隐身技术对战斗机是否真正有效？
正文翻译
He calls it a Turkey “loaded up with junk that has no relevance to combat” what he is calling junk BTW are big engines and a big radar. He condemns multi-role aircraft by saying “once you design a multi-mission aircraft you are sunk” He needs to read up on the F-16 because clearly he didn’t get the memo - it is and always has been a multi-mission fighter.
他称其为一种“装满了与战斗毫无关系的垃圾”的战机，而他所指的垃圾实际上是指大型引擎和大型雷达。他谴责多用途飞机，并表示“一旦你设计了一种多任务飞机，你就会失败”。他需要阅读关于F-16的资料，因为显然他没有收到备忘录——F-16一直都是一种多任务战斗机。
Those green things are bombs not air to air missiles.
He is also known for cherry-picking data- for example in the 1970’s they pointed to the AIMVAL/ACEVAL (Air Intercept Missile Evaluation)/(Air Combat Evaluation) exercise to condemn the F-15 and F-14. The exercise had a blue team flying F-14s and F-15 up against the Nelis AFB aggressor squadron flying F-5s
那些绿色的东西是炸弹，而不是空对空导弹。
他还因为挑选数据而出名-例如，在20世纪70年代，他们指出AIMVAL/ACEVAL（空中拦截导弹评估）/（空战评估）演习来谴责F-15和F-14。该演习由蓝队驾驶F-14和F-15与内Nelis AFB 基地的侵略队F-5交锋。
The exercises were designed to test short-ranged air to air missiles as well as the performance of the AIM-7F in a dog fight so they required visual identification of a target- due to the F-5’s small size it had an advantage. The kill ratio was 2.5 :1 blue team’s favor. Since the F-5 is a lot cheaper than an F-15 or F-14 Sprey hyped it up as proving the F-5 was better. [1]
Now we have him talking about low -frequency radar he is right low-frequency radar does increase the size of a target’s radar cross-section exponentially however this leads to increased clutter and decreased accuracy low-frequency radars are big and use a lot of power. They can basically give you a rough area to start your search.
这些演习旨在测试短程空对空导弹以及AIM-7F在近距离空战中的性能，因此需要目视识别目标-由于F-5较小的尺寸，它具有优势。击杀比率为2.5：1，有利于蓝队。由于F-5比F-15或F-14便宜得多，斯普雷夸大其词，声称证明了F-5更好。[1]
现在他谈论低频雷达，他是正确的，低频雷达确实会指数级增加目标雷达截面的大小，但这会导致杂波增加和精度降低，低频雷达体积大且耗电量大。它们基本上只能给你一个大致的搜索区域。
Patrick Bindner
Pierre Sprey is in spectacular error & busily munching on crow. He was wrong in two significant pontifications, not just about stealth.
1.The F-35 can not only dogfight, it is routinely defeating US 4th gen fighters in all aspects of air combat — close combat included.The stealth capabilities of the F-22 & F-35 are so advantageous, that their adversaries are visually seeing both types in some combat exercises, but are unable to track them on radar.
2.The F-35 since mid 2015 has never failed to penetrate a defensive wall of SAM batteries & patrolling defensive fighters. It is 100% on target-zone penetration & ~ 97% on target kills. It not only penetrates the defenses undetected, it also kills the defensive fighters on egress.
皮尔‧史百瑞犯了极大的错误，并忙于承认错误。在两个重要的论断上都犯了严重错误，不仅仅是关于隐形战机的问题。
1.F-35不仅可以空战，而且通常在空中作战的所有方面（包括近距离战斗）中都能打败美国的第4代战斗机。
F-22和F-35的隐身能力非常优越，它们的对手在一些战斗演习中可以看到这两种飞机，但无法在雷达上追踪它们。
2.F-35自2015年中期以来从未失败过穿过防空导弹阵地和巡逻防御战斗机。它百分之百地穿透到目标区域，准确率约为97%。它不仅能够不被发现地穿透防御，还能在出击时击败防御战斗机。
Pierre Sprey is in spectacular error & busily munching on crow. He was wrong in two significant pontifications, not just about stealth.
1.The F-35 can not only dogfight, it is routinely defeating US 4th gen fighters in all aspects of air combat — close combat included.The stealth capabilities of the F-22 & F-35 are so advantageous, that their adversaries are visually seeing both types in some combat exercises, but are unable to track them on radar.
2.The F-35 since mid 2015 has never failed to penetrate a defensive wall of SAM batteries & patrolling defensive fighters. It is 100% on target-zone penetration & ~ 97% on target kills. It not only penetrates the defenses undetected, it also kills the defensive fighters on egress.
皮尔‧史百瑞犯了极大的错误，并忙于承认错误。在两个重要的论断上都犯了严重错误，不仅仅是关于隐形战机的问题。
1.F-35不仅可以空战，而且通常在空中作战的所有方面（包括近距离战斗）中都能打败美国的第4代战斗机。
F-22和F-35的隐身能力非常优越，它们的对手在一些战斗演习中可以看到这两种飞机，但无法在雷达上追踪它们。
2.F-35自2015年中期以来从未失败过穿过防空导弹阵地和巡逻防御战斗机。它百分之百地穿透到目标区域，准确率约为97%。它不仅能够不被发现地穿透防御，还能在出击时击败防御战斗机。
S. Patrick Maiorca
Yes it does- reduce a plane’s radar cross-section. It is important to think about stealth as camouflage and not a cloaking device. So fighting an F-35 or F-22 is like fighting a sniper.As people have stated when it comes fo fighters Pierre Sprey is an enthusiastic amateur who holds out of date ideas I think the best example of this is what he has said about the F-15
的确，隐身技术可以减小飞机的雷达截面。重要的是将隐身技术视为伪装而不是隐形装置。所以与F-35或F-22进行战斗就像与狙击手进行战斗。正如许多人所说，对于战斗机来说，皮尔‧史百瑞是一个热情的业余爱好者，他持有过时的观念。我认为最好的例子就是他对F-15的言论。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Yes it does- reduce a plane’s radar cross-section. It is important to think about stealth as camouflage and not a cloaking device. So fighting an F-35 or F-22 is like fighting a sniper.As people have stated when it comes fo fighters Pierre Sprey is an enthusiastic amateur who holds out of date ideas I think the best example of this is what he has said about the F-15
的确，隐身技术可以减小飞机的雷达截面。重要的是将隐身技术视为伪装而不是隐形装置。所以与F-35或F-22进行战斗就像与狙击手进行战斗。正如许多人所说，对于战斗机来说，皮尔‧史百瑞是一个热情的业余爱好者，他持有过时的观念。我认为最好的例子就是他对F-15的言论。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
He calls it a Turkey “loaded up with junk that has no relevance to combat” what he is calling junk BTW are big engines and a big radar. He condemns multi-role aircraft by saying “once you design a multi-mission aircraft you are sunk” He needs to read up on the F-16 because clearly he didn’t get the memo - it is and always has been a multi-mission fighter.
