gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
Please stop using words like 'invisible' or 'undetectable' or 'impossible'. Those are media words. The correct phrase that the US military use is 'low radar observable'. Technically minded people would IMMEDIATELY know what it means -- never 'invisible'.No known platform on the planet is truly invisible to any kind of detection and you both know that!
RQ-170, B-2, F-117,... are all stealth designs but that doesn't mean they are undetectable!
As for me, I have been trying to encourage people on this forum to be technically correct and this is how I use the words 'stealth' or 'stealthy'. In quotes to signify their technically vague descriptions.
So what?And even the U.S. is fully aware that stealth by it's self is not sufficient and they need to utilize a combination of various tactics and countermeasures to have the desired effect
Today without the utilization various tactics, decoy's, jammers, EMP,... stealth aircraft weather they be fighters or cruise missiles are not sufficient to penetrate modern air defenses in any meaning full way!
Ever heard of the phrase 'combined arms tactics'? The Germans were said the first to utilize it back in WW II. Am not going into the historical details/arguments as to who used it first.
Combined arms tactics is where you use all the weapons platforms at your disposal to attack the enemy, not just at different points of his position, but also at different methods of defenses, forcing him to diversify his resources and eventually one or more defensive points will weaken. That is exactly what happened to the Iraqi Army back in Desert Storm, but US and allies did it on a scale and speed not seen before, including with the blitzkrieg, and not yet replicated by anyone since then.
No different if we use EW, decoy drones, and 'stealth' against a defensive posture. The goal is to blind, distract, and sneak by, all at the same time. If you have to diversify your resources enough, one of your defensive method will weaken JUST ENOUGH and that is all we want.
So it is not as if after we deploy the F-117, we had a combat revelation -- Ahhhh -- that the F-117 low radar observability was not enough. No, we used it by itself when feasible, and in combined arms tactics when necessary.
And that is why I tried to explain to Mr. Mortal when he claimed that the idea of 'stealth' cruise missile is nothing but a marketing gimmick designed to solely gain profit at the expense of military lives.And ground skimming TF & TA only work if you know exactly where every air defense system from AAA to SAM to airborne sensors.... is located! And that data is of far more value than the ability to skim closer to the ground!
As for Cruise Missile sooner or later that missile will need to get within visible range and line of site of defensive systems protecting high value targets and there is no way around that either!
For starter, if there is the idea to make something 'stealthy', most likely the idea came from the military which came from the military observing the battlefields first hand. So the military ask if something if technically possible.
It looks to me that like Mr. Morty there, you did not read carefully my posts. In making the cruise missile 'stealthy', it will make the weapon's flight to be more predictive than reactive, giving it the better capability of making higher level decisions to deal with unplanned for threats, and ultimately making the weapon platform more lethal and more economic to use. All because the weapon can fly a few meters higher and less vulnerable to radar detection.
There is nothing 'gimmicky' about the idea of a 'stealthy' cruise missile.
Hey...You are free to be confident about Iran's defense methods and postures.Today technologically we are at a point where Tanks are being equipped with defensive equipment that can protect themselves against ATGM's so I don't care how low to the ground your cruise missiles are flying because processing power has reach a point that once you get close to a high value target with a relatively low speed platform all bets are off!
In Iran's case I would worry more about mass production in vast numbers and utilization of blitz tactics to overwhelm enemy defenses
And I could care less about ground skimming because without intel on enemy defenses the lower you fly to the ground the higher your chances of getting intercepted by lower cost systems!
SAM aren't cheep and NO ONE has an unlimited supply so if it was up to me I would mass produce cheaper low RCS cruise missiles in vast numbers that fly at higher altitudes and I would utilize cheaper tactics to disrupt optical & radar sensors during terminal guidance!