From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #93 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Saturday, 28 May 1994 Volume 05 : Number 093 In this issue: US air force yearbook B-2/F117 words... Re: B-2/F117 Re: Auroa and mothership Re: SR-71 comeback studied Re: B-2 as AWACS... Re: B-2/F117 Re: B-2/F117 Re: Auroa and mothership See it and not kill it? Re: Auroa and mothership Re: B-2 as AWACS... See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the skunk-works or skunk-works-digest mailing lists and on how to retrieve back issues. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: I.Wraith@sheffield.ac.uk Date: 27 May 94 09:23:34 Subject: US air force yearbook Hello Yesterday in the newsagents I discovered that that the 1994 edition of the U.S airforce yearbook is on the newstands here in England. It is well worth a look with a 4 page article on the development and testing of the B-2 which includes 6 full colour pictures. There is also a colour photo of a SENIOR SPAN configured U-2R. The other articles include .. AC-130 Spectres from Vietnam to the Gulf. The development of the RC-135. SAR - Vietnam to the Gulf. Operation Deny Flight. Kansas coyotes over England. Its a very interesting read and well worth 2.95 UK pounds. The front cover gives a price of 6.95 US dollars so it must be on sale somewhere in the US. Regards Ian I.WRAITH@SHEFFIELD.AC.UK ------------------------------ From: Bill Lichtinger <71202.752@CompuServe.COM> Date: 27 May 94 07:18:13 EDT Subject: B-2/F117 Hi! I'm not as familiar with the B-2 as I am with the F117 (not that I hold a PhD in it),but can the B-2 be adapted to carry a larger payload of ordanace, say almost as much as an F111? Also, is it practical to send a F117 on recon missions, like into Korea to photograph nuclear sites? Thanks! Bill Lichtinger ------------------------------ From: I am the NRA Date: Fri, 27 May 94 06:25:09 PDT Subject: words... [meta: The ONLY means (gifs asaide) we have to communicate with are words. If they get redefined be each of us, we are not going to communicate.] >It was an AWACS plane than vectored (and granted firing permission too by the >way) those F-15s to shoot down the two NATO helicopters in northern Iraq. >What type information gathering was that if it wasn't ELINT? RADAR (AWACS). The ONLY use of ELINT that i know of is to describe receive only operations. AKA "ferret". (One can make semantic arguement that radar is elctronic, so all radar is "elint", but that is NOT the way the acronym ELINT is used. Nor does AWACS doctrine use AWACS to describe an eleint platform.) The ONLY use of AWACS i know of is active (conventional) radar, plus onboard control/filter center. The US choppers were (apparently) hit because they DID show up on radar (AWACS), but had their IFF turned off (possibly to avoid Iraqi ELINT. >There were no ground operatives relaying that data. The AWACS plane was so >far away that it couldn't make positive id based on the signature. If they >could fly closer to the target area with less of a risk from SAMs, that >accident might have been prevented. And if the guys in the F16s had been taken the time to look. And if and if. >(Oh ya, there were other ways to avoid it also.) It was also an AWACS that >vectored in those F-16s that took out the fighter planes in Bosnia/Herzkovenia >(sp). That was intelligence gathering also. Just using active radar to do >so... Yup. AWACS combines onboard _active_ radar and "passive" (_external_) elint, planning inputs (we TOLD you those choppers were gonna be there") comms with its own a/c, in the "filter center" ON BOARD. B2 would make an interesting ELINT/ferret feed TO AWACS. AS AWACS is defined. It would (except for in transit self protection by stealth, or hypothetical bi/multi static) make a wasteful AWACS. >>There is no such thing as a stealthy aircraft that is operating a >>transmitter. If you're transmitting (except perhaps via laser beam >>com.), then you can be found. Quite easily, with 1920's (or earlier) >>technology." Mildly disagree. A tight beam, rf or optical, straight up will be more or less invisible to the ground. If "they" have an elint platform abnove the AWACS, the situation is already busted. (99% of the world does not have elint satellites....) >Agreed, but see below... >>>The "stealthy AWACS >>>receives a MUCH LARGER radar return and therefore a more positive id of >>>the targets. While the adversary is watching and hoping for a missile >>>opportunity at the AWACS Radar Beacon 200 miles away, the stealthy AWACS >>>(maybe another name is more appropriate) monitors all activity from maybe > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >"Most of my disagreement with you stems from your calling a B-2 an >'AWACS' platform. I agree (problems with transmitters aside) that it >might make a great elint platform. The term AWACS, however, defines a >very specific type of aircraft, however, so unless you put a big radome >with active radar on it, it ain't an AWACS. You can argue with this all >you want, but it won't change what the acronym AWACS means." Just so. A _hypothetical_ bistatic platform is another animal. >AWACS may not be the name/acronymn of choice, but it presents a type of >technological capability unmatched on any other aircraft, hence my usage of >it. Its not the normal usage of it. Its like calling an artillery shell a missile. Yeah, it flies. But its sufficiently far from the usual usage that its gonna confuse the heck outta people. (In a _dictionary_ sense an artillery shell IS a missile, but use it that way in a conversation on military subjects and no one will understand.) > My apologies if it confused you. I don't want to see stealth design and >dollars waisted on a flying radio beacon, but on an electronic intelligence >gathering aircraft that works in conjunction/close cooperation with an AWACS. And that (IMO) is an excellent and doable idea. But "close cooperation with" AWACS is not "AWACS". >The use of a "pancake" on the roof would lend itself easily to the stealth >design, except when the dish is facing you. But since it would be operating >in a passive, stealthy mode, it would/could be intermittent in its rotation. ??? Why make it intermittent? A dish is a broadband device (to a limit). It does not, of itself, radiate. Radiation is the chiefest threat. ------------------------------ From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Fri, 27 May 1994 07:52:56 -0700 Subject: Re: B-2/F117 Bill Lichtinger <71202.752@CompuServe.COM> says... >I'm not as familiar with the B-2 as I am with the F117 (not that I >hold a PhD in it),but can the B-2 be adapted to carry a larger >payload of ordanace, say almost as much as an F111? Well, it doesn't need any "adapting"... The B-2 has a max take off weight of around 370,000 lbs. and the weapons bays have a maximum payload of around 50,000 lbs... compared to the F-111, with a max-TO weight of only around 100,000 lbs. >Also, is it practical to send a F117 on recon missions, >like into Korea to photograph nuclear sites? I'd feel a LOT safer in an SR-71... :) The F-117A would have at least four major problems. #1 of course is that it is not a reconnaissance aircraft. That is not what it was built for, thats not what the pilots are trained for, and thats not what it is equipped for... Two other problems are that it flies subsonic and at medium altitudes. And last, to get good photos you generally need to fly during DAYLIGHT. Over North Korea is the *last* place I would want to be flying an unarmed, subsonic, medium altitude aircraft in broad daylight. :-> Particularly over something like their nuclear sites... - -dean ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Fri, 27 May 1994 11:20:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Auroa and mothership ELINT is the province of the EF-111B Raven and other aircraft. ELINT aircraft can be distinguished by the "E" in the designator. Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end.... ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Fri, 27 May 1994 11:24:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SR-71 comeback studied They're in exactly the same shape ours are, if not worse, and they'd have the same problem we are. Regards, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end.... On Thu, 26 May 1994, Tom Ohmer wrote: > I'm recalling that Mary said something about cracks in the tires > grounding the NASA SRs. Would the tires on the Palmdale SRs be > in any better shape, and if not, where would they get new ones? > > > -- > Tom Ohmer, Computer Specialist, DSAC-AAA 1 614 692 8059 > DLA Systems Automation Center, PO Box 1605, Columbus, OH 43216-5002 > tohmer@dsac.dla.mil DoD #1436 ...osu-cis!dsac!tohmer > "Sorry, we're closed." -- Sam Malone > ------------------------------ From: BaDge Date: Fri, 27 May 1994 12:15:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: B-2 as AWACS... On Thu, 26 May 1994, Neil Galarneau wrote: > > [snip] > > > What I would > > caution the "pro-stealthers" to remember is that in look down radar, and > > other types, stealth in it's current incarnation is already defeated. > > (see the Falkland war, British detection, and as well in D-S, numerous > > allied detection > > References please (not rumor). > > [snip] > > > -regards > > -BaDge > > Neil > neil@progress.com > Someone on the mailing list wanted facts to back up the contention I made that "stealth" as we currently know it has been defeated by our allies (at least). Here is the result of 10 minutes browsing.... - --------------------------------------------------------------- AUTHOR White, Michael. TITLE Stealth Defence Pierced.