Archives

Recent Assets

  • 8083138382_e07f5345af_ov2.jpg
  • hermes 450 560.jpg
  • AIM_120.jpg
  • ZM136.jpg
  • GR4 560.jpg
  • Hurry 560.jpg
  • fotoLo154.jpg
  • T-XdraftKPPs.jpg
  • 090304-F-3352w-044.jpg
  • vulcan 560.jpg

Week-ahead open thread: Radar versus stealth, round 2?


The Mitchell Institute, an Air Force Association-funded think-tank, will release on Thursday a new paper called "Radar Game and the Value of Stealth", by Rebecca Grant. It comes 12 years after Grant first published a paper called simply "The Radar Game", which defended the US Air Force's long insistence on a mostly- (if not all-) stealth fleet of fighters and bombers. It will be interesting to see if any of the advances in bi-static radar or integrated air defenses have altered Grant's conclusions over the last 12 years. Stealth technology also has come a long way since Have Blue, which combined a forgotten Soviet mathematician's formulas with Skunk Works engineer Denys Overholser's vision for aircraft surfaces that bounce signals away from a radar receiver. As the USAF plots the strategy for developing a new penetrating bomber, balancing the need for survivability with the cost of stealth technology will be a key issue. 

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Week-ahead open thread: Radar versus stealth, round 2?.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.flightglobal.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/173141