Given that Lindermyer is unlikely to have been an eyewitness of the interview, is this a reliable account of the incident? Let’s see what Sweetman actually said.

——————————————————————-

In a 1997 interview, a Dassault Electronics engineer stated that Spectra uses “stealthy jamming modes that not only have a saturating effect, but make the aircraft invisible… There are some very specific techniques to obtain the signature of a real low observable (LO) aircraft”. When the author asked if the engineer was talking about active cancellation, he declined to answer.

———————————————————————

(And that’s taken word-for-word from the February 2005 International Defence Review.)

So the story of the engineer giving Sweetman a look is fiction. The engineer refused to answer the question. If Sweetman has been wrong, a simple ‘no’ would have been the logical answer. A journalist of Sweetman’s experience will be familar with the ways a subject can respond to security issues – even if the end result is unlikely to the stunned jaw-dropping recorded in Duncan Campbell’s famous ‘Zircon’ interview.

But Sweetman was talking to what was almost certainly a senior engineer, not some luckless guy tasked with standing around on an aircraft on an open day. Companies tend to very careful in selecting the engineer who will reply to the questions of an experienced technical journalist.

You made that claim in another thread (Rafale News IX) and were told:

It was another poster who said a look was given – not sure where that came from.
i was not there, i do not know, i was as i stated merely offering another option.

Re answering with a no or not –

Many organisations refuse to confirm or deny anything so that at no time can an answer be inferred nor is a lie ever required, now i dont know what dassault/thales policy is re this, but again its another possibility.

(For a slightly extreme and off topic example- there is nobody this side of outer mongolia, that doesnt know operation Barras was carried out by 22 SAS (note with SBS support and a para supporting raid lest i ruffle feathers) if you ask HM Gov or the Regt if they took part all they will say is NO COMMENT.

Active Furtive, Im afraid im with Jack jack on this one the words can mean various things.

Active hidden or hiding is the translation I was given, by the other half so it could be interperated into what you like.

My french is awful so I need a translator

No Pinko they dont. Those articles are scarcely credible. The only point made is some contention that the recovered torpedo propulsion section isnt a precise match to a very generalised set of schematics representing the NK weapon type. It deliberately ignores the fact that the recovered propulsion section appears at the same site as the location of a vessel destroyed by a large under-the-keel detonation.

The other vessels indicated – no less than 5 AEGIS destroyers wasnt it? – were not in these waters supported by SSN’s. 60-90ft depth is marginal for SSK’s and, in the Yellow Sea, very risky for peacetime ops with an SSN. I have a hard time accepting that they had 5 destroyers working those waters with the SK corvette. A credible source showing the involvement of those vessels in confined waters would be needed!.

I also love the way that the article suggests the US launched the Torpedo, then states it was a grounding followed by collision, and the the Israelis did it
(lots of anti sematic crap on there in general) within 3 paragraphs, I scanned it this morning formed an opinion and felt replying wasnt worth wasting bandwidth on him.

wasnt sure how you were using the word amatuer.

my apologies i took it to mean we were amatuers as in aircraft enthusiasts, with no technical background.

However in the context you meant it as regards radar knowledge then yes i am an amatuer – no argument there.

it might be a bit too advanced for me, i’m still having trouble putting on the crotchless batman suit, i sometimes get it on backward, leaving myself vulnerable to various strange practices that i still find disturbing

more a wetsuit filled with beans man myself

whatever you do avoid the gimp mask and ball gag – seems agreat idea, but you realise how peaceful it is with the missus gagged and its just to tempting to leave her like that.

christ did she have the sh**s with me after a week.

The assumption made their is that you dont need to exactly mimic the aircrafts return to become invisible, if yoa have a close approximation then you will have effectivly reduced the return signal and so for want of a better term reduced the aircrafts RCS ( i know very poor terminoligy)

However my concern is that if the signal generated doesnt 100% match the aircraft – then you are potentially generating additional returns,

Its something i think may be impractical to use even if the theory pans out,

sure as eggs is eggs it will be impossible to implement on aircraft carrying external stores.

Anyone who suggests using active cancellation as a remedy does not understand how difficult it is to cancel a single unknown, continuously changing waveform. The threat radar does not see one massive return, but a set of returns from the engine inlets, cockpit, wing leading edge, wingtips, radar antenna, underwing weapons/pylons (with many stores configurations to be considered), empennage, engine exhausts, wing/tail trailing edges and panel/door edges. The returns change in strength as the target’s azimuth and elevation with respect to the emitter changes. (Note: Knowing this set of returns is one of the methods used for NCTR using SAR mode, so threat radars are assumed to be interested in/looking for that set of returns). Then add overlapping radar coverage from 3-6 radars from different directions and the task of active cancellation becomes overwhelming.

Much more eloquently put than I could myself.

I dont think it can be achieved, however i wont say never, I will say its never gonna happen on an aircraft with external weapons carriage though.

Blue Apple :

It ‘s gonna take brain power and time , money is already founded .
I predict real active cancellation for 2018 , maybe before .

Cheers .

BW borrowed this line to start my talking point.

ive seen a lot of discussion re active cancellation and feel compelled to join the debate.

I am willing to accept that processor power will eventually be enough to create the possibillity, however i see problems in its application.

The idea is to smother the returned signal with a generated signal of the opposite phase effectivelly cancelling the return,

The problem as I see it is that the aircrafts exact signature must be known, because of tolerences etc this means not just aircraft type but each individual unit. this will be expensive

then there is the question of external ordanance – the system will need to know what is being carried, and store every possible combination of dispensed stores in order to replicate the counter wave.

This is where the idea gets impracticle.

To my mind even if the concept can be made to work, it will only be valid as a possibility for a few aircraft types.

Aircraft which could utilise Active Cancellation.

F22, F35, B1, B2, Mosquito, Lancaster, F1-11, F106, Taranis,

Aircraft which it would be impracticle to use active cancellation.

Rafale, F15, F18, phantom, Jaguar, Mirage, Harrier, Tornado, Typhoon