--News. SOURCE Guardian: Mar 25, 1991, 1:8 LENGTH Short (0-6 col inches). ABSTRACT British destroyers in the Persian Gulf detected the US military's Stealth F-117 fighter-bomber, which supposedly is capable of evading radar. One MP explained this achievement by suggesting that radar has improved since the F-117 was designed. AUTHOR Plesch, Daniel. Wardell, Michael. - --------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE Stealth Fighter Uncloaked.--Commentary. SOURCE Los Angeles Times: May 1, 1991, B, 7:1 LENGTH Medium (6-18 col inches). ABSTRACT Daniel Plesch and Michael Wardell discuss the ramifications of British claims that radar on their warships detected US F- 117 stealth fighter aircraft some 40 miles from their targets during the Persian Gulf War, a worrisome distance for such highly touted technology. AUTHOR Pasztor, Andy. Wartzman, Rick. - --------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE Air Force Admits Stealth Bomber Fails to Live Up to Radar- Evading Billing.--News. SOURCE Wall Street Journal: Sep 13, 1991, B, 6:5 LENGTH Medium (6-18 col inches). ABSTRACT USAF Secretary Donald Rice acknowledged that the B-2 bomber's "radar cross-section" in some maneuvers was larger than projected by computer models and the plane was detected more easily by certain long-range radars than Pentagon specifications require. - --------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE Soviets Can Detect Stealth Bomber, US Air Force Chief Says.-- News. SOURCE Boston Globe: Oct 10, 1991, 11:1 LENGTH Medium (6-18 col inches). ABSTRACT The Air Force's top officer, General Merrill McPeak, said that Soviet air defenses could detect the radar-evading B-2 Stealth bomber if it were flying a wartime mission now. SUBJECT TERMS Radar Aircraft Intelligence gathering McPeak, Merrill. AUTHOR Squitieri, Tom. - --------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE Stealth May Not Elude New Radar.--News. SOURCE USA Today: Oct 13, 1989, A, 1:6 LENGTH Medium (6-18 col inches). ABSTRACT Australian scientists say they have developed a radar system that would allow long-and short-range detection and tracking of the Stealth bomber. The discovery of the Jindalee radar system threatens the $70 billion Stealth program's claims of invincibility. - --------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE Air Force Admits Enemies Can Detect Stealth Bomber.--News. SOURCE Boston Globe: Nov 2, 1989, 9:1 LENGTH Medium (6-18 col inches). ABSTRACT The US Air Force has announced that systems and technology exist to detect the B-2 Stealth bomber on enemy radar but that enemies will not be able to destroy the plane. The announcement is the latest in a series that continue to pare back previous claims for the aircraft. - --------------------------------------------------------------- TITLE THE BEGINNINGS OF STEALTH TECHNOLOGY--English--Article SOURCE IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS: V0029 N4: OCT 1993: pp. 1377-1385. ARTICLE NUMBER MD777 ABSTRACT This paper focuses on work led by the Air Force Avionics Laboratory from the early 1950s to 1970, emphasizing radar echo, although all observables-infrared radiation, optical, acoustic, etc.-are important to ''stealth'' design. It traces the current capability to minimize observables from the first efforts to understand what determines radar echo, - --------------------------------------------------------------- AUTHOR Scott, William B. TITLE UWB radar has potential to detect Stealth aircraft. (Impulse radar technolgy; with editorial comment). SOURCE Aviation Week & Space Technology 131:9, 38-41 Dec 4 '89 FEATURES il. SUBJECT TERMS Ultra-wideband radar--Military use. ABSTRACT Part of a cover story on stealth and counter-stealth technologies. A bitter, increasingly politicized debate has developed between the stealth community and proponents of ultra-wideband (UWB) radar. Rapid advances in UWB radar technology are increasing its potential for detecting extremely small cross-section targets, and a report prepared by Los Alamos National Laboratory scientists cites a number of advantages to using developing UWB systems rather than conventional narrow-band systems. Government and industry leaders who have obtained funding for the F-117A, B-2, A-12, Advanced Tactical Fighter, and advanced cruise missile are skeptical of "counter-stealth" systems, however. They fear that a new radar might negate low-observable technology. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: Bill Lichtinger <71202.752@CompuServe.COM> Date: 27 May 94 12:36:33 EDT Subject: Re: B-2/F117 >I'd feel a LOT safer in an SR-71... :) Agreed! I guess the more you talk about it the less sense it makes to retire them (not to beat a dead dog!) >Over North Korea is the *last* place I would want to be flying an >unarmed, subsonic, medium altitude aircraft (the F117) in broad daylight. :-> >Particularly over something like their nuclear sites... I'm with you there, too. Just a thought. Also, about the B-2, it seems to me that it could serve a valuable role as a "stealthy B52" as far as conventional warfare. Impractical? How many B-2's are in existance? Thanks Bill ------------------------------ From: megazone@world.std.com (MegaZone) Date: Fri, 27 May 1994 14:04:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: B-2/F117 Once upon a time Bill Lichtinger shaped the electrons to say... >PhD in it),but can the B-2 be adapted to carry a larger payload of ordanace, s >almost as much as an F111? Also, is it practical to send a F117 on recon No, I'd say you weren't. ;-) The B-2 is a strategic bomber, on scale with the B-1 and B-52. It is LARGER BY FAR than the F-111. It is a huge aircraft. I'm sure someone has the stats. And yes, it is feasible to use F-117s on recon. You could make a photo pallet for the bombbay I'm sure. But the much rumored TR-3A would fill that role. - -- megazone@wpi.wpi.edu megazone@world.std.com megazone@hotblack.schunix.dmc.com "I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity. Use your mind, think!" Moderator: WPI anime FTP site, 130.215.24.1 /anime, the anime FanFic archive; rec.arts.anime.stories, questions to anime-dojinshi-request@wpi.wpi.edu GTW/HU d-- -p+ c++(++++) l u+ e+ m+(*)@ s++/+ !n h- f+ !g w+ t+@ r+@ y+(*) FTP 130.215.24.1 /anime/mod.gifs now! Limited time only! Yes, that's me. ------------------------------ From: lhawkins@annie.wellesley.edu Date: Fri, 27 May 94 14:53:59 -0400 Subject: Re: Auroa and mothership In your message dated: 26 May 94 14:10:05 -0800 you write: > >It was an AWACS plane than vectored (and granted firing permission too by the >way) those F-15s to shoot down the two NATO helicopters in northern Iraq. >What type information gathering was that if it wasn't ELINT? There were no Using active radar to paint a target for ident is *not* ELINT! ELINT is the gathering and analysis of emissions (radar, communications, etc) in order to get an idea of the capabilities of an adversary's equipment. >ground operatives relaying that data. The AWACS plane was so far away that >it couldn't make positive id based on the signature. If they could fly >closer to the target area with less of a risk from SAMs, that accident might >have been prevented. (Oh ya, there were other ways to avoid it also.) It >was also an AWACS that vectored in those F-16s that took out the fighter >planes in Bosnia/Herzkovenia (sp). That was intelligence gathering also. No, it wasn't. Vectoring aircraft is by no stretch of the imagination intellegence gathering. Just what is it you *do* at China Lake? >Just using active radar to do so... > >>"Most of my disagreement with you stems from your calling a B-2 an >>'AWACS' platform. I agree (problems with transmitters aside) that it >>might make a great elint platform. The term AWACS, however, defines a >>very specific type of aircraft, however, so unless you put a big radome >>with active radar on it, it ain't an AWACS. You can argue with this all >>you want, but it won't change what the acronym AWACS means." > >AWACS may not be the name/acronymn of choice, but it presents a type of It's not only not the one of choice, it's the *wrong* one. It would be like my calling an optical telescope a radio telescope. >technological capability unmatched on any other aircraft, hence my usage of The EC series is pretty technologically sophisticated. In fact much more so in some ways than an AWACS. The point that I (and many, many others) keep making, and you keep missing, is that an AWACS is just an airborne control tower with its own radar. We've had aircraft (the Lockheed Constellation AWACS in the 50's and 60's, for instance) that did the same job, essentially. AWACS technology is not that novel. Where does your definition come from, and why do you think the technology is so advanced in an AWACS? >it. My apologies if it confused you. I don't want to see stealth design and You didn't confuse me. You seem confused yourself. >dollars waisted on a flying radio beacon, but on an electronic intelligence >gathering aircraft that works in conjunction/close cooperation with an AWACS. > The use of a "pancake" on the roof would lend itself easily to the stealth >design, except when the dish is facing you. But since it would be operating Which, when flying a race-track course like an AWACS does, would be often. >Cheers, and back to you... And back to you... - --Lee >-Clarence ------------------------------ From: murr Date: Sat, 28 May 1994 00:37:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: See it and not kill it? BaDge writes: > TITLE Air Force Admits Enemies Can Detect Stealth Bomber.--News. > SOURCE Boston Globe: Nov 2, 1989, 9:1 > LENGTH Medium (6-18 col inches). > ABSTRACT The US Air Force has announced that systems and technology > exist to detect the B-2 Stealth bomber on enemy radar but that enemies will > not be able to destroy the plane. The announcement is the latest in a > series that continue to pare back previous claims for the aircraft. I remember reading this item when it came out. How can this be? Does the enemy say: "That's on of those REAL expensive B2 planes. Let's not destroy it."? If you can see it you can shoot it. A subsonic plane that big would be a fat target. Better part of a giga buck bites the dust. Why are we still making `the plane without a mission'? murr ------------------------------ From: John Regus Date: Sat, 28 May 1994 00:55:45 -0500 (CST) Subject: Re: Auroa and mothership Mary wasn't the F111 originally developed as a fighter(ATX) program and then it became the F111-b a medium haul bomber and now it is an elint platform? What is to say the same evolution can not also happen to the B2? Mekong John On Fri, 27 May 1994, Mary Shafer wrote: > ELINT is the province of the EF-111B Raven and other aircraft. ELINT > aircraft can be distinguished by the "E" in the designator. > > Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com > > Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard > Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end.... > > > > ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Sat, 28 May 1994 01:58:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: B-2 as AWACS... It's pretty rare that a battleship will be looking down on an aircraft. Maybe you need to work on definitions a tad bit. Look-down radar does exactly that; it looks down. Not UP, DOWN. Claiming that a test using battleship radar validates your claim of detection by look-down radar weakens your argument tremendously. In addition, in many of these tests, the radar people knew where and when to look. In addition, they had hand-picked radar crews and precisely tuned equipment. Not exactly representative of the typical SAM crew at 0400 on a cold winter morning in Baghdad. No one has ever claimed that stealth aircraft were entirely undetectable. Well, no one with any sense has ever claimed this. In general, the only claim has been that stealth aircraft are extremely difficult to detect with the radar used in aircraft and in many ground installations. Not no radar. For example, that Aussie doppler radar managed to detect the wake of the B-2, not the B-2 itself. Hardly helpful for targeting a fast-moving aircraft. Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end.... On Fri, 27 May 1994, BaDge wrote: > > > On Thu, 26 May 1994, Neil Galarneau wrote: > > > > > [snip] > > > > > What I would > > > caution the "pro-stealthers" to remember is that in look down radar, and > > > other types, stealth in it's current incarnation is already defeated. > > > (see the Falkland war, British detection, and as well in D-S, numerous > > > allied detection > > > > References please (not rumor). > > > > [snip] > > > > > -regards > > > -BaDge > > > > Neil > > neil@progress.com > > > Someone on the mailing list wanted facts to back up the contention I made > that "stealth" as we currently know it has been defeated by our allies (at > least). > > Here is the result of 10 minutes browsing.... > --------------------------------------------------------------- > AUTHOR White, Michael. > TITLE Stealth Defence Pierced.--News. > SOURCE Guardian: Mar 25, 1991, 1:8 > LENGTH Short (0-6 col inches). > ABSTRACT British destroyers in the Persian Gulf detected the US > military's Stealth F-117 fighter-bomber, which supposedly is capable of > evading radar. One MP explained this achievement by suggesting that radar has > improved since the F-117 was designed. > AUTHOR Plesch, Daniel. > Wardell, Michael. > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > TITLE Stealth Fighter Uncloaked.--Commentary. > SOURCE Los Angeles Times: May 1, 1991, B, 7:1 > LENGTH Medium (6-18 col inches). > ABSTRACT Daniel Plesch and Michael Wardell discuss the ramifications > of British claims that radar on their warships detected US F- 117 stealth > fighter aircraft some 40 miles from their targets during the Persian Gulf War, > a worrisome distance for such highly touted technology. > AUTHOR Pasztor, Andy. > Wartzman, Rick. > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > TITLE Air Force Admits Stealth Bomber Fails to Live Up to Radar- > Evading Billing.--News. > SOURCE Wall Street Journal: Sep 13, 1991, B, 6:5 > LENGTH Medium (6-18 col inches). > ABSTRACT USAF Secretary Donald Rice acknowledged that the B-2 bomber's > "radar cross-section" in some maneuvers was larger than projected by computer > models and the plane was detected more easily by certain long-range radars > than Pentagon specifications require. > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > TITLE Soviets Can Detect Stealth Bomber, US Air Force Chief Says.-- > News. > SOURCE Boston Globe: Oct 10, 1991, 11:1 > LENGTH Medium (6-18 col inches). > ABSTRACT The Air Force's top officer, General Merrill McPeak, said > that Soviet air defenses could detect the radar-evading B-2 Stealth bomber if > it were flying a wartime mission now. > SUBJECT TERMS Radar > Aircraft > Intelligence gathering > McPeak, Merrill. > AUTHOR Squitieri, Tom. > --------------------------------------------------------------- > TITLE Stealth May Not Elude New Radar.--News. > SOURCE USA Today: Oct 13, 1989, A, 1:6 > LENGTH Medium (6-18 col inches). > ABSTRACT Australian scientists say they have developed a radar system > that would allow long-and short-range detection and tracking of the Stealth > bomber. The discovery of the Jindalee radar system threatens the $70 billion > Stealth program's claims of invincibility. > --------------------------------------------------------------- > TITLE Air Force Admits Enemies Can Detect Stealth Bomber.--News. > SOURCE Boston Globe: Nov 2, 1989, 9:1 > LENGTH Medium (6-18 col inches). > ABSTRACT The US Air Force has announced that systems and technology > exist to detect the B-2 Stealth bomber on enemy radar but that enemies will > not be able to destroy the plane. The announcement is the latest in a series > that continue to pare back previous claims for the aircraft. > --------------------------------------------------------------- > TITLE THE BEGINNINGS OF STEALTH TECHNOLOGY--English--Article > SOURCE IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS: V0029 > N4: OCT 1993: pp. 1377-1385. > ARTICLE NUMBER MD777 > ABSTRACT This paper focuses on work led by the Air Force Avionics > Laboratory from the early 1950s to 1970, emphasizing radar echo, although all > observables-infrared radiation, optical, acoustic, etc.-are important to > ''stealth'' design. It traces the current capability to minimize observables > from the first efforts to understand what determines radar echo, > --------------------------------------------------------------- > AUTHOR Scott, William B. > TITLE UWB radar has potential to detect Stealth aircraft. (Impulse > radar technolgy; with editorial comment). > SOURCE Aviation Week & Space Technology 131:9, 38-41 Dec 4 '89 > FEATURES il. > > SUBJECT TERMS Ultra-wideband radar--Military use. > ABSTRACT Part of a cover story on stealth and counter-stealth technologies. > A bitter, increasingly politicized debate has developed between the stealth > community and proponents of ultra-wideband (UWB) radar. Rapid advances in UWB > radar technology are increasing its potential for detecting extremely small > cross-section targets, and a report prepared by Los Alamos National Laboratory > scientists cites a number of advantages to using developing UWB systems rather > than conventional narrow-band systems. Government and industry leaders who > have obtained funding for the F-117A, B-2, A-12, Advanced Tactical Fighter, > and advanced cruise missile are skeptical of "counter-stealth" systems, > however. They fear that a new radar might negate low-observable technology. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #93 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe skunk-works-digest in the body of a message to "majordomo@mail.orst.edu". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-skunk-works": subscribe skunk-works-digest local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe skunk-works-digest in the body. Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent to either "skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu" or, if you don't like to type a lot, "prm@mail.orst.edu A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "skunk-works-digest" in the commands above with "skunk-works". Back issues are available for anonymous FTP from mail.orst.edu, in /pub/skunk-works/digest/vNN.nMMM (where "NN" is the volume number, and "MMM" is the issue number).