Talk:Stealth aircraft

message: "An F-117 was also detected by a British ship during the first Gulf War, in this case because the wavelength of the radar was twice the length of the aircraft. This caused the entire aircraft to act as a dipole, leading to a very strong radar return"
Hello derrick
The F-117 is over 20m long, so was the radar transmitter 40m wide? Seems unlikely! Guinnog 20:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still an error.  This would make it an HF radar which UK ships don't carry.  All of this is pure speculation and unless it can be substantiated with some reasonable evidence beyond hearsay has no place in an encyclopedia. Paul (talk) 09:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Error

message: It seems to me that there has been an effort by some editors to elongate the list. Honestly, US is the only stealth aircraft producing country currently.
It's unnecessary to put aircrafts that "kinda" look stealthy. Some of them aren't stealthy at all.
(Wikimachine 04:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you would actually read the articles associated with each of the aircrafts (sic) you deleted, you would see that there is rationale to their inclusion in the list that extends beyond "kinda" look stealthy. I'm fixing the list to the way it was. Give Peace A Chance 05:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on List of Stealth aircrafts

message: We must differentiate between the few "full" stealth aircraft like the F-117 and B2 and the many limited radar signature (reduced RCS) planes like F-22, JSF, MiG 1-44 or Rafale. Because of the great cost and awkwardness of operation with true full stealth, the future of manned combat planes is with reduced RCS. Unmanned planes are more likely to become full stealth however, as the lack of a cockpit and canopy simplifies stealth design and their lower manouverability and lack of onboard brain means complete non-detection is more desirable. In a manned plane you can count on the pilot to do impressive aerobatics if needed, to save his/her own precious rear from a SAM. So full stealth is less desirable there, they choose supercruise instead.
So I split the manned list into full stealth and reduced RCS paragraphs and also added the Rafale, which is low RCS (and quite beautiful, as you would expect from a chic french airplane).
The swedes claim JAS-39 Gripen is low radar observability, which is laughable if you look at its boxy air intakes, so I did not include that. 195.70.32.136 18:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A lot of what press calls stealth is simply reduced RCS 

message: What's full stealth? Give a citation for it, or it's getting deleted. This article is a horrible accumulation of original research and speculation. Not suprising given the secret nature of it, but still, this is fairly bad. --Mmx1 22:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this article is the way it is because the people that know, don't tell. And the people that write, don't know jack shit. I fall into the "I have better things to do than speculate on highly classified info" camp; but it's sort of amusing to watch. --Mmx1 01:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I have tagged this article for expert review. Besides lack of source citations, it has undefined categories, technical errors, and seems to portray a negative POV on the subject. As it stands, I don't see any reason to have such an article as this; it could be more tidily handled in the Stealth technology article. --Askari Mark | Talk 04:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I will help if I have time. I by no means expert, rather technical enthusiasts. Because, it may take a long time before I start, I provide some good paper : , , . In these paper, explanations are quite good. Try to see them. Draconins 12:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full Stop - Define "Full Stealth" 

message: I've tagged this more accurately. Not only does it read like a school essay, it also contains enough bullet points that Jimbo may start having to ration them. Paragraphs, people. Sourced, verified paragraphs. Chris Cunningham 00:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea. I've just removed it though as it didn't seem to fit anywhere in the article (which I agree is of poor quality). --Nick Dowling 06:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup work 

message: Where the hell do we get 'plasma screens' on russian aricraft? Is there a basis for this ( apart form watching too much Star Trek )? 145.253.108.22 14:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is theoretically possible to create a "plasma bubble" around an object that traps incoming radio waves, thus getting the RCS of zero. Two problems with this idea are too big to be currently feasible. First, it's really hard to maintain the plasma around an object and aircraft's small size makes it difficult to carry all necessary equipments. Second, any object surrounded by plasma literally "shines" to someone watching it. It's almost like wearing black clothes to hide in the dark and then carrying a lantern around to find the way.--Revth 09:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Trek

message: User:69.88.253.62 added this in-page on 19:14, 7 March 2007:
[I don't have enough time to incorporate this fact in, but the F-117 is able to carry AIM-9's. Someone with more time should be able to fix this.]
Chris Cunningham 20:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  From a page comment 

message: The list of full stealh manned vehicles does no include the B-2.  I assume this was just an oversight.  Rugz 19:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also no mention of British Aerospace's 'Grove'. Perhaps it has morphed into something else since then. 160.84.253.241 06:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  missing? 

message: Theoretically the AIM9 could be used for defense, but the F117 would be toast when the wingman (or wingmen) of whatever was being shot at would see the trail of the missile, likely the aircraft, and have a nice clear radar return from the open weapons bay. The F117 at the same time can't hit afterburners to get out of dodge, and some opposing aircraft could likely do barrel rolls around an F117 attempting a max angle of attack turn. Aki Korhonen 03:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mark Askari, I recommend you check your sources on the use of these missiles. It's not worth it for me to keep correcting you. But I recommend you read my comments on my personal page on the responsibilities of those who cut content other than vandalism.Aki Korhonen 03:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  By the way, I never intended the wording to be such that it could be interpreted to include use of Sidewinders on a ground target. Aki Korhonen 03:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. However I was under the impression that Mark Askari's objections were not based on lack of references but on his view that the Sidewinders are for self defence. There are several references to the Sidewinders and their application purposes that are available via standard internet searches.Aki Korhonen 15:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake on the GA; that was a suggestion elsewhere by someone else. Operationally, F-117s are escorted by fighters, so the purpose of having such missiles on it is purely for self-defense against "leakers" based on the principle that some means of defense is better than none at all. As for using it against AEW&C aircraft or such, those too are protected by fighters, and an aircraft not designed for air-to-air combat would be too vulnerable against them to risk. I should clarify that the USAF has indicated that Sidewinders can be carried internally, but other sources report that they can also be carried on wing pylons (and some of these sources say they cannot be carried internally). External carriage would seem unlikely since it would have a negative impact on its stealth qualities. Enemy ground-based air defenses and air force would have to be seriously weakened, but fighters not completely suppressed, and there would need to be a scarcity of friendly fighters available. In such a rare situation, their carriage would make some sense. I doubt that the carriage of AAM was thought through more than a vague desire for some form of self-defense capability that wouldn't need a more sophisticated and expensive radar with the necessary AI modes. It's pretty much the same reason guns are still installed in fighters, even though the odds that two modern, high-speed jets would be dogfighting in such close range is extremely low. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sidewinders on the F-117 

message: I would like to remove this entire section. It really is meaningless. What is the threshold for inclusion in this list?? I would also like to thin out the full stealth list. Some of those entries are pretty suspect. Any objections/comments???--Downtrip (talk) 05:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. It refers to designs –while not fully stealth– that resulted in a reduced RCS, which is after all the aim of stealth designs. — Deon Steyn (talk) 08:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The entire section is sourced from the same article, an article that does not match any other sources when describing the RCS of several airframes.  If the section is going to remain then it will need more sources, otherwise it needs to be deleted. -Nem1yan (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Reduced RCS Design Section 

message: Can we please discuss changes made by the editor User:Downtrip, because the situation is teetering on an edit war. I don't agree with two paragraphs added by this user. The first centre on the intro to which has added a blurb on the F22 when the F22 is but one example of stealth aircraft and not even a very good one at that (it's a compromise). If an example HAS to be cited an F117 would be more appropriate. Can we rather keep the section as it was?
My second concern is with the capabilities claimed following directly on the new example of the F22.
There is no citation provided for this dubious statement. I don't see how anyone can make claims pertaining to the capabilities of the most powerful and sophisticated radars. These capabilities would be highly classified and vary between many companies and nations. Without citation this section had to be changed. — Deon Steyn (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "The world's most powerful radars can't adequately track stealth aircraft" is something quite different. — Deon Steyn (talk) 06:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To add to that, this very page mentions several common technologies (e.g. bi/multi- static radars) and an actual current radar system, the SMART-L which claims to be able to effectively track stealth aircraft. Your citation doesn't back up this claim and the SMAR-L in fact contradicts is completely. I have refined it to qualify the radars in you paragraph to be conventional radars. – Deon Steyn (talk) 06:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Downtrip changes 

