Message posted by JoenTX on June 09, 2011 at 20:31:52 PST:

In terms of the physical, stealthy application of materials and structure to a piece of hardware with regard to reducing radar cross section? No.

As Mark Lincoln cites, that is not the complete and total mark of an airframe (or ship or vehicle or building) that is intended to be "low observable" any longer. Evolving tech combined with the increased desire to damper sound and heat emissions have led to different and sometimes counteracting methods of achieving an "LO" aircraft. The drive today is to combine as many encompassing low detectable attributes as possible in a given design depending upon its intentional use.

In the 1970s/80s, the term "stealth" was vaunted, exotic, and ethereal. Defeating Soviet radar defense networks of vintage looked very much like the key to overwhelmingly out-minding the Communist Bloc and ushering in an era of unprecedented peace and Western victory. That victory over the WarPac and ensuing interaction did occur but so did the continuation of technological advance and countermeasure beyond then planned for.

Today, 22 years since the B-2 was rolled out and 30-odd years after the F-117 took to the air, we see that how so much things change..............things also stay the same.

Modern and predicted "stealth" depends on the ability to minimize detection of all aspects. We think of the F-22 as a "modern" airplane. It was designed 25 years ago. The F-35 was, largely, designed around 15 years ago. Modern UCAVs use, in large part, tech gleaned from the last 20 years.

Stealth applications are not new. They are not dead. But, they are far from total fruition.

In Reply to: Is stealth Dead? posted by Loopbacktest4echo on June 09, 2011 at 7:20:30 PST:

Replies: