Hacker News Reader

Comment by dosshell | Hacker News Reader

You make it sound as stealth is a boolean value. Stealth is not that easy. It depends on many factors. Stealth from whom, when, systems, where, and how much.

There is a probability (only indirect rumors) that F-35 can already be detected in some situations on some systems (global eye?) and there is definitely no guarantee that F-35 will keep it's stealth ability in the future.

View on HN

Yes, but whatever improvements in radar will happen in the future, if they can see a stealthy jet twice as far, they can see a non-stealthy jet twice as far too. If the window of vulnerability of a stealthy jet goes from 2 minutes to 4 minutes, the one for non-stealthy could go from 20 minutes to 40 minutes. You still want the stealthy jet.

Ironically, you're the one treating stealthiness as a boolean value here:

> there is definitely no guarantee that F-35 will keep it's stealth ability in the future.

Of course as radar and computer systems improve it's likely that stealthy airplanes will become detectable from farther away, but they're not just gonna lose their stealthy characteristics entirely, in a boolean manner!

Exactly, sorry if I did not use the right word (not native english speaker). I did not know that "keep" was so binary. With keep stealth ability I meant that it may not keep all it's properties to the same degree as today and some of them can decay. For example as you mention about the distance for detection from a single radar in normal flight.

Its trickle down economics effect is certainly not stealth! Its not stealth from satellites either.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com