undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmsandford11y ago0 comments

You've just fallen prey to a logical fallacy.

Just because SOME radars cannot detect stealth aircraft it does not immediately follow that NO radars can detect stealth aircraft.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/commentary-do-russian-radar-...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_aircraft#Limitations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bistatic_radar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_radar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multistatic_radar

Provided that you're willing to invest a minute or so (I spent 5 min finding links) you can discover that in fact he does know what he's talking about. This is established science and not at all contentious.

0 comments

vacri11y ago

What is the logical fallacy in saying "stealth has been credited with protecting aircraft over Iraq, so it's not a scam"? The OP did not say that stealth made an aircraft invisible to radar, just that it 'helped avoid Iraqi radar'. Creating a straw man out of the OP's argument doesn't turn the original words into a logical fallacy.

dmpk2k11y ago

It's not a logical fallacy, but the F117A is a poor argument for stealth.

Military weapon systems are a war unto themselves: each side learning about the other's and creating new systems to remove those advantages. Basically, once the F117A became common knowledge, it was only a matter of years before modern radar systems were developed that mitigated that advantage.

I have little doubt that Russia put a lot of effort into making the S400 effective against stealth aircraft. Having a low radar profile still helps, but we won't see the advantage the F117A had over Baghdad.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse