/k/ - Weapons

>>660899

Depends on what.

On ships for example it's pretty great, as the cost is virtually the same since it make the ships appear "smaller" it could also allows to some of the long range detection systems provided the ship mimic the attitude of a civilian ship.

On planes it's really questionable, especially against modern AA systems that have radars watching multiple bands, comparing and looking for the discrepancies in between each bands.

Stealth on plane is like camo patterns, woodland works if you're hiding in the woods. If you're in the desert, well…

"Stealth" is a jewish make believe invention used to slap cheap metal angled plates covered in black paint on stuff for exorbitant prices so that they may fleece the goyim.

Electronic warfare and ECM are the ways to go.

>>660933

>xD reddit is here hehuje

>>660899

Depends on who you're up against. If your main target is to bully goatherds with AK47s and a single radio between all of them into submission, stealth is highly effective.

If your goal is to be able to beat China, it's not, because there your goal needs to include quick and cheap production for prolonged warfare against an enemy capable of regularly shooting the stealthed targets.

>>660899

The fact that they don't send stealth bombers without non-stealth fighter escort should tell you all about its effectiveness.

All stealth is inherently bad until the Su-57 begins operating regularly, at which point all applications of stealth will be bad except for the specific method Russia uses to reduce the radar signature on the Su-57, which will be genius.

>>660899

>Is stealth technology really worth it?

Well the need for stealth was a conclusion from the yom kippur war; when isreali jets were getting shot down N.A.T.O. realized that if the cold war went hot they would run out of aircraft in about 2 weeks. So stealth technologies were developed to allow the aircraft to live longer. Nowadays, I doubt it's all that useful what with all new tools and different bands of radar that are available. Trying to cover all of it is too hard and costly. You're better off finding a way to spoof a radar than to completely hide a plane.

>>660906

I believe the more important issue is aerodynamic compromises. If you are going to make an aircraft stealthier by replacing metallic parts with viable alternatives and brushing up some RAM-paint over it, it's okay with me, if you intend to radically reshape it and add fuckloads of weight and complexity with internal bays just to accommodate a pair of AMRAAMs then IMO that's retarded. I think planes like B-1B were probably the golden ratio to the concept, since strategic bombers really need every defensive measure against air-defenses they can get, don't really on agility and most importantly are built around internal bays since WW2. The F-22, J-20, YF-23 and Su-57 can pull it quite decently since they are extremely heavy-weight for fighters and therefore can house a decent weapon load internally and a good volume tech complexity. The F-35, J-31, Mitsubishi F-3 concept and the stealth flying roach on the other hand are a blatant attempt to violate physics, especially thermodynamics given F-35's load of fuel-cooled electronics, and unlike the Japs, Lockheeb did not have the common sense to at least try replacing wire with fiber optic before proceeding with the design.

With a miniscule weapon load of two small LGBs and abysmal flying performance the F-117 was more of a technology tester than something that would be used seriously in combat against a peer.

>>661007

Nice meme there, but no. Ruskies made the Su-57 by slapping some angled composite plates and a pair of weapon bays on a slightly lowered Su-27 just to counter-meme the West's claims of MUH INVINCIBLE INVISIBLE PLANE, not because they actually ever claimed usefulness for it, don't forget that the basic stealth-plane shitposter was a Russian defector that was told by the kremlin to fuck-off with his retarded ideas. Even their blatant propaganda efforts are not directed towards claiming their shit is stealthier than the West's because muh magic materials but that it is cheaper and of superior conventional performance.

>>661146

So what you're saying is that all applications of stealth are bad except for the specific method Russia uses to reduce the radar signature on the Su-57, which is genius?

>>661364

I pretty much stated the opposite. That Russia deemphasizes stealth characteristics in order to have a more aerodynamically decent airplane.

>>661364

>you're saying is that all applications of stealth are bad

Reread my first post.

>>661140

It's just above the one you replied to.

>>661049

Don't blame me for moving all your factories into chinkland. You basically gifted them the industrial capacity they need to outdo you.

>>660933

>not just outfitting every plane with IRST

>not watching as filthy legacy dumpster aircraft loaded with modern AAMs courtesy of Putin and his cyberoperators shoah at least 100 F-22s+the entire stock of flightworthy F-35s in the opening acts of WW3

>not watching as US chairforce leadership becomes doctrinally crippled and tries to resurrect german WW2 rocket scientists before the Russo-Chink-Mexican alliance gains air supremacy as far as NORAD HQ