message: This section discusses the role of passive radar against stealth designs and the use of TV and FM radio frequencies in particular.  People keep changing the section to state that the use of these frequencies causes resonance.  This is not true.  TV signals typically have a wavelength of a few centimetres and FM has a wavelength of about 3m.  An aircraft which is 20 or 30m in length will not have significant resonance.  Far more relevant is the fact that it is difficult to make light-weight radar absorbent paints and materials at these frequencies, where designs typically rely on coatings being a quarter wavelength thick, or need ferrite, etc.  A small cruise missile could plausibly resonant at FM frequencies, but not the type of aircraft being discussed here.  Resonance is more likely at HF, where the major structures on the aircraft could be half a wavelength or so in size.  Although remember, resonance can work against you as well as for you... Paul (talk) 06:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on "Reflected Waves" Section 

message: There no longer is any practical compromise in stealth designs when it comes to performance. Should you wish to include a statement to the contrary it should be backed up with a source. Your opinion is not enough. The B-2 can fly 12000 miles and drop 80 SDBs. Two of them can wreck an airforce, sink a battle fleet or decimate a mechanized division in a single mission. The F-22 can be used to take out enemy air defenses or attain air supremacy. They perform two totally different missions and they have different capabilities due to the missions they perform. The level of stealth in relation to th B-2 and F-22 is irrelevant to the missions they perform. They are both said to be stealthy enough. The USAF did state 2 years ago that the B-2 had a much greater level of stealth than an F-117, in fact twice as good. The F-35 is even stealthier then the B-2. In fact the F-22 is stealthier still.--Downtrip (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments to Deon 

message: It would be interesting to have the generations of stealth mentioned.  1st gen = SR71, 2nd is F117, 3rd is B2, 4th os F22.  http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=597 AThousandYoung (talk) 11:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Generations

message: It seems like there is a large amount of vandalism occurring on this page. Would it be worth requesting a protect?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.97.44 (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: Any reason the JAS 39 is not in the RCS section?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.195.240 (talk) 05:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gripen 

message: The article as it currently stands asserts in two places that this late-WW2 German experimental plane had 'stealth' characteristics. As far as I'm aware, 'looking a bit like a B-19' is not a stealth characteristic as such; does anyone have anything to back these claims up, or should they just be removed? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Flying wings are inherently stealthier designs than typical constructions, but I'd be in favor of just removing them if there isn't any indication that it was an intentional factor in the design or had some operational effect.  SDY (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Unless a source can be found that indicates that German designers used shapes and materials in a deliberate attempt to decrease radar detection, the mention of this aircraft should garner no more than a passing mention in this article. From nearly all historic reports, the flying wing design was selected for its drag considerations. Also, as it currently stands, the section discussing this topic reads like a lift straight from the Horten Ho 229 article. I am calling for editors of this article to attempt to reach consensus on this issue. ViperNerd (talk) 02:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Evidence that the Horton Brothers used special carbon containing glues in the construction of the Ho-229 specifically to reduce its radar signature has already been referenced and cited. Please read the article before you challange it. - Ken keisel (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but one single line from a reference that cannot be easily checked by other editors does not prove a deliberate effort at designing this aircraft for stealth characteristics. Three editors here have expressed concerns with this claim and you haven't offered anything concrete that overrides the need to seek consensus. ViperNerd (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I wrote a letter to a curator at the facility inquiring about the rumored stealth properties of the Ho 229 aircraft and received a detailed response: "I have examined the aircraft and many primary and secondary sources of information about the Hortens' work, and I have found no reliable evidence to confirm this idea. Reimar Horten described these low RCS [radar cross section] techniques during the early 1980s as news reports began to appear that described the stealth qualities of the Northrop B-2 bomber. I have examined the Ho 229 V3 numerous times and found no evidence of a "mixture of charcoal and glue" applied to the skin that would lower the RCS. I believe Horten 'invented' the notion of the stealthy Ho 229 to draw attention to other interesting and innovative aspects of his work."
The observations of someone in such a position at a prestigious museum institution who has examined both the remains of the aircraft in question and "many primary and secondary sources" detailing the history of its design and construction would seem to carry more weight than the interview of the designer decades after the fact by a single author who might be trying to add some attention-grabbing material to pump up his latest book (and confirm his theories). It certainly appears that the issue is far from being an open and shut case, and hard facts are clearly difficult to come by on this particular subject. At any rate, speculation does not belong in an encyclopedic article. ViperNerd (talk) 10:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

text: The Smithsonian Institute article on 'is it stealth?' is worth a read. https://airandspace.si.edu/collections/horten-ho-229-v3/about/is-it-stealth.cfm So far as the Northrop model goes, it was all wood, unlike the original, and I vaguely remember that radio aerials and radar dishes are made of metal, not wood. One wonders if the material of the underlying frame is important. Greglocock (talk) 07:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  The material is important. Stealth fighter canopies are coated with a conductive material to prevent radar reflections from the cockpit, including the pilot. Plywood over steel would've been as non-stealthy as the underlying steel framework. In stealth design, the skin has to be radar-reflective with a shape that avoids reflections in the radar's direction (which is difficult to calculate, hence the F-117's facets), then an absorbent coat over it, rather than radar-transparent. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 12:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Horten Ho 229]] 

message: How long was this technology in development or available for military deployment before it was revealed to the public? -- Beland (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Ok, this little edit war was not helpful.  Both of you are on notice that WP:EDITWAR policy will be applied evenly and swiftly if the edit warring returns in 73 hours or beyond.
Discuss things here, don't push the article contents back and forth.  Please assume good faith about each other's intentions.  Thank you.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no edit warring here on my part, merely an attempt to have editors involved with this article reach consensus on a point of dispute. Clearly one editor in particular seems unwilling to allow that process to take place and is contentiously removing tags that are only placed in an attempt to invite others to help improve an article that desperately needs it. Please don't lump me in with that type of disruptive behavior. Thanks. ViperNerd (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There certainly is an edit war going on, as ViperNerd continues to contest information that is properly referenced and contains inline citations. ViperNerd continues to be the only one here who is contesting this information, and that does not warrant a "contested" tag. If he has evidence demonstrating that the referenced information is incorrect he may present it. To date he has provide no such evidence, only the hope that someone else will agree with him. That is insufficient to warrant a "contested" information tag. - Ken keisel (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit warring is now only being waged by User:Ken keisel, as there has been yet another unilateral revert of the article by this editor without any further discussion or consensus seeking. Three editors have expressed concerns (two sections above) with certain material in this article and this contentious editor has offered no source that can be checked to allow consensus to be reached on the issue. I have not reverted the most recent warring as I am attempting to follow Wikipedia guidelines and the warning issued by the admin on this matter. I'd like the admin involved to please give this due attention. Thank you. ViperNerd (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion was posted directly above your claim that there was no discussion! The cited source is clearly referenced per wikipedia standards and you offer no references that challange it, only personal opinion. Until you provide supporting evidence against the cited information your "consensus tag" is inappropriate for this article. - Ken keisel (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, discussion isn't over (actually it can't really begin as long as you continue to vandalize the article and remove a tag which is inviting editors to take part) and consensus isn't reached just because YOU say so. Just curious, but why is it that you don't want people to have a chance to discuss a disputed part of the article? Why are you taking this so personally? Tags are not a reflection on you or your edits, they are a way to help improve articles, especially where debatable material is concerned. For some reason you seem to have an agenda to keep that from happening in this case. The single reference which you seem to feel is so unassailable was written by an author who doesn't have the greatest track record for accuracy from what I've been able to uncover on the web, and his article is apparently only available in a journal or magazine that you give the date on as July 2009. Not the easiest thing for other editors to verify. So you need to sit back, relax, and allow the process to run its course. Stop taking article tagging personally, it's not aimed at you, as you don't own these articles or the edits once you've clicked the "Save page" button. Also, I'll let you know here that I won't be taking part in your little mediation game, because I've done nothing wrong that would require third-party intervention. You are the one who seems determined not to let Wikipedia procedure run its course, and I suggest you back off before an administrator takes notice of your actions. Other editors' feedback on this issue and the contentious material under discussion two sections above would be greatly appreciated. ViperNerd (talk) 05:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  3 day time out (article is full protected for 72 hrs) 

message: I added the PAK DA (note* not the PAK-FA) in the list, but I'm unsure whether it is meant to have full stealth or just reduced RCS. Anyone have any ideas on where to put this entry? 72.229.156.157 (talk) 09:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  PAK-DA classification in article? 

message: http://defence-data.com/features/fpage37.htm is unavailable, but it's on the Wayback Machine at http://web.archive.org/web/20071116065249/http://defence-data.com/features/fpage37.htm - can someone more skilled with the ref syntax please have a look at this? (The footnote looks a little ugly in its current form, too, which would be worth fixing if someone has the time.) Same issue as in Talk:Jindalee_Operational_Radar_Network. Thanks! Rosuav (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for citation update 

message: the AMCA (advanced medium combat aircraft) is a fully stealth manned 5th gen fighter jet and is not the on list it should be added ASAP  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buklaodord (talk • contribs) 10:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  1 fully stealth aircraft missing AMCA  

message: Are these designs different, or is it the same thing? We need more reliable info, preferably something not in Chinese. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: J-XX is the overall program to develop several stealth fighter designs.  The J-20 is simply one prototype that is several steps and around two decades from becoming an actual operational stealth aircraft. Hcobb (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  JXX vs J20 

message: Considering that fact that most, if not all, recent and future aircraft are designed to have smaller RCS from at least the frontal aspect it is becoming somewhat pointless to list them all here.  The listed aircraft should contribute to this article as prime examples, that being said I believe that the following aircraft should be removed unless an argument is presented showing how listing actually contributes to an article on stealth aircraft.
#Chengdu J-10B
#F/A-18 Hornet C/D
#Mitsubishi F-2
#Messerschmitt Me 163B
#HAL Tejas
#Novi Avion  -Nem1yan (talk) 03:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  RCS Designs 

message: An image used in this article, , has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons by Mmxx for the following reason: No permission since 28 April 2011
;What should I do?
You can remove the code for this image from the article text (which can look messy), however a different bot may already have done so. You could also try to search for new images to replace the one deleted. If you think the deletion was in error please raise the issue at Commons.
This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:F-35 Lightning II in flight.jpg Deleted

message: "The techniques of achieving low maneuverability, or stealth as it's popularly known, are fairly well understood."
:Is AFP a RS or not? This one news story got pasted up to dozens of sites as usual. Hcobb (talk) 02:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Low "maneuverability", does it not mean "observability"? - Heaney555z (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great quote for this article 

message: "Testing performed in early 2009 by the Northrop-Grumman Corporation established that this compound, along with the aircraft's shape, would have rendered the Ho 229 virtually invisible to Britain's Chain Home early warning radar, provided the aircraft was traveling at high speed (approximately 550 mph (890 km/h)) at extremely low altitude (50–100 feet)."
This entire statement is worthy only of ridicule.
Chain Home was a long-wave radar able to detect only large reflections. This was aided by the fact that the aircraft it faced had propellers, as nothing returns radar like a prop disk. But more to the point, CH was able to detect targets only if they were significantly above the horizon - thousands of feet typically. In fact, the Chain Home Low that was introduced to fill this gap was only able to cover down to about 500 ft. So the fact that the Ho 229 would be "virtually invisible" to CH at "50–100 feet" is an entirely moronic statement - CH couldn't detect any aircraft at 50–100 feet. I'm surprised they didn't add the requirement for the CH units to be turned off and pointed in the wrong direction!
I don't understand why this issue with the Ho 229 keeps coming up. The Shepelev/Ottens book talks about all of this in depth and explores the source of the myth. The Horton's designed the layout before the introduction of radar, yet the claim continues to be made that it was some sort of stealth effort, normally with the weasel-words as found in this article about "maybe". The "carbon impregnated plywood" is a fabrication (in more ways than one), a confusion with a filler material that was chosen because it was cheap and light.
Simply put, there is zero evidence that the Horton's put one iota of effort into stealthiness, and lots and lots of evidence, including direct statements by them, that it did not include any such design. Is there any reason this section should not be re-written, or removed entirely?
Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uggg. 

message: *Ridiculous- better to merge X-47C with Northrop Grumman X-47A Pegasus, I shall remove the tag.Petebutt (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing really to merge anyway. Northrop Grumman X-47B is also a goo article to redirect X-47C to. - BilCat (talk) 23:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed merge of X-47C 

message: Is the IRST (infrared tracking)not becoming the achilles heels of the stealth fighter ?
http://www.fas.org/spp/aircraft/part06.htm  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.173.93 (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No. IRST is blocked by all sorts of entirely common meteorological events. Additionally, the energy it detects is in reference to the background, so the energy you detect is (small IR signature from skin friction) - (natural background from the sky). In comparison, in the case of radar the equivalent is (power of my enormous broadcast system) - (zero). As a result, in order to detect something on IR you have to crank the amplification, which generally works inversely with range. So IR is fine for close-in detection, but of decreasing use with range. Additionally, it's not entirely hard to spread out the IR signature to make it stealthy here too. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Achilles heels 

message: When F117 is downed, 13 pieces of passive radio locator "Tamara" (probably modified a used by Yogoslav (Serbian) Army.Probably they use TV transmitters and Celular telephony transmitters for "illumination" of targets.maybe it is reson why NATO attacked all TV and rdaio transmitters.Where are Tamara-s now, it is question.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.250.88.238 (talk) 09:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  F117 downing 1999 

message: The Stealth article includes a bald assertion that fighters need afterburners. Perhaps, but only to get to where the combat is in a hurry - or get away from it - at a vast cost in fuel. 
According to most authorities in print (far too many to cite) despite increasing aircraft speeds real-life air an individual aircraft's speed in an engagement (dogfight) rarely if ever rises above mach 1 due to multiple factors but principally loss of momentum due to aggressive manoeuvres intended to bring weapons to bear/lose weapons lock by an opponent. 
These days non-afterburning engines - developed for fuel economy/long range/long loiter characteristics - are discussed primarily in connection to new-in-service USAAF fighters such as the F22 Raptor but so-called 'supercruise' engines have been around - and in use in military aircraft - since the early 1950s.
(See Wikipedia articles: Supercruise; English Electric Lightning mach 2 interceptor; BAC TSR-2 tactical strike/reconnaisance aircraft... and the Concorde airliner, which used the engines developed for TSR-2.)
109.147.156.90 (talk) 08:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afterburners a prerequisite for air combat  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Stealth aircraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100726201020/http://defence-data.com:80/features/fpage37.htm to http://defence-data.com/features/fpage37.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090920034508/http://www.ndu.edu:80/inss/Press/jfq_pages/editions/i55/22.pdf to http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/editions/i55/22.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090219002653/http://www.rheinmetall-detec.de:80/index.php?lang=3&fid=3311 to http://www.rheinmetall-detec.de/index.php?lang=3&fid=3311
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Stealth aircraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110607163815/http://www.janes.com/news/defence/air/jdw/jdw10040_1_n.shtml to http://www.janes.com/news/defence/air/jdw/jdw10040_1_n.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The work of the Horton brothers had absolutely no influence on the Northrop flying wing designs. In fact the opposite was true to the extent that the Horton brothers used the success of the N-1M to strengthen support for their efforts. This is not to disparage the Horton brothers, it was just that they were doing their thing and Northrop was doing his with no influence either way. Jack Northrop refused to hire them after the war disparaging them as mere "glider designers."
Mark Lincoln (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Horton Brothers and Northrop Flying Wings Including the B-2A 

message: There is no credible evidence the Ho 229 was designed to have stealth capabilities. There is no mention of any carbon impregnated glue before 1983 when the claim was first made following discussions of stealth technology in the US press.
In a magazine article "Ala volante Caza 'Horten IX',  (Flying Wing Fighter "Horten IX") " published by Revista Nacional de Aeronautica,  (now: Aeroespacio, Revista Nacional Aeronautica y Espacial)," May  1950 issue, pages 19-20; Buenos Aires, Argentina, Doctor Reimar Horten did make note of the poor radar reflection of wood construction but made no claim that the aircraft was configured to affect radar cross section. Nor was any mention made that any special radar absorbing glue was used. The Ho 229 V3 does not have any radar absorbing glue. Nor does any aspect of it's design aside from the incidental use of wood evidence any consideration of lowering the radar cross section of the aircraft.
The publicity model made by Northrop in no way represented the Ho 229 V3 beyond basic shape and even then it did not have the wing panel joints and fasteners of the actual aircraft. Nor did it model the actual construction of the real airplane in any detail. The airplane had a center section composed of of welded steel tubing creating many corner reflectors and the wings contained numerous aluminum fuel tanks. The landing gear was metal. The Ho 229 made no attempt to conceal the engine compressor and turbines which would have clearly been detectable by the centimetric radars common in late WW II. In the bomber role the bombs were to be externally stored - not stealthy. There was no stealth treatment for joints, controls, doors, or canopy. If it had a low RCS to VHF radar it was entirely coincidental. Even the use of wood was accidental as original plans to use metal were abandoned for the more available wood after Reinmar learned the high speed Me-163 had wood wings.
In his 1950 article, 33 years before he claimed stealth glue would be used, Reinmar Horton made no such claim alluding merely to low radar reflection as one of the advantages he saw in wood construction: "Today the pilot has the  assurance of recognizing, even at night, an airplane flying many kilometers far, by means of the radar. In the past, planes were  covered with camouflage paintings, and with the advent of radar, the  already considered antique wood constructions, turned into something  modern again. As reflection of electric waves on metallic surfaces is  good, such is the image on the radar screen; on the contrary, on wood surfaces, that reflection is little, these resulting barely visible on the radar.  A fighter must use the surprise factor, especially at night; to do  that, the plane must be built in wood, not only for the above  mentioned circumstance, but also because the wood surface resistance  to impacts is not necessary inferior to that of metallic surfaces, as  was shown by tests. Also, those resistances are regarded of secondary  importance, because with modern big gage guns, an impact means  practically a total loss. "
Given that there is no evidence of any treatment in terms of aircraft shape, design detail, or construction aside from the incidental (and not uncommon at that late stage of the war) substitution of wood for metal. And that no claim of any "stealth" treatment was made until almost four decades after the airplane was designed; it is not correct to consider the Ho. 299 a "stealth design."  The absence of any evidence of radar absorbing materials or other attempts to reduce the radar cross section of the production prototype Ho 299 V3 seems conclusive.
Mark Lincoln (talk) 12:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Evidence the Ho 229 was a "Stealth" design. 

message: Is "increasing the odds of an aircraft" means increasing aircraft's design's strangeness? At Last ... (talk) 09:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The phrase has to be read as part of the whole clause: "increasing the odds of an aircraft successfully avoiding detection". It means giving it a better chance to successfully avoid detection "by enemy radar and/or avoiding being successfully targeted by radar guided weapons." Perhaps it can be rephrased, but it's normal figurative English. "Odds" is a colloquial gambling expression that is commonly used in other areas in English. - BilCat (talk) 10:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "odd" question 

message: I have a source on the web that contradicts this sentence. It reads "...Because of the unique flying characteristics of the flying wing configuration, Irv Waaland and his team of [B-2] engineers extensively interviewed the engineers from the YB-49 like William Sears and Irv Ashkenas as well as the chief test pilot in those days, Max Stanley (he had flown the XB-35, the prop-driven antecedent of the YB-49, on its maiden flight). In fact, Max Stanley was cleared for the B-2 program which was one of the most classified programs at the time. He often flew the flight control simulator and provided input to the [B-2] design team which saved them extensive time and effort."
Furthermore, here is a source indicating that the reduced RCS of the YB-49 was noted during its flight test program (fifth paragraph second sentence)
Seems to me that there were connections between the YB-49 and B-2 programs.Wikkileaker (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section WWI/WW2 last sentence: "...but there was no connection between the design of...Northrop's previous flying wings & that of the B-2A" 

message: Could the all-black paint schemes of historical aircraft intended for night operation, Such as the P-61 Black Widow, be considered a form of Stealth? Such night-fighters often also had things like exhaust shrouds to hide engine flames.
It makes sense to me to define "stealth" as any measure intended to reduce visibility when in operational use, and to define "camoflague" as a measure to hide the aircraft when it's not in operational use, ie on the ground. Or does "stealth" only refer to radar-defeating measures? There is a gray area here. Are there any other thoughts on this matter? Catsmeat (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stealth vs. Camoflague 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Stealth aircraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120721180750/http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=82 to http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=82
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150408233322/https://fas.org/man/gao/nsiad97181.htm to https://fas.org/man/gao/nsiad97181.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Stealth aircraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110211054913/http://www.aerosocietychannel.com/aerospace-insight/2011/01/not-so-hidden-dragon-j-20-assessed/ to http://www.aerosocietychannel.com/aerospace-insight/2011/01/not-so-hidden-dragon-j-20-assessed/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100328043325/http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=156493 to http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=156493
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Yehudi lights (for visual invisibility at long ranges) should be added.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.25.39.46 (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yehudi lights 

message: While it certainly might work technically I don't think wiki should be including stuff that seems a bit unlikely to be worth using in practice. The NASA work used the sun as a light source, so  your stealth detector would only work as the aircraft flew across the sun. The sun covers 1 part in 90000 of the sky, so 89999 out of 90000 times you won't spot the plane. Not exactly world shattering odds. And to also point out the bleeding obvious, the shadow of the plane is far more obvious than the schlieren waves. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ground-based-schlieren-technique-looks-to-the-sun-and-moon I think we can delete the entire section with no loss to wiki's integrity. Greglocock (talk) 07:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schlieren 

message: A wooden replica of the Horten was tested, to some extent, for radar cross section. It did not have the underlying metal frame, and it did not have engines. Metal reflects radar much better than wood. Any claim that the Horten definitely had a reduced RCS cannot rely on a test of a wooden mockup. Greglocock (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horten again - slow speed edit war with Robin 

message: As we know the Northrop experiment with the full sized 229 model proves little, and the Smithsonian Institute didn't find any RAM on the 229 prototype. What does Myhra actually claim in his book? Greglocock (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horten XVIII - what does Myhra actually say? 

message: There's a lot of entries in the list which have comments like 'composite materials' or 'swoopy shape' and so on. Unless you can provide an RS for a particular feature on a particular aircraft being there for stealth then I think the feature should not be mentioned, and if it is the only justification for the a/c being on the list it should be deleted. Otherwise it is WP:SYNTH. Greglocock (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The dreadful list [[WP:SYNTH]] 

message: Someone added the Kamov Ka-58 in the list of stealth aircraft in development. It is indeed correct that Kamov is currently developing a new high-speed stealthy helicopter (see Stealth helicopter), but I cannot find anywhere that its name would be Ka-58, I think the designation is still unkown because the development is still very early (I don't think we will see a prototype fly soon at all). Therefore I think we should change the name to High Speed Kamov, or Stealth Kamov, or unnamed Kamov. What do you think? Robin Amnesty Thailand (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kamov Ka-58?? 

message: Can we also mention the YB-35 & YB-49 in sections on early stealth aircraft/part stealth aircraft 12.13.17.154 (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The enormous spinning radar reflectors on the YB 35 would make it very non stealthy. Greglocock (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It was noted to have a smaller radar cross section. People claim this for the Ho229 as well. Why include the Ho229 and not the YB-35. 12.13.17.154 (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  removed as its design purpose was not stealth - FOX 52 talk! 21:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  YB-35 & YB-49 

message: A box thing about the Linke-Hofmann R.I is showing an image of the X-47B, instead of an image of the Linke-Hofmann R.I. The same image of the X-47B is properly used in a correct context further down. AntonOresten (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , good catch . That problem was introduced recently during a cleanup of the article. --McSly (talk) 22:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong image of the Linke-Hofmann R.I 

message: The Aircraft Wikiproject, WP:AIR has long held a consensus that sortable tables are a good thing, as not every reader's desired details or ordering can be anticipated. This applies where each list entry contains multiple factoids such as type, nationality, class, etc. The list here does, so I updated it accordingly. This has been reverted by  ont hew grounds that it confuses them. Should we conform to established project consensus, to one confused editor's preference, or build a local consensus here? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's back to the sortable version. --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 14:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think in this case sortable tables is the wrong application, the list is now more cumbersome to view (even worse on a smartphone) - It would be best to let the Wikilinks to their job, and save the reader from having to scroll left, right, up, down, push arrows...etc - FOX 52 talk! 22:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Generic issues over sortable tables are not specific to stealth aircraft. If you genuinely think that "in this case", i.e. stealth aircraft, the optimal list format differs from other classes of aircraft, then please explain why. You might find it useful to click around :Category:Lists of aircraft in general format. You can find some more aircraft articles using other standardised list formats via :Category:Aviation maintenance categories. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 02:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  List format 

message: This article is about Stealth aircraft, their design, limitations...etc. so I feel that we should only list a few examples - and personally I only find sortable(s) useful on large number items (country populations, monetary events, world currencies) - FOX 52 talk!
:We are doing the usual thing here; we want a full list somewhere, so we start by growing it in the main article. Once it gets so long it makes the article unwieldly, then we fork it off to its own page. Some lists never get that long. I do not think this list has reached that point yet, but I am prepared to be overruled by any local consensus that might be established here.— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: List length

message: The loyal wingman, known as the collaborative combat aircraft or CCA in the US, is a new clas of drone being developed in various countries. They are by definition stealthy, so should be included here. In the list of stealth types, I have started to treat it as a distinct battlefiled role, alongside fighter, bomber, attack, etc. If anubody disagrees with this, please come and discuss it here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loyal wingman role