他称其为一种“装满了与战斗毫无关系的垃圾”的战机，而他所指的垃圾实际上是指大型引擎和大型雷达。他谴责多用途飞机，并表示“一旦你设计了一种多任务飞机，你就会失败”。他需要阅读关于F-16的资料，因为显然他没有收到备忘录——F-16一直都是一种多任务战斗机。
Those green things are bombs not air to air missiles.
He is also known for cherry-picking data- for example in the 1970’s they pointed to the AIMVAL/ACEVAL (Air Intercept Missile Evaluation)/(Air Combat Evaluation) exercise to condemn the F-15 and F-14. The exercise had a blue team flying F-14s and F-15 up against the Nelis AFB aggressor squadron flying F-5s
那些绿色的东西是炸弹，而不是空对空导弹。
他还因为挑选数据而出名-例如，在20世纪70年代，他们指出AIMVAL/ACEVAL（空中拦截导弹评估）/（空战评估）演习来谴责F-15和F-14。该演习由蓝队驾驶F-14和F-15与内Nelis AFB 基地的侵略队F-5交锋。
The exercises were designed to test short-ranged air to air missiles as well as the performance of the AIM-7F in a dog fight so they required visual identification of a target- due to the F-5’s small size it had an advantage. The kill ratio was 2.5 :1 blue team’s favor. Since the F-5 is a lot cheaper than an F-15 or F-14 Sprey hyped it up as proving the F-5 was better. [1]
Now we have him talking about low -frequency radar he is right low-frequency radar does increase the size of a target’s radar cross-section exponentially however this leads to increased clutter and decreased accuracy low-frequency radars are big and use a lot of power. They can basically give you a rough area to start your search.
这些演习旨在测试短程空对空导弹以及AIM-7F在近距离空战中的性能，因此需要目视识别目标-由于F-5较小的尺寸，它具有优势。击杀比率为2.5：1，有利于蓝队。由于F-5比F-15或F-14便宜得多，斯普雷夸大其词，声称证明了F-5更好。[1]
现在他谈论低频雷达，他是正确的，低频雷达确实会指数级增加目标雷达截面的大小，但这会导致杂波增加和精度降低，低频雷达体积大且耗电量大。它们基本上只能给你一个大致的搜索区域。
评论翻译
Kruno Rajkovic
Stealth technology works 100%. The problem with it is that people equate stealth with invisibility which is not true. Stealth is simply a way for a fighter jet/ship or any other obxt to be detected at shorter range therefore giving you an opportunity to strike a target beyond its defensive range. The greatest testament to stealth is the fact that Russians and Chinese (although 30 years to late) are investing billions in that technology.
As far as Pierre Spray is concerned, I don't want to waste words on that old quak. He's been dismissed so many times (the last being a great video of him debating a long time Raptor and F-35 pilot who explicitly said that F -35 is a superior airplane to any of our legacy fleet) that me adding something else would be unneeded.
隐身技术百分之百有效。它的问题在于人们将隐身与不可见等同起来，这是不正确的。隐身只是一种让战斗机/船或任何其他物体在较短距离内被探测到的方法，因此给您提供了一个机会去攻击目标而超出其防御范围。对隐身技术最大的证明是俄罗斯和中国（虽然晚了30年）正在投资数十亿美元进行研究。至于皮尔‧史百瑞，我不想在那个老家伙身上浪费言语。他被解雇了多次（最后一次是他与一位长期飞翔猛禽和F-35飞行员辩论的视频，后者明确表示F-35比我们的传统机队中任何一架飞机都要优秀），所以我补充其他内容是没有必要的。
Stealth technology works 100%. The problem with it is that people equate stealth with invisibility which is not true. Stealth is simply a way for a fighter jet/ship or any other obxt to be detected at shorter range therefore giving you an opportunity to strike a target beyond its defensive range. The greatest testament to stealth is the fact that Russians and Chinese (although 30 years to late) are investing billions in that technology.
As far as Pierre Spray is concerned, I don't want to waste words on that old quak. He's been dismissed so many times (the last being a great video of him debating a long time Raptor and F-35 pilot who explicitly said that F -35 is a superior airplane to any of our legacy fleet) that me adding something else would be unneeded.
隐身技术百分之百有效。它的问题在于人们将隐身与不可见等同起来，这是不正确的。隐身只是一种让战斗机/船或任何其他物体在较短距离内被探测到的方法，因此给您提供了一个机会去攻击目标而超出其防御范围。对隐身技术最大的证明是俄罗斯和中国（虽然晚了30年）正在投资数十亿美元进行研究。至于皮尔‧史百瑞，我不想在那个老家伙身上浪费言语。他被解雇了多次（最后一次是他与一位长期飞翔猛禽和F-35飞行员辩论的视频，后者明确表示F-35比我们的传统机队中任何一架飞机都要优秀），所以我补充其他内容是没有必要的。
Doug Millhoff
Stealth works.
So do countermeasures.
The F-117 indeed had a very small radar profile on the outside, but not on the inside, making it a relatively easy target when the bomb bay was open. That’s how we lost one over Serbia in 1999.
And nature can provide its own countermeasures, like rain. While the materials and paint do a great job of absorbing radar, a veneer of water does not.
And those materials don’t absorb all EM frequencies equally (as demonstrated by the simple fact you can see them with your own eyes). Different stealth materials block some bands of radar more than other bands.
