You have to make up your mind. Either we already have the technology, just not the computing power to use it against stealth aircraft in a militarily useful way, yet, or, you may very will start promoting the conspiracy theory that all Radio astronomy is a scam to defraud billions of taxpayer money, because that is in essence what you are doing already.
Tommy I don't need to make up my mind, you need to actually support statements with facts. I made it very clear your radar development versus stealth theory was not accurate. I'm also have not and have never claimed radio astronomy is a scam but it is a discreet application under very controlled conditions looking for signals within very defined and discrete frequency ranges. It is not a battlefield technology today and the technologies that allow the sensitivities necessary for it to work do not translate well to battlefield applications.
I didn't claim they where not aware, and even explained why stealth makes sense. You apparently start detecting things so stealthy that they really aren't there.
Tommy your inference was very clear, so much so that Yimby jumped on the bandwagon and agreed with you with the following "I, too, have enough access to scientists working with lower signal to noise ratios than the military to know what is possible. "
Several here evidently believe it, at least the troll.
Really, please point out who is the troll and where they claimed it?
No one has said that stealth is a simple addition. The whole point is that it is extremely expensive and compromises other design.
So when Tommy said,
The only advantage of stealth will be forcing the opponent to have more expensive radars instead of lots of small ones*, which is a value in itself, and may very well offset the, likely small, extra cost of developing, deploying and maintaining stealth aircraft vs. New non-stealthy ones.
he wasn't actually talking about developing stealth aircraft...
Should I remind you how much it cost?
Please don't try, your confusion over current topics makes it not worth your time.
Most militaries are definitely not aware of even past designs.
And your evidence for this baseless claim is?
In response to this clearly factless claim, why don't you spend even a few minutes reviewing the Australian DSTG, https://www.dst.defence.gov.au/
They are a simple example of an Australian Department of Defence Organisation that brings in world class scientists and engineers to advise and develop on military technologies. Do these people simply forget their time in Academia when they come to DSTG?
How about DSTL in the UK whose stated purpose is "to maximise the impact of science and technology for the defence and security of the UK." https://www.gov.uk/government/organisat ... laboratory
Or perhaps DARPA in the US, "DARPA’s success depends on the vibrant ecosystem of innovation within which the Agency operates, and is fueled by partners in multiple sectors." https://www.darpa.mil/
Certainly not those representatives who pretend to know all here. (You are evidently from industry and not military, if that matters, and are probably aware but tell otherwise ex officio).
Who are the representatives who pretend to know all here?
I am not sure why you think I am from industry or military or whatever or why that even matters to this discussion. If I was from Industry does that make the factual supported statements I have provided less factual? If I was from military does that make the factual supported statements I have made less factual? If I was from neither, and just really interested in military aviation, does that make the factual supported statements I have made less factual?
When I served in the air force anything acronymized was sacred while laws of physics were considered relative.
I'm sorry you had to serve in a second rate military but using your own experience/bias and laying that on the rest of the globe is clearly not an analytical technique that supports your position.
And it is not what the military are aware, it is what the politicians are aware, when they make the decisions, based on all sales talk. Where on Earth are politicians who are aware of the latest technology, or anything else?
Yimby, as has been made very clear to you on a number of occasions politicians don't review the technical details of military equipment, how could they given in most cases they have no experience, knowledge or expertise to make such a determination? Most credible militaries use a tender process staffed by experts including scientists from academia and industry, military officers and public servants from Government departments and contracted technical and legal experts from industry to select military equipment. They made recommendations to politicians who then decide.
Of course, it is possible that also the Russian military believe more in cryptic acronyms than in laws of physics and refuse to develop something new and invest on copy-cat models of western technology (Su-57, Buran, ...). (And the main adversary may not even be Russia but some one else with lower technology level or higher conservativeness.)
It is your theory, not mine.
Sure mate, you call the Russians stupid by saying they believe more in cryptic acronyms than the laws of physics but apparently it is my theory...