcobb (talk) 02:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Low "maneuverability", does it not mean "observability"? - Heaney555z (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Uggg.[edit]

"Testing performed in early 2009 by the Northrop-Grumman Corporation established that this compound, along with the aircraft's shape, would have rendered the Ho 229 virtually invisible to Britain's Chain Home early warning radar, provided the aircraft was traveling at high speed (approximately 550 mph (890 km/h)) at extremely low altitude (50–100 feet)."

This entire statement is worthy only of ridicule.

Chain Home was a long-wave radar able to detect only large reflections. This was aided by the fact that the aircraft it faced had propellers, as nothing returns radar like a prop disk. But more to the point, CH was able to detect targets only if they were significantly above the horizon - thousands of feet typically. In fact, the Chain Home Low that was introduced to fill this gap was only able to cover down to about 500 ft. So the fact that the Ho 229 would be "virtually invisible" to CH at "50–100 feet" is an entirely moronic statement - CH couldn't detect any aircraft at 50–100 feet. I'm surprised they didn't add the requirement for the CH units to be turned off and pointed in the wrong direction!

I don't understand why this issue with the Ho 229 keeps coming up. The Shepelev/Ottens book talks about all of this in depth and explores the source of the myth. The Horton's designed the layout before the introduction of radar, yet the claim continues to be made that it was some sort of stealth effort, normally with the weasel-words as found in this article about "maybe". The "carbon impregnated plywood" is a fabrication (in more ways than one), a confusion with a filler material that was chosen because it was cheap and light.

Simply put, there is zero evidence that the Horton's put one iota of effort into stealthiness, and lots and lots of evidence, including direct statements by them, that it did not include any such design. Is there any reason this section should not be re-written, or removed entirely?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

proposed merge of X-47C[edit]

Nothing really to merge anyway. Northrop Grumman X-47B is also a goo article to redirect X-47C to. - BilCat (talk) 23:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Achilles heels[edit]

Is the IRST (infrared tracking)not becoming the achilles heels of the stealth fighter ?

http://www.fas.org/spp/aircraft/part06.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.173.93 (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

No. IRST is blocked by all sorts of entirely common meteorological events. Additionally, the energy it detects is in reference to the background, so the energy you detect is (small IR signature from skin friction) - (natural background from the sky). In comparison, in the case of radar the equivalent is (power of my enormous broadcast system) - (zero). As a result, in order to detect something on IR you have to crank the amplification, which generally works inversely with range. So IR is fine for close-in detection, but of decreasing use with range. Additionally, it's not entirely hard to spread out the IR signature to make it stealthy here too. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

F117 downing 1999[edit]

When F117 is downed, 13 pieces of passive radio locator "Tamara" (probably modified a used by Yogoslav (Serbian) Army.Probably they use TV transmitters and Celular telephony transmitters for "illumination" of targets.maybe it is reson why NATO attacked all TV and rdaio transmitters.Where are Tamara-s now, it is question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.250.88.238 (talk) 09:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Afterburners a prerequisite for air combat[edit]

The Stealth article includes a bald assertion that fighters need afterburners. Perhaps, but only to get to where the combat is in a hurry - or get away from it - at a vast cost in fuel.

According to most authorities in print (far too many to cite) despite increasing aircraft speeds real-life air an individual aircraft's speed in an engagement (dogfight) rarely if ever rises above mach 1 due to multiple factors but principally loss of momentum due to aggressive manoeuvres intended to bring weapons to bear/lose weapons lock by an opponent.

These days non-afterburning engines - developed for fuel economy/long range/long loiter characteristics - are discussed primarily in connection to new-in-service USAAF fighters such as the F22 Raptor but so-called 'supercruise' engines have been around - and in use in military aircraft - since the early 1950s.

(See Wikipedia articles: Supercruise; English Electric Lightning mach 2 interceptor; BAC TSR-2 tactical strike/reconnaisance aircraft... and the Concorde airliner, which used the engines developed for TSR-2.)

109.147.156.90 (talk) 08:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)