And there are other means of detecting besides radar.
The F-117 and some other designs are designed to hide the heat signature from the jet exhaust, but the skin of the aircraft heats up from air friction, and the faster it flies, the more heat it radiates. Sensitive IR detectors can theoretically target this.
All aircraft make noise. This gives some lead-time for visual targeting, and in theory a missile could have an acoustical tracker.
And sometimes there is the unexpected.
The SR-71 was an early stealth design with a very small radar signature. But it turned out its special fuels produced an exhaust plume was highly visible to radar. The Blackbird’s saving grace was its speed. While enemy radar could see it coming, there just wasn’t enough reaction time to effectively target and launch SAMs. There are numerous accounts of missiles fired, but nothing had sufficient speed and fuel to catch-up and bring down their target. The closest anyone got was a few random pot-shots that flew right by and exploded harmlessly nowhere near their target.
So stealth certainly works, but it is VERY expensive, it has its limits, and there are workarounds.
隐形技术很有效。 反制措施也是如此。
F-117在外部确实具有非常小的雷达截面，但在内部却没有，这使其在轰炸舱口打开时相对容易成为目标。这就是我们在1999年在塞尔维亚失去一架的原因。 自然界也可以提供反制措施，比如雨水。虽然材料和油漆能够很好地吸收雷达信号，但是一层水薄薄的涂层却不行。
这些材料并不是所有电磁频率都能平等吸收（正如你用肉眼看得见它们一样）。不同的隐形材料能够更有效地阻挡某些雷达波段。
除了雷达之外，还有其他检测手段。 F-117和一些其他设计旨在隐藏喷气发动机的热特征，但是飞机的外壳会因空气摩擦而发热，而且飞行速度越快，散发的热量就越多。敏感的红外探测器理论上可以对此进行定位。
所有飞机都会发出噪音。这给了人们视觉定位的一些提前时间，理论上导弹可以有一个声波追踪器。
有时会出现意外情况。 SR-71是一个早期的隐形设计，具有非常小的雷达截面。但事实证明，其特殊燃料产生的尾气对雷达非常明显。Blackbird的救命稻草就是它的速度。虽然敌方雷达可以看到它正在接近，但是反应时间不足以有效地进行目标定位和发射防空导弹。许多导弹被发射出去，但没有一个具有足够的速度和燃料去追上并击中它们的目标。最接近的一次是一些孤零零的尝试，它们直接飞过去并毫无用处地在目标附近爆炸了。因此，隐形技术确实很有效，但非常昂贵，有其局限性，并且存在解决方法。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Stealth works.
So do countermeasures.
The F-117 indeed had a very small radar profile on the outside, but not on the inside, making it a relatively easy target when the bomb bay was open. That’s how we lost one over Serbia in 1999.
And nature can provide its own countermeasures, like rain. While the materials and paint do a great job of absorbing radar, a veneer of water does not.
And those materials don’t absorb all EM frequencies equally (as demonstrated by the simple fact you can see them with your own eyes). Different stealth materials block some bands of radar more than other bands.
And there are other means of detecting besides radar.
The F-117 and some other designs are designed to hide the heat signature from the jet exhaust, but the skin of the aircraft heats up from air friction, and the faster it flies, the more heat it radiates. Sensitive IR detectors can theoretically target this.
All aircraft make noise. This gives some lead-time for visual targeting, and in theory a missile could have an acoustical tracker.
And sometimes there is the unexpected.
The SR-71 was an early stealth design with a very small radar signature. But it turned out its special fuels produced an exhaust plume was highly visible to radar. The Blackbird’s saving grace was its speed. While enemy radar could see it coming, there just wasn’t enough reaction time to effectively target and launch SAMs. There are numerous accounts of missiles fired, but nothing had sufficient speed and fuel to catch-up and bring down their target. The closest anyone got was a few random pot-shots that flew right by and exploded harmlessly nowhere near their target.
So stealth certainly works, but it is VERY expensive, it has its limits, and there are workarounds.
隐形技术很有效。 反制措施也是如此。
F-117在外部确实具有非常小的雷达截面，但在内部却没有，这使其在轰炸舱口打开时相对容易成为目标。这就是我们在1999年在塞尔维亚失去一架的原因。 自然界也可以提供反制措施，比如雨水。虽然材料和油漆能够很好地吸收雷达信号，但是一层水薄薄的涂层却不行。
这些材料并不是所有电磁频率都能平等吸收（正如你用肉眼看得见它们一样）。不同的隐形材料能够更有效地阻挡某些雷达波段。
除了雷达之外，还有其他检测手段。 F-117和一些其他设计旨在隐藏喷气发动机的热特征，但是飞机的外壳会因空气摩擦而发热，而且飞行速度越快，散发的热量就越多。敏感的红外探测器理论上可以对此进行定位。
所有飞机都会发出噪音。这给了人们视觉定位的一些提前时间，理论上导弹可以有一个声波追踪器。
有时会出现意外情况。 SR-71是一个早期的隐形设计，具有非常小的雷达截面。但事实证明，其特殊燃料产生的尾气对雷达非常明显。Blackbird的救命稻草就是它的速度。虽然敌方雷达可以看到它正在接近，但是反应时间不足以有效地进行目标定位和发射防空导弹。许多导弹被发射出去，但没有一个具有足够的速度和燃料去追上并击中它们的目标。最接近的一次是一些孤零零的尝试，它们直接飞过去并毫无用处地在目标附近爆炸了。因此，隐形技术确实很有效，但非常昂贵，有其局限性，并且存在解决方法。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Fernando Baptista
Stealth technology is based on a very simple principle: once hit by radar waves, those will be reflected in every possible direction except the direction of the incoming radar waves, i.e. the radar emitter.
In this way, the radar station will receive no reflection, and so the plane will not be detected.
This is a simple principle to understand, but also a simple principle to counter.
You just have to separate the emitter from the receiver, or even have several receivers spread in a wide area, so that at least one of them will get the radar reflection.
All this is old news, and there are already radar networks in place able to detect stealth fighters. The Russians have them.
The situation is worse to an interceptor. It can’t separate the emitter and receiver of its radar.
However, if i have a swarm of planes, all sharing their radar data, they will be able to spot a stealth fighter on their radars.
The F35 was built around this principle. Theoretically, it works. But it remains to be seem whether it works in the real world.
Russia just unveiled its 5th generation fighter, the SU57.
Stealth technology, like any other technological advancement, may give one side a temporary advantage, but sooner or later the other side will counter it.Are the Russians able to detect stealth fighters from its ground stations? Certainly. However, in aerial combat, we can’t know yet.
隐形技术的基本原理是：一旦被雷达波打到，它们会在除了来自雷达发射器的方向之外的所有可能方向上反射，也就是说，雷达站不会接收到反射信号，从而无法探测到飞机。这是一个简单易懂的原理，但也是一个容易被对抗的原理。只需要将发射器与接收器分开，或者甚至在广泛的区域内分布多个接收器，这样至少有一个接收器会接收到雷达反射信号。这一切都是老生常谈，已经有雷达网络可以探测到隐身战斗机。俄罗斯人已经掌握。对于拦截器来说，情况更糟糕。它无法分离雷达的发射器和接收器。然而，如果我有一群飞机，它们共享雷达数据，它们就能够在雷达上发现一架隐形战斗机。F-35是围绕这个原理构建的。从理论上讲，它是有效的。但现实是否如此还有待观察。俄罗斯刚刚推出了其第五代战斗机Su-57。像任何其他技术进步一样，隐形技术可能给一方带来暂时的优势，但迟早对方会加以对抗。俄罗斯人能够从其地面站探测到隐形战斗机吗？当然可以。然而，在空中战斗中，我们还不清楚。
Stealth technology is based on a very simple principle: once hit by radar waves, those will be reflected in every possible direction except the direction of the incoming radar waves, i.e. the radar emitter.
In this way, the radar station will receive no reflection, and so the plane will not be detected.
This is a simple principle to understand, but also a simple principle to counter.
You just have to separate the emitter from the receiver, or even have several receivers spread in a wide area, so that at least one of them will get the radar reflection.
All this is old news, and there are already radar networks in place able to detect stealth fighters. The Russians have them.
The situation is worse to an interceptor. It can’t separate the emitter and receiver of its radar.
However, if i have a swarm of planes, all sharing their radar data, they will be able to spot a stealth fighter on their radars.
The F35 was built around this principle. Theoretically, it works. But it remains to be seem whether it works in the real world.
Russia just unveiled its 5th generation fighter, the SU57.
Stealth technology, like any other technological advancement, may give one side a temporary advantage, but sooner or later the other side will counter it.Are the Russians able to detect stealth fighters from its ground stations? Certainly. However, in aerial combat, we can’t know yet.
隐形技术的基本原理是：一旦被雷达波打到，它们会在除了来自雷达发射器的方向之外的所有可能方向上反射，也就是说，雷达站不会接收到反射信号，从而无法探测到飞机。这是一个简单易懂的原理，但也是一个容易被对抗的原理。只需要将发射器与接收器分开，或者甚至在广泛的区域内分布多个接收器，这样至少有一个接收器会接收到雷达反射信号。这一切都是老生常谈，已经有雷达网络可以探测到隐身战斗机。俄罗斯人已经掌握。对于拦截器来说，情况更糟糕。它无法分离雷达的发射器和接收器。然而，如果我有一群飞机，它们共享雷达数据，它们就能够在雷达上发现一架隐形战斗机。F-35是围绕这个原理构建的。从理论上讲，它是有效的。但现实是否如此还有待观察。俄罗斯刚刚推出了其第五代战斗机Su-57。像任何其他技术进步一样，隐形技术可能给一方带来暂时的优势，但迟早对方会加以对抗。俄罗斯人能够从其地面站探测到隐形战斗机吗？当然可以。然而，在空中战斗中，我们还不清楚。
Sharan Kalwani
Stealth works if you use it wisely.
The other answers are quite spot on, I am surprised that no one has mentioned the F/A-117 Night Hawk , which was deployed during the first Gulf War and did quite well. Due to the weird shapes, often these types of stealth design aircraft are aerodynamically hard to control, so must have sophisticated fly-by-wire control surfaces and lots of automated computer assisted guidance. I guess that drives up the costs (there are other things which contribute to the cost increases).
Based on what they learned from the initial deployment of the Night Hawk, they improved upon it with the F-22 Raptor. Stealth is perhaps maximal effective as a surprise element and must be backed up with appropriate armament, etc., in order to get the best possible return on the initial surprise. I will hasten to add, mere shapes are not enough, one has to do a few other things to increase the stealth factor, reduce radar cross section to many impinging signals, for example (or reduce the heat signature, air intakes, weapons load profile, and so on). Which is why other countries are taking a fairly long time to field a similar type of craft.
So the USA has a fairly long experience (since 1983?) of flying stealth and have continued to put into practice lessons learned. Other countries only started planning and designing most likely after 1991.
如果明智地使用，隐身技术可以发挥作用。 其他答案都相当准确，我很惊讶没有人提到F/A-117“夜鹰”战斗机，在第一次海湾战争中表现出色。由于奇怪的形状，这些隐形设计飞机通常在空气动力学上很难控制，因此必须具备复杂的电传飞控系统和大量的计算机辅助导航。我想这会增加成本（还有其他一些因素也会导致成本增加）。 基于他们从最初部署“夜鹰”时所学到的经验，他们改进了F-22“猛禽”战斗机。隐身可以说是最大效应作为一个惊喜元素，并且必须配备适当的武装等，以获得初始惊喜的最佳回报。我要赶紧补充一点，仅凭形状是不够的，还必须做一些其他事情来增加隐身因素，例如减少雷达反射截面、减少热签名、减少进气道、武器负载配置等。这就是为什么其他国家需要相当长的时间才能推出类似的飞行器。 因此，美国拥有相当长的经验（自1983年以来？）在隐形飞行方面，并不断付诸实践所学到的经验。其他国家很可能只在1991年之后开始计划和设计。
Stealth works if you use it wisely.
