Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/7/84; site ucbvax.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!mhuxl!ulysses!ucbvax!medin
From: medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Are Stealth Bombers "Really" Invisib - (nf)
Message-ID: <1826@ucbvax.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 17-Sep-84 00:52:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.1826
Posted: Mon Sep 17 00:52:58 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 13-Sep-84 19:42:12 EDT
References: <683@ihuxj.UUCP> <29200144@uiucdcs.UUCP> <1678@sun.uucp>
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 20


ECM really does work, thats very true.  The B-1, while not a stealth
bomber, does incorporate 'stealthy' technology in its design.  Its
radar cross section is 1/150th of the RCS of a B-52, even though 
they are comparable in size.  The lower the cross section, the more
ECM helps you out.  For example, with 1/150th the RCS of a B-52, the
B-1 has a little black box aboard that lets it project its radar
reflection on the ground below it when flying at low altitudes.
This mean if a Soviet interceptor had a lock on it and fired a
radar guided missile, the missile would plow into the ground.
Things can be quite difficult for the Russian pilots.  I read of
one account where a Soviet interceptor fired a guided missile
at a target, a target he thought was a low flying bomber, but in
actuality a Soviet radar station.  He thought it was a bomber 
despite the fact that it was a stationary emitter.  He was dealt with
for this action....

				Milo Medin
				...!ucbvax!medin.UUCP
				medin@ucbarpa.ARPA