Posted on 12/12/2011 6:26:23 AM PST by Just4Him
American officials insist that neither weaponry nor technology brought down a U.S. drone that was flying over Iranian territory earlier this month, but a former U.S. ambassador says if reports are true that Russia provided jamming equipment, the situation becomes all that much worse. "Some reports have said Russia sold (Iran) a very sophisticated jamming system a short time ago," U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton told Fox News on Sunday. "Now, our military says that is not true, it came down because of a malfunction. I certainly hope that's right because if the Russians have provided Iran with sophisticated jamming equipment it means a lot else is at risk too."
Bolton said Congress ought to be concerned if the Iranians are in possession of jamming technology that can bring down missiles, planes and communications and guidance systems "for a whole range of our weapon systems."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I'd rather find out our deficiencies in a minor incident against Iran, rather than finding out how vulnerable we are in a major conflict against China.
A go home function ... must have it - it’s so logical... Here’s a take on Obama’s role in NOT getting the drone back:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2818540/posts
I've been saying for a while to F-22 fans that if we spend a huge amount of money on it because it's stealthy, and then stealth is defeated, then we're worse of than if we build a much larger number of improved F-15s.
“Not necessarily. Fiberglass aircraft, for incidence, are almost invisible to radar and it’s not because they are absorbing or reflecting RF energy.”
This is not a fiberglass aircraft. Otherwise it would not be necessary for it to have planform alignment, gaussian shaping, edge treatments etc.
There will be 20-30dB of attenuation from ground-level sources - so satcom links, including GPS will be very difficult to jam.
If you make something out of fiberglass you either treat the fiberglass to make it non-transparent with a gradual dielectric gradient coating, or you have to treat everything inside the aircraft - a far more complex challenge. You could make a glider out of fiberglass and it would be very stealthy, it also wouldn’t have any utility or capability.
The drone was an early Christmas gift from “O”-bet on it
Factoring everything that is public, and the wealth of speculation, for that statement to be true means that Daniel Petraeus, director of the CIA is knowingly involved.
That would go a long way to explain a lot.
“...if we build a much larger number of improved F-15s.”
I agree with you. Stealth depreciates over time as capabilities improve. Sheer numbers and far more ordinance per aircraft is not a bad thing.
The Russians are the probably source of the technology. Pure speculation, but consistent with their demonstrated track record.
It's not carbon, either. Note the dent in the leading edge on the left side. Fiberglass, Kevlar and Carbon composites don't dent like that. There are some rather exotic plastics being used now. I'd guess it's either aluminum or one of those.
Otherwise it would not be necessary for it to have planform alignment, gaussian shaping, edge treatments etc.
There is no "one thing" that encompasses radar stealth. It's a combination of things to reduce radar return signature. Among those are overall shape, material composition, material coatings and on-board electronic countermeasures.
If you make something out of fiberglass you either treat the fiberglass to make it non-transparent with a gradual dielectric gradient coating, or you have to treat everything inside the aircraft - a far more complex challenge.
Actually, if you want to "show up" on radar in a fiberglass aircraft you use a corner reflector, although the engine produces a fairly strong return signature in certain orientations.
You could make a glider out of fiberglass and it would be very stealthy, it also wouldn’t have any utility or capability.
The Brazilian Navy and Brazilian Federal Police have been using a fiberglass motorglider called the "Ximango" for coastal patrols and aerial observation for over 25 years. It's cheap to operate and it's very stealthy with no added enhancements. Since Chavez has taken power it's also been used regularly along the border with Venezuela and to monitor narcotics smuggling along the Colombian and Bolivian borders, too. Earlier this year I consulted on a project where a group of investors were considering purchasing the company that manufactures the Ximango. The goal was to develop a stealthy, long range, manned observation platform from the design.
“There is no “one thing” that encompasses radar stealth. It’s a combination of things to reduce radar return signature. Among those are overall shape, material composition, material coatings and on-board electronic countermeasures.”
There are three main elements to low-rcs stealth platforms Size, Shape, Coatings/Treatments. To the extent that you succeed in integrating all these in a successful platform you are as much controlling the signature as you are reducing it.
You still have visual, acoustic, IR to worry about.
Based on pictures of the Ximango, I’d say it’s not particularly stealthy in RCS - at least in the military sense. as a glider, it no doubt is stealthy acoustically, maybe somewhat in IR, and perhaps visually as well. Important for a drug interdiction mission, more than RCS.
A compass and a speedometer can do that.
A compass and a speedometer can do that.
And, you would be wrong. Actually, our military is VERY interested in what we've shown them so far. In addition to consulting on this project part of the reason why I'm involved is because I've owned a Ximango for about 5 years. First hand experience tells me without the transponder squawking it has an exceedingly low RCS unless oriented directly nose-on at the radar transmitter. I've been a number of places in it where I've had to deal with military ATC to get clearance through restricted areas (i.e., Giant Killer, Pensacola, etc) and they don't "see" it any better than civilian systems. Last year a friend who also owns a Ximango were flying cross country together out to Nevada. Several times in our trip ATC commented that they were only painting one aircraft. Only later did we recognize that his transponder wasn't working. We'll be doing some range testing shortly and I'll have the actual numbers.
“exceedingly low RCS”
I don’t think you have a good idea what “exceedingly low” means from a military standpoint.
There is no way you can fly a metal engine block hydraulics, and an avionics package covered in fiberglass and have an “exceedingly low” RCS.
You are speaking of total anecdotal evidence based on turning off a transponder. Does not cut it.
If you have not actually range tested these aircraft you have absolutely no clue what the RCS is. No clue.
I can tell you that you are very likely to have a large RCS with that aircraft. Fiberglass or not. If I had to guess (and I do - just like you do) It’s probably 10dBsm class (or greater) at UHF (not low RCS)
I guarantee the “stealth” characteristics for drug interdiction are because of noise (with engine off).
Your range tests will open your eyes to how this stuff actually works, if you’ve never done it.
Good luck.
Really? That crystal ball of yours is all polished up, is it? How come you can't see I've only been working in the field as a military contractor doing range testing and phase array application for 20 years. LOL! Your practical knowledge on this topic is obviously lacking and you don't know diddly about what I've done, when, or where because I haven't told you. Everything you've posted is pure speculation. Everything I've posted is gleaned from hands-on experience. Is this the reason why you insist on changing the topic to me and what you think you know about me? LOL! Jeez. I'm curious, where did you get your degree?
Supporter of gay marriage and the homosexual agenda.
You're right. Perfect fit in today's "GOP."
Newt’s statement that he would make Bolton SoS is one reason I am coming around, slowly, on Newt.
Did not know that. I guess I usually just hear him speak about foreign affairs.
Gingrich's statement that he would want Bolton for SoS is a strike against him, in my opinion. At a moment when Hillary Clinton is trotting around the globe promoting the sodomite agenda, why would we want a Republican who agrees with her?
He also supports the Law of the Sea Treaty, which is devastating to our national sovereignty.
Link to where Bolton has endorsed what Hillary is doing in our foreign policy re: pushing homosexual rights?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.