The other answers are quite spot on, I am surprised that no one has mentioned the F/A-117 Night Hawk , which was deployed during the first Gulf War and did quite well. Due to the weird shapes, often these types of stealth design aircraft are aerodynamically hard to control, so must have sophisticated fly-by-wire control surfaces and lots of automated computer assisted guidance. I guess that drives up the costs (there are other things which contribute to the cost increases).
Based on what they learned from the initial deployment of the Night Hawk, they improved upon it with the F-22 Raptor. Stealth is perhaps maximal effective as a surprise element and must be backed up with appropriate armament, etc., in order to get the best possible return on the initial surprise. I will hasten to add, mere shapes are not enough, one has to do a few other things to increase the stealth factor, reduce radar cross section to many impinging signals, for example (or reduce the heat signature, air intakes, weapons load profile, and so on). Which is why other countries are taking a fairly long time to field a similar type of craft.
So the USA has a fairly long experience (since 1983?) of flying stealth and have continued to put into practice lessons learned. Other countries only started planning and designing most likely after 1991.
如果明智地使用，隐身技术可以发挥作用。 其他答案都相当准确，我很惊讶没有人提到F/A-117“夜鹰”战斗机，在第一次海湾战争中表现出色。由于奇怪的形状，这些隐形设计飞机通常在空气动力学上很难控制，因此必须具备复杂的电传飞控系统和大量的计算机辅助导航。我想这会增加成本（还有其他一些因素也会导致成本增加）。 基于他们从最初部署“夜鹰”时所学到的经验，他们改进了F-22“猛禽”战斗机。隐身可以说是最大效应作为一个惊喜元素，并且必须配备适当的武装等，以获得初始惊喜的最佳回报。我要赶紧补充一点，仅凭形状是不够的，还必须做一些其他事情来增加隐身因素，例如减少雷达反射截面、减少热签名、减少进气道、武器负载配置等。这就是为什么其他国家需要相当长的时间才能推出类似的飞行器。 因此，美国拥有相当长的经验（自1983年以来？）在隐形飞行方面，并不断付诸实践所学到的经验。其他国家很可能只在1991年之后开始计划和设计。
George Gonzalez
The answer is extremely complicated.
Basically, stealth does "work", but one has to make severe changes to the aircraft, its bombs, its range, its reliability, its flight envelope, and its life, and its cost.
It's not evident that with all the compromises, you end up with an aircraft that is can do more missions and deliver more pounds of munitions per buck. In the case of the F-22 and F-35, you end up with a VERY expensive aircraft that might end up, in some wartime scenarios, being far less capable than your basic F-18's.
The case against stealth gets even stronger if you consider the cost. There is no way another generation of stealth can even be planned, as the cost has been going up exponentially. The next generation, no country could afford more than one stealth plane.
Or you end up with the B-2 bombers, which have to live in special shelters and end up being deployed from the USA every time.
In the end it all depends on what scenarios you throw at it. Which gets complicated, as the scenarios tend to be the ones encountered in the LAST war, or the theoretical ones dreamed up at the war colleges, not the actual situations in the next war.
For instance several generations of fighters were developed based on the idea that all the missions would involve dogfighting with missiles beyond visual range and no ground attack, so the planes were optimized to be hung with missiles and no guns. Then, surprise, in the gulf wars there were no dogfights and few missiles were launched but they sure could have used more guns like on the A-10's.
答案非常复杂。 基本上，隐身确实“起作用”，但必须对飞机、其炸弹、射程、可靠性、飞行包线、寿命和成本进行严格的改变。 很难说通过所有妥协，你最终会得到一架可以执行更多任务并以更少的成本投放更多的军火的飞机。在F-22和F-35的情况下，你最终得到了一架非常昂贵的飞机，在某些战争情景下，其能力可能远不如基本的F-18。
如果考虑成本，反对隐形技术的理由甚至更加强烈。没有办法规划另一代隐形技术，因为成本呈指数级增长。下一代，没有国家能够承担超过一架隐形飞机的成本。或者你最终得到B-2轰炸机，它们必须居住在特殊的避难所，并且每次都要从美国部署。
最终一切取决于你所遇到的情景。这变得复杂起来，因为情景往往是在上一场战争中遇到的，或者是在战争学院中设想的理论情况，而不是在下一场战争中实际遇到的情况。例如，有几代战斗机是基于这样的想法开发的：所有任务都涉及超视距导弹的飞行对抗和没有地面攻击，因此这些飞机被优化为装有导弹但没有机关枪。然后，让人惊讶的是，在海湾战争中没有空战，也只发射了少量导弹，但他们确实可以使用像A-10这样的更多机关枪。
The answer is extremely complicated.
Basically, stealth does "work", but one has to make severe changes to the aircraft, its bombs, its range, its reliability, its flight envelope, and its life, and its cost.
It's not evident that with all the compromises, you end up with an aircraft that is can do more missions and deliver more pounds of munitions per buck. In the case of the F-22 and F-35, you end up with a VERY expensive aircraft that might end up, in some wartime scenarios, being far less capable than your basic F-18's.
The case against stealth gets even stronger if you consider the cost. There is no way another generation of stealth can even be planned, as the cost has been going up exponentially. The next generation, no country could afford more than one stealth plane.
Or you end up with the B-2 bombers, which have to live in special shelters and end up being deployed from the USA every time.
In the end it all depends on what scenarios you throw at it. Which gets complicated, as the scenarios tend to be the ones encountered in the LAST war, or the theoretical ones dreamed up at the war colleges, not the actual situations in the next war.
For instance several generations of fighters were developed based on the idea that all the missions would involve dogfighting with missiles beyond visual range and no ground attack, so the planes were optimized to be hung with missiles and no guns. Then, surprise, in the gulf wars there were no dogfights and few missiles were launched but they sure could have used more guns like on the A-10's.
答案非常复杂。 基本上，隐身确实“起作用”，但必须对飞机、其炸弹、射程、可靠性、飞行包线、寿命和成本进行严格的改变。 很难说通过所有妥协，你最终会得到一架可以执行更多任务并以更少的成本投放更多的军火的飞机。在F-22和F-35的情况下，你最终得到了一架非常昂贵的飞机，在某些战争情景下，其能力可能远不如基本的F-18。
如果考虑成本，反对隐形技术的理由甚至更加强烈。没有办法规划另一代隐形技术，因为成本呈指数级增长。下一代，没有国家能够承担超过一架隐形飞机的成本。或者你最终得到B-2轰炸机，它们必须居住在特殊的避难所，并且每次都要从美国部署。
最终一切取决于你所遇到的情景。这变得复杂起来，因为情景往往是在上一场战争中遇到的，或者是在战争学院中设想的理论情况，而不是在下一场战争中实际遇到的情况。例如，有几代战斗机是基于这样的想法开发的：所有任务都涉及超视距导弹的飞行对抗和没有地面攻击，因此这些飞机被优化为装有导弹但没有机关枪。然后，让人惊讶的是，在海湾战争中没有空战，也只发射了少量导弹，但他们确实可以使用像A-10这样的更多机关枪。
Jack Menendez
The combination of the AIM-9X and stealth will change everything. The missile’s long range and ability to lock after launch is reminiscent of the Mk-48 torpedo used by stealthy U.S. submarines. The F-35 can use the stealthy submarine tactic to basically engage enemy aircraft within a 100 mile radius with IR missiles while remaining invisible and BVR because they don’t have to approach and lock the missiles onto the opponent. This means everything without stealth becomes a target for the AIM-9X and these targets can’t shoot back. U.S. submariners have a saying, there are two kinds of ships, submarines and targets. Now there will be two kinds of aircraft, stealth and targets.
Imagine if the AIM-9X also had the option to actively home like the AIM-120 or passively home like the AIM-9X or even be directed by another aircraft depending on a choice made by the pilot at launch or anytime after! This may be why the F-35 is the only option for the future.
AIM-9X导弹与隐身技术的结合将改变一切。该导弹的远程射程和发射后锁定能力让人想起了隐身美国潜艇使用的Mk-48鱼雷。F-35可以使用隐形潜艇战术，基本上在半径100英里范围内使用红外导弹攻击敌方飞机，同时保持隐形和BVR（超视距空战），因为他们不必靠近并锁定导弹到对手身上。这意味着没有隐身技术的一切都成为AIM-9X导弹的目标，而这些目标无法还击。美国潜艇水手有句话，有两种船只，潜艇和目标。现在将有两种飞机，隐身和目标。 想象一下，如果AIM-9X导弹也有主动制导（像AIM-120）、被动制导（像AIM-9X）或根据飞行员在发射后或任何时候做出的选择由另一架飞机引导的选项，那会怎样！这可能是为什么F-35是未来的唯一选择。
The combination of the AIM-9X and stealth will change everything. The missile’s long range and ability to lock after launch is reminiscent of the Mk-48 torpedo used by stealthy U.S. submarines. The F-35 can use the stealthy submarine tactic to basically engage enemy aircraft within a 100 mile radius with IR missiles while remaining invisible and BVR because they don’t have to approach and lock the missiles onto the opponent. This means everything without stealth becomes a target for the AIM-9X and these targets can’t shoot back. U.S. submariners have a saying, there are two kinds of ships, submarines and targets. Now there will be two kinds of aircraft, stealth and targets.
Imagine if the AIM-9X also had the option to actively home like the AIM-120 or passively home like the AIM-9X or even be directed by another aircraft depending on a choice made by the pilot at launch or anytime after! This may be why the F-35 is the only option for the future.
AIM-9X导弹与隐身技术的结合将改变一切。该导弹的远程射程和发射后锁定能力让人想起了隐身美国潜艇使用的Mk-48鱼雷。F-35可以使用隐形潜艇战术，基本上在半径100英里范围内使用红外导弹攻击敌方飞机，同时保持隐形和BVR（超视距空战），因为他们不必靠近并锁定导弹到对手身上。这意味着没有隐身技术的一切都成为AIM-9X导弹的目标，而这些目标无法还击。美国潜艇水手有句话，有两种船只，潜艇和目标。现在将有两种飞机，隐身和目标。 想象一下，如果AIM-9X导弹也有主动制导（像AIM-120）、被动制导（像AIM-9X）或根据飞行员在发射后或任何时候做出的选择由另一架飞机引导的选项，那会怎样！这可能是为什么F-35是未来的唯一选择。
Filip Vidinovski
Look... this Pierre Sprey BS has to stop alreday!
1. He is NOT "the designer of the f-16" or whatnot. He's been advocating certain fighter design principles in aviation circles. He hasn't been involved in any aircraft design project.
2. His deepest fighter design beliefs have been proven practically and spectacularly wrong many times already.
He's merely exploiting the pre-existing negative sentiment about the F-35, with the ultimate goal of attracting attention to himself. And, one has to acknowledge, quite successfully so! That's how we even know about this salesman of musical equipment.
看，这个皮尔‧史百瑞的胡言乱语必须停止！ 1.他根本不是“F-16设计者”或者类似的人物。他一直在航空界倡导某些战斗机设计原则，但他没有参与任何飞机设计项目。 2.他最深刻的战斗机设计信仰已经被反复证明是错误的。 他只是利用了人们对F-35的负面情绪，最终目的是吸引人们关注他自己。不得不承认，他相当成功地做到了！这就是我们知道这个售卖音乐设备的推销员的原因。
Look... this Pierre Sprey BS has to stop alreday!
1. He is NOT "the designer of the f-16" or whatnot. He's been advocating certain fighter design principles in aviation circles. He hasn't been involved in any aircraft design project.
2. His deepest fighter design beliefs have been proven practically and spectacularly wrong many times already.
He's merely exploiting the pre-existing negative sentiment about the F-35, with the ultimate goal of attracting attention to himself. And, one has to acknowledge, quite successfully so! That's how we even know about this salesman of musical equipment.
看，这个皮尔‧史百瑞的胡言乱语必须停止！ 1.他根本不是“F-16设计者”或者类似的人物。他一直在航空界倡导某些战斗机设计原则，但他没有参与任何飞机设计项目。 2.他最深刻的战斗机设计信仰已经被反复证明是错误的。 他只是利用了人们对F-35的负面情绪，最终目的是吸引人们关注他自己。不得不承认，他相当成功地做到了！这就是我们知道这个售卖音乐设备的推销员的原因。
Kim Bergström
Stealth is a scale. Aircraft (for example) can be more or less stealthy. It’s not “stealthy or not stealthy”. Stealth is also a countermeasure, so if you change the “measure”, such as the frequency of radars, you change the stealth balance. So of course it “works”. It’s also a moving target, and a matter of where the one building or ordering the aircraft decide the sweet spot for cost and effectiveness lies. So there isn’t, ever, a correct answer to this.
隐身是一个量化的概念。飞机（例如）可以更多或者更少地隐身。它不是“隐形或不隐形”。隐身也是一种对策，所以如果你改变“对策”，比如雷达的频率，你就改变了隐身的平衡。所以当然它“有效”。这也是一个移动的目标，并且取决于建造或订购飞机的人决定成本和效果的最佳平衡点在哪里。因此，没有一个正确的答案来回答这个问题。
Stealth is a scale. Aircraft (for example) can be more or less stealthy. It’s not “stealthy or not stealthy”. Stealth is also a countermeasure, so if you change the “measure”, such as the frequency of radars, you change the stealth balance. So of course it “works”. It’s also a moving target, and a matter of where the one building or ordering the aircraft decide the sweet spot for cost and effectiveness lies. So there isn’t, ever, a correct answer to this.
隐身是一个量化的概念。飞机（例如）可以更多或者更少地隐身。它不是“隐形或不隐形”。隐身也是一种对策，所以如果你改变“对策”，比如雷达的频率，你就改变了隐身的平衡。所以当然它“有效”。这也是一个移动的目标，并且取决于建造或订购飞机的人决定成本和效果的最佳平衡点在哪里。因此，没有一个正确的答案来回答这个问题。
Paul A Allcock
Sprey is both correct and incorrect.Stealth does work, but, like he said, it can be countered.
Stealth was never a "be-all, end-all" solution [1] it was (and still is) just one more tool in the bag.In other words to combat stealth the enemy has to spend more money/ technology/ manpower on counter-measures.It's part of a spectrum of military technology.To argue that "stealth is a waste" is nearly on a par with arguing that "combat aircraft are a waste because they can be shot down".
Sprey's antipathy for the F-35 [2] (and hi-tech "solutions" in general) tends to fuel much of his rhetoric.
1 It has only been touted as such by (largely uninformed) press releases and fan boys.
2 Which is nearly matched by my own.
皮尔‧史百瑞在某些方面是正确的，但也有不正确的地方。隐形确实有效，但就像他所说，它可以被反制。隐形从来不是“万无一失”的解决方案[1]，它只是一个工具箱中的另一个工具（现在仍然是如此）。换句话说，为了对抗隐形，敌人必须在反制措施上花费更多的经费、技术和人力。这是军事技术光谱的一部分。争论“隐形是浪费”几乎与争论“战斗机是浪费，因为它们可以被击落”一样荒谬。
皮尔‧史百瑞对F-35（以及高科技“解决方案”）的反感往往推动了他的言论。1.它只是（在很大程度上无知的）新闻发布和粉丝的吹嘘。2这几乎和我的反感程度一样。
Sprey is both correct and incorrect.Stealth does work, but, like he said, it can be countered.
Stealth was never a "be-all, end-all" solution [1] it was (and still is) just one more tool in the bag.In other words to combat stealth the enemy has to spend more money/ technology/ manpower on counter-measures.It's part of a spectrum of military technology.To argue that "stealth is a waste" is nearly on a par with arguing that "combat aircraft are a waste because they can be shot down".
Sprey's antipathy for the F-35 [2] (and hi-tech "solutions" in general) tends to fuel much of his rhetoric.
1 It has only been touted as such by (largely uninformed) press releases and fan boys.
2 Which is nearly matched by my own.
皮尔‧史百瑞在某些方面是正确的，但也有不正确的地方。隐形确实有效，但就像他所说，它可以被反制。隐形从来不是“万无一失”的解决方案[1]，它只是一个工具箱中的另一个工具（现在仍然是如此）。换句话说，为了对抗隐形，敌人必须在反制措施上花费更多的经费、技术和人力。这是军事技术光谱的一部分。争论“隐形是浪费”几乎与争论“战斗机是浪费，因为它们可以被击落”一样荒谬。
皮尔‧史百瑞对F-35（以及高科技“解决方案”）的反感往往推动了他的言论。1.它只是（在很大程度上无知的）新闻发布和粉丝的吹嘘。2这几乎和我的反感程度一样。
David Arbelo
Stealth DOES work…the F35 problem is having to design a triservice plane. Same problem as in the 60s with the F-111 A and B…they couldnt have a fleet defence interceptor and a bomber in the same airfrx. Period. Eventually they got the excellent F-14 and F-111. If the F-35 was to be designed only as originally planned, a cheap F22 to replace the F-16…it wouldnt have encountered so many problems. It cant be a stealthy Falcon, Fairchild, Harrier and Hornet…and still be simple and cheap.
隐身技术确实是有效的……F35的问题在于必须设计一架三军服役的飞机。这与20世纪60年代的F-111A和B存在相同的问题，即不能将防空拦截机和轰炸机设计在同一架飞机上。最终他们获得了优秀的F-14和F-111。如果最初F-35仅按原计划设计为便宜的F22来替换F-16，那么它就不会遇到这么多问题。它不能既具备隐身性，又像猎鹰、费尔德、鹞式和黄蜂一样简单而便宜。
Stealth DOES work…the F35 problem is having to design a triservice plane. Same problem as in the 60s with the F-111 A and B…they couldnt have a fleet defence interceptor and a bomber in the same airfrx. Period. Eventually they got the excellent F-14 and F-111. If the F-35 was to be designed only as originally planned, a cheap F22 to replace the F-16…it wouldnt have encountered so many problems. It cant be a stealthy Falcon, Fairchild, Harrier and Hornet…and still be simple and cheap.
