Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site randvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!randvax!david
From: david@randvax.UUCP (David Shlapak)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Are Stealth Bombers "Really" Invisib - (nf)
Message-ID: <1975@randvax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 10-Sep-84 03:21:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: randvax.1975
Posted: Mon Sep 10 03:21:10 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 14-Sep-84 05:48:56 EDT
References: <683@ihuxj.UUCP>, <29200144@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica
Lines: 70

----------

>>  Steve Aldrich (ihuxj!amra) writes:
>>
>>  Hello, the other night while watching "Late Night America" on local
>>  PBS station, Chan. 11 Chicago, the guest made an interesting statement.
>>  She claimed that the "Stealth Bomber" (B-1?) was only "invisible" to
>>  Short Wave (SW) Radar and that Long Wave (LW) Radar would be more than
>>  capable of detecting these "so called" wonder weapons that the President
>>  intends to use as replacements for the B-52's currently being utilized.

>The B-1 does not use the so-called "stealth" technology.  The term
>"Stealth Bomber" comes from Jimmy Carter's re-election campaign, when
>certain details about radar-detection-avoidance technology were somehow
>leaked to the press.  The idea was that instead of building B-1s, we
>should just use the old B-52s for another 8 or 10 years until the
>stealth bombers were ready.

>Scott Renner
>{ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!renner

    Let's see, where to begin correcting this interesting, but somewhat
    misinformed mishmash.

    First, `stealth' does not refer to any particular aircraft; it is rather
    a commonly used descriptor for a variety of technologies and engineering
    practices used to render one or more of an aircraft's so-called
    `signatures' (including radio emissions, radar reflectance, infra-red
    profile and so on) less noticable.

    Contrary to Scott Renner's remark, the B-1B does in fact use  a
    considerable amount of low-observable technology.  As an example, certain
    structural changes in the airframe give the B-1B a radar cross-section
    (how big it looks on the Bad Guys' scopes) one-tenth of that of the
    original B-1, which itself had only one-tenth the signature of a
    B-52.  These changes represent the first fruits of the research that
    has produced `stealth' technology.  The air-launched cruise missiles
    (ALCM) currently in use with some B-52Gs and scheduled for deployment
    with B-1B also incorporate features of this techonlogy.

    The so-called `stealth bomber' (more properly, the Advanced Technology
    Bomber, or ATB) is currently in development as a follow-on to the
    B-1B.  It should represent as much improvement over that aircraft as
    the B-1 does over the aging Stratofortress.  The ATB is scheduled to
    enter the Air Force inventory in the mid-nineties.

    No airplane, however, `stealthy,' will ever be invisible.  The idea with
    both the B-1B and ATB is to minimize their vulnerability to enemy air
    defenses by making them as hard to see as possible.

    As for which types of sensor will be most degraded by the technology of
    either the B-1B or ATB (`long' or `short'-wave radars, electro-opti-
    cal, whatever), I'm afraid that the lady on "Late Night America" was
    most likely talking through her hat.  That sort of information on this
    topic exists only at levels of classification she probably doesn't know
    the names of...She may have been right, but if so it was only a lucky
    guess...

    For those of you who are interested, lots of good stuff about the B-1,
    ATB, and other things that go stealth in the night can be found in
    any one of a number of back issues of "Aviation Week and Space Technolo-
    gy."

    Cheers y'all.


					    --- das


    INSERT USUAL DISCLAIMER HERE.....