[Skybird]

The article I linked said itself in the seocnd half that passive radar cannot work in every region of the world. It is not the death of stealth, but it reduces the value of the technology when considering the immense financial costs for it, and the limitations it means for the carrying capacity of the airframe.

The Russians claim since quite some years to have radar that can track American stealth planes. I must conclude that the germans were not the only ones going after passive radar. And considering that the Russians seem to have started first, and considering their traditional expertise in super-capable radar technology, I would not be surprised if learning that their own plassive radar is even more potent than the German version of today. I do not take this Russian lead as granted - but I would not be surprised if it were fact.

It has lead the Spaniards, French and Germans to re-evaluate the value of stealthed fighter airplanes. In Russia, stealth fighters also does not seem to be a top priority thing, althoughn they go for it in one branch of their airplane development. But that may be more a propaganda battle, to show that what the Americans can do, Russia can do as well. Or they want to understand the American planes and theior radar characteristics better by "re-engineering" them. And the Chinense may follow the same track for similiar reasons. Anyhow, the europeans have decided that stealthed airplanes like the F-22 and F-35 are not worth this lots of money, and thus plan to spend the money on other features of their new design.

Its not bad or wrong to have a low radar reflection from your planes, or to use stealth. Every modern plane uses stealth, juzst not to such degrees like the B2, F-22, F-35. The Eurofighter is quite some stealthy as well, produces a much smaller radar blip than a plane of its size usually does. Flight manouvers chosen by pilots can be more or less dstealths. Plane states and loadouts cna be kmroe or less stealthy. Mission profiles can be mroe or less steralthy. Stzealth is always a facor. The designs like the Us planes are just one specialised aspect of a complex, bigger matter. But the calculation must include what it costs - and the combat value you get in return. And I think the Americans are overestimating that. Last but not least to make the F-35 an export hit.

I am no fan of this low quantity-high-quality approach. Every boxer knows that it is not exclusively about how heavy you can deliver blows, but whether or not you can get up again if receiving blows. The Western militaries have almost no reserves, and that is one of their biggest weaknesses. They are extremely short on breath. I do not like this over-optimistic trust in super-expensive super-dooper-high-tech. I see the immense vulnerability of depending on it, and from a military POV, this is a major concern.



Its not as if potential enemies would not notice the immense dependency of US forces on such high tech networks.


Some of the claims of your srtticle are misled. The author for exmaple kmsised that the Germans said that the trenapsonders on wer enot used to findiong and tracking, but thnat the tracking was demonstrated beside the trbaspoinder signlas. Or that the installed additional reflectors that made the F35 intentionally visible for traffic radar, plays no role for the way passiv radar works, that they would have gotten similiar results without these attached reflectors. The original article explains it a bit, and better than I do here.