The F-117 only flew over Serbia at night, & IIRC high enough that it wouldn’t be exactly deafening people on the ground. It wouldn’t have been tracked by eye or noise. Detected, maybe – but that’s not the same thing.

f-117 actually often fly at altitude just over 500 meters and do like 3000-4000 routes so people know there is something fly over their place , as they didnot detect it on radar , they know that a stealth aircraft and prepare for ambush

But you corrected me by being wrong. They engaged 2 F117, one crashed and one was taken out of service. You said only one.

Please show me those threads if they are relevant.
Ok. Give me a definition with an RCS-span that is acceptable. LO/RO usually implies an RCS <1m², something that the MQ1 lived up to in the simulation.

If you have an official definition with exact numbers then please show me. APA uses the same scale as I do and thats the only one so far I have found with exact numbers. One occasion is here http://www.ausairpower.net/XIMG/Irbis-BARS.png
Thats not up to me to judge, materials and angles also play a large role.

Still, its a small turret compared to the recce pods.
There is more to shaping than putting the wings in perfect alignment. Ground radars targets will have a very hard time getting any gain from those minimal extra returns of the 90 degree angles.

Any source for that? It doesnt look like a shiny aluminum airplane.

Compared to a fully loaded F16 it looks stealthy, compared to an F117 not so much. But then again, I have never claimed it to be stealthy. Thats something out of your fantasy world.

See the attachement for a size comparison with the other targets.

Compared to a loaded F16 that is fairly small the RQ1 is a very very small target.

If you compare the shaping for an RQ1 on a scout mission to an F16 from below with drop tanks, JDAMS, recce pod etc you will see that is is pretty obvious that the RQ1 is a very small target. The simulation data places it @ LO or RO levels if we use the same way of measuring as APA.

If the data I have is wrong then its a different story. But all i hear from you is insults. Its easy to critizise without bringing anything of your own to the table. Have fun with that.

size doesnot say every thing , even the agm-84 have rcs = 0.1 m2 , without shaping , material and RAM it almost impossible to make an aircraft have RCS = 0.0001 m2 at 3 GHz like you claim which is incredibly low 😉
look at the Predator the EO turret is not stealth , the weapon carried out side , the wing is perpendicular head on and there is no source saying the Predator have been treated with RAM like Iron ball or anythings like that 😉 seriously you think that thing can achieved RCS = 0.0001 m2 ?? , i may believe the avenger or X-47 get that number but the Predator …..

and can you please quote exactly where in your link they say that Predator have RCS = 0.0001 m2 at 3 GHz

The RQ1 averaged around 0,06m^2 in RCS with a minimum RCS (same as the F22 and F35 figures) at <0,0001m^2 @ 3GHZ or <0,01m^2 in the X-band. http://www.efieldsolutions.com/example_rcs_predator.pdf

Numbers might be wrong but they are still interesting and I think they qualify the Predator as a LO/VLO platform.

:confused: that is even better than f-22 , even the f-22 only achieved rcs 0.0001 m2 at x band
not to mention predator wing shape , it’s EO camera and external weapon
and no official source declare Predator as LO or VLO , i think your link give wrong information

EE :

Any new technique of jamming is sometimes undetectable and often undefeatable before it is understood by the opponent and until something is done like hardware or software change , or even building a new unit to counter it . During that time , the new EW technique is indeed … undefeatable .

For exemple , the vast majority of the actual GtoA , AtoA RF missiles use a monopulse radar as a seeker (Amraam , Mica , Meteor , etc) . Against the Cross Eye jamming technique , these missiles have a pk extremely low . To counter it with a good chance of success , you need an Aesa array .
I think the Japanese have an Aesa driven Air to Air missile , I read that somewhere …
To use the cross eye , one needs very advanced ECM arrayS and since you need at least 2 separated antennas , not a single pod on the actual market can do it . The Typhoon is said to use this technique and I bet that the Rafale too is using it .
Knowing rather well what Praetorian and Spectra are made off , I can say with pretty much assurance that I do not know of any similar systems fitted on any US aircraft . Someone prove me wrong and I will gently admit it .
Cheers .

jamming against monopulse is not really that impress , the falconedge EW on F-16 block 60 can do that too
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-3538.html
and the problem of cross eye jamming or any other DFRM is that it have to recreate signal from enemy radar so it quite hard for them to jam more than 1 radar at a time 😀 imagine jam 4 different meteor and 1000 T/R modules on AESA radar at the same time 😀
more over most SAM on ground using SARH or command guide rather than just active seeker for missiles so it would be very hard for EF-2000 or rafale to survice S-300/400