隐身技术确实是有效的……F35的问题在于必须设计一架三军服役的飞机。这与20世纪60年代的F-111A和B存在相同的问题，即不能将防空拦截机和轰炸机设计在同一架飞机上。最终他们获得了优秀的F-14和F-111。如果最初F-35仅按原计划设计为便宜的F22来替换F-16，那么它就不会遇到这么多问题。它不能既具备隐身性，又像猎鹰、费尔德、鹞式和黄蜂一样简单而便宜。
Jonathan David
I’m gonna explain Radar detection in simple terms. Here we go
Radar uses Radio waves of certain wavelength. Most airplanes body reflect these wavelengths and get detected. Simple?
Now how does stealth work? The above said idea seems pretty solid right.
2 Things
1.Aerodynamics: The wing foliage is changed so perfectly that the cutting angles and all trailing edges of a plane reflect radar waves towards the air. So no detection.
2.Material science: Materials that absorb radio waves have made a huge breakthrough in stealth.
Just like how the Radar principle had flaws, the Stealth system too has flaws.
Remember we talked about wavelengths?
Aerodynamics cannot help reflect all wavelengths. Today’s stealth planes are invisible on long waves (High wavelength radar). So in simpler terms, Short waves can see STEALTH planes. Tada there’s your answer.
Material sciences cannot absorb all wavelengths. And temperature of a material affects Wave absorption. We cannot put up a material on the body and say absorb all waves that fall on you.
So yes, Stealth is not so stealth.
So why are countries spending so much on it?
Simply because, Short wave radar is hard to use. Time between pings is large enough that a stealth plane would have changed position by vast multiples by the time the radar informs us.
This time window is large enough for a stealth bomber to bomb and leave.
So stealth is a worthy investment until all countries puts ups numerous short wave Radars with multiple pings (SW radars are very costly and consume heavy power). The evolution of Radar is a wonderful story by itself, another day.
我来简单解释一下雷达探测。老套路，我们开始吧。雷达使用某一特定波长的无线电波。大多数飞机的机身会反射这些波长并被探测到。简单吧？那么隐形是如何运作的呢？上述的想法似乎很有说服力。
两个因素：
1.空气动力学：机翼和叶片的切割角度被完美地改变，以至于反射雷达波的所有尾迹都指向了大气层，所以不会被探测到。2.材料科学：一些材料能够吸收无线电波，这在隐形技术上有了重大突破。
就像雷达原理存在缺陷一样，隐形系统也存在缺陷。
记得我们之前谈过波长吗？空气动力学不能帮助反射所有波长。今天的隐形飞机对长波（高波长雷达）是难以隐形的。所以简而言之，短波可以看到隐形飞机。——这就是答案。材料科学不能吸收所有波长。而且材料的温度会影响波的吸收。我们不能把一种材料放在机身上并说吸收所有落在上面的波。 是的，隐形并不完全隐形。
那么为什么国家要花这么多钱来研发隐形技术呢？
简单来说，短波雷达很难使用。雷达发送信号之间的时间间隔足够长，以至于隐形飞机在雷达通知我们之前已经改变了位置。
这个时间窗口足够大，足以让隐形轰炸机投下炸弹后迅速离开。
因此，直到所有国家都部署了大量的短波雷达并进行多次探测（短波雷达非常昂贵且消耗大量能源），隐形技术仍然是一项值得投资的技术。雷达的演化本身就是一个奇妙的故事，这是另一回事了，我们可以在其他时间讨论。
I’m gonna explain Radar detection in simple terms. Here we go
Radar uses Radio waves of certain wavelength. Most airplanes body reflect these wavelengths and get detected. Simple?
Now how does stealth work? The above said idea seems pretty solid right.
2 Things
1.Aerodynamics: The wing foliage is changed so perfectly that the cutting angles and all trailing edges of a plane reflect radar waves towards the air. So no detection.
2.Material science: Materials that absorb radio waves have made a huge breakthrough in stealth.
Just like how the Radar principle had flaws, the Stealth system too has flaws.
Remember we talked about wavelengths?
Aerodynamics cannot help reflect all wavelengths. Today’s stealth planes are invisible on long waves (High wavelength radar). So in simpler terms, Short waves can see STEALTH planes. Tada there’s your answer.
Material sciences cannot absorb all wavelengths. And temperature of a material affects Wave absorption. We cannot put up a material on the body and say absorb all waves that fall on you.
So yes, Stealth is not so stealth.
So why are countries spending so much on it?
Simply because, Short wave radar is hard to use. Time between pings is large enough that a stealth plane would have changed position by vast multiples by the time the radar informs us.
This time window is large enough for a stealth bomber to bomb and leave.
So stealth is a worthy investment until all countries puts ups numerous short wave Radars with multiple pings (SW radars are very costly and consume heavy power). The evolution of Radar is a wonderful story by itself, another day.
我来简单解释一下雷达探测。老套路，我们开始吧。雷达使用某一特定波长的无线电波。大多数飞机的机身会反射这些波长并被探测到。简单吧？那么隐形是如何运作的呢？上述的想法似乎很有说服力。
两个因素：
1.空气动力学：机翼和叶片的切割角度被完美地改变，以至于反射雷达波的所有尾迹都指向了大气层，所以不会被探测到。2.材料科学：一些材料能够吸收无线电波，这在隐形技术上有了重大突破。
就像雷达原理存在缺陷一样，隐形系统也存在缺陷。
记得我们之前谈过波长吗？空气动力学不能帮助反射所有波长。今天的隐形飞机对长波（高波长雷达）是难以隐形的。所以简而言之，短波可以看到隐形飞机。——这就是答案。材料科学不能吸收所有波长。而且材料的温度会影响波的吸收。我们不能把一种材料放在机身上并说吸收所有落在上面的波。 是的，隐形并不完全隐形。
那么为什么国家要花这么多钱来研发隐形技术呢？
简单来说，短波雷达很难使用。雷达发送信号之间的时间间隔足够长，以至于隐形飞机在雷达通知我们之前已经改变了位置。
这个时间窗口足够大，足以让隐形轰炸机投下炸弹后迅速离开。
因此，直到所有国家都部署了大量的短波雷达并进行多次探测（短波雷达非常昂贵且消耗大量能源），隐形技术仍然是一项值得投资的技术。雷达的演化本身就是一个奇妙的故事，这是另一回事了，我们可以在其他时间讨论。
很赞 0
收藏