sorry to put this in "breaking news", but it seemed important
1 posted on
01/05/2002 4:14:44 PM PST by
knak
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-32 last
To: knak
Is this the type of "radar" that uses the motion of ferrous metals through the earths magnetic field to detect resultant fluxuations?
It would also seem that sensative infra-red cameras would be a big hurdle for stealth technology to overcome, but what do I know.
Sometimes I suspect the defense industry of selling elixors.
To: knak
Another reason to work the bugs out of our armed recon drones.
117 posted on
01/06/2002 5:23:28 AM PST by
nomad
To: knak
I will bet that through three or more :::in between country's/people:: Slick Willy Jefferson Clinton sold this information.
To: Clinton's a rapist
This is consistent with your suggestion that we are going to see a series of reasons why any attack on Iraq has to be delayed.
To: knak
Some british guy said he found, by accident, that one could trace a stealth craft by using the cell-phone tower matrix. The 3rd world could come up with a simular system, without the cell-phone network, of course.
If it is "passive" technology that reads stealth electronic signatures, then we may not be able to get a lock on it so easy.
I read that is was a repetitive battle strategy that brought about "Blackhawk Down" in Somalia. Even chickens can learn something after enough repetitive exposure.
Ann Coulter is right, maybe the U.S. should start taking out of the Terrorist aiders and Abetters in the French Government!
To: knak
A popular misconception is that Stealth technology renders the F-117 and the B-2 invisible to enemy radar.
This is not the case. The 2 aircraft do present a vastly reduced cross sections to enemy radar but they are not invisible.
Much of the efficieny of radar lies with the operator.
To: knak
sorry to put this in "breaking news", but it seemed important
I'd be sorry, too, if I posted an article as "1/6/01" as breaking news on 1/6/02.
142 posted on
01/07/2002 7:35:20 AM PST by
mrustow
To: knak
Gee whiz...looks like the Air Force may have to go back a bit and rely on such antiquated technology as the HARM missile to knock these suckers out.
I'm sure there is some concern, but I doubt that
"The Pentagon is faced with the prospect...and they are very, very worried." Besides "The Pentagon" is a building. It can't get "very, very worried".
Where did the Telegraph get that info from? The lunch ladies in the Pentagon cafeteria?
To: knak
I suspect we will get a chance to test that concern ... the sooner the better
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-32 last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson