AV takes the side of our freedom-hating enemies:

That’s what the F-35 is for, bombing civilians and protecting stolen resources.

I hope you never have to learn first hand why we need self-defense, and why “self-defense” doesn’t just including waiting to defend yourself after you get shot.

AV:

Also, proof that I defended the Viet Cong? Explained maybe, but not defend. According to international law they are allowed to fight against invasion and occupation.

What an absurd defense.

They are allowed to defend themselves against aggressors, and were this the only thing they did, they’d be “off the hook”.

As it was, they were so extreme even by North Vietnamese standards, that the DRV basically set them up for extermination during the Tet Offensive.

AV,

While failing to adequately address the Su-30MK threat, you ignore the Su-37 / Su-47 5th Gen Threat of the Berkut.

What’s your point?

My point is that it is critical that we upgrade our aircraft to meet and beat the modernized threat out there.

Incidentally, do you even know what paranoid means?

Your point seems to be niggling and not addressing the issue.

Greg,

Roger that on the AD-1.

Great wing stores, great survivability and great loiter time.

I knew a Nam Spad driver. Special kinda guy.

Related to your .45 cal ACP strafing run was another acquaintance of mine who was an L-19 Birddog driver.

He was flying low over the triple canopy when he and his spotter came across NVA or VC crossing a ford in some numbers. The only thing they had was a case of frags.

So both he and the spotter opened the windows, pulled the pins on two frags each, and, cradling the stick between his knees, flew over the bad guys and thus dropped 4 frags in each pass until the case was empty.

The Gooks didn’t shoot him and his buddy down, but I’d venture to guess he at least gave them a throbbing headache.

Gents,

Your discussion on STEALTH is slightly interesting and Greg’s clarification on the Serb take-out of the F-117 illuminating.

In a way, it also brings to the fore yet another reason why the F-35, from what I have read, is unsuited even for its’ primary task of ground attack. Citing some of the open literature referenced above, critics call the F-35 too heavy, too thin-skinned, and too fast for its role as a ground attack aircraft. I take it that it is supposed to supply variants to the various branches and is intended to replace the A-10, F/A-18 and the AV8 Harrier.

From what I have gleaned, that’s a huge mistake.

Much like the Checker Taxi, whose design has changed little over the years, and yet keeps reliably performing its workhorse role, hacking in cities across the USA,

… the A-10 seems like a proven, tough, and very capable design.

I would think that tweaking the design would be far better than the Platypus compromise that is the F-35… a little bit of this, a little bit of that, not very good in any of them and far more expensive than everything it has replaced.

Unless there is more than meets the eye, for the near term, bad things will be happening in the air for the United States and her allies, unless and until the F-22 line is reopened and we roll this excellent fighter out in sufficient numbers to control our own airspace, and any airspace, for that matter, our pilots are ordered out in their planes to protect.

Okay,

We’re making progress, incremental, but progress yet.

I think you misunderstood my point on STEALTH. You are making the point that I have myself made earlier — that STEALTH, while a great advantage — cannot be crutch that we rest on, allowing other factors, such as super-maneuverability, to fall by the wayside.

See paragraph two of this entry, where I quoted some industry literature:

Stealth may be a great advantage for a space, but sooner or later the Chi-Coms and Russians will have it for themselves or find a way to circumvent this advantage.

Note that Lockheed Martin’s release does not address infared stealth against modern IRST (infa-red scan and track) air to air systems, which are present on advanced European and Russian designs and have ranges up to 70km. Nor does it make any claims concerning superior maneuverability against thrust-vectoring opponents like Russia’s MiG-29OVT and the most modern members of the SU-30 family, or canard-equipped “4.5 generation” aircraft like the Dassault Rafale, EADS Eurofighter, or Saab’s Gripen.

Note that the Russians are fielding some very good air-to-air ordinance such as the AA-11 Archer (Very advanced IR system, much better than Sidewinder (at time of deployment) and a considerable shock to the west at the time) and the AA-12 Adder (Very similar to US AMRAAM but with longer range) which, from what I can see on the surface, don’t rely on radar cross-section, but on IR signature and tracking. Does our STEALTH address this? I don’t know, other than to understand that the positioning of the hotter parts of the aircraft are shielded or positioned to minimize IR signature from the viewpoint of the average adversary, and that the exhaust ducting is configured to minimize heat signature.

In any event, it seems we are in agreement that STEALTH is not a panacea.

I DO know that our F-15′s, and the rest of our fighter inventory, are aging rapidly.

I DO know the Russians are fielding 5th Generation aircraft, while we have fielded some and that the Demoncrats have effectively killed the upgrading and replacement of our air forces for quite some time.

Gearing up for production once it has been shut down is an expensive and time-consuming process. You cannot get 9 women pregnant and roll out one baby in one month.

We can transition from peacetime to full-blown conflict overnight, and we will not have the luxury of months or years to gear up production and train pilots in what will be 4th Dimensional Warfare (i.e. dogfighting, but now with backflips, neck-snapping hammerhead turns, and other variations of Pugachev’s Cobra maneuver) thus, we go to war with what we have, not what we would want to have, or even what we ought to have.

I DO know that Democrats, with the willing assistance of John McCain, have stabbed our current and near-future fighter pilots in the back by denying them the edge to win in any future conflict. More likely, they will simply be killed against more modern, 5th Generation THREAT fighters, and then all those land, sea and air elements that depended upon our Air Force for protection will be slaughtered as well.

For lack of a better alternative, we need the F-22.

Air superiority is not a thing to be ceded lightly. As the world’s lone superpower, it is a means of projecting power, much the same way as does an aircraft carrier, or an ICBM.

The F-35 was designed for a different mission. The idea foolishly posited here that we can maintain the same air superiority by simply flying twice as many of them, would just give the enemy what our pilots call a “target rich environment”.

And if you think that the Taliban are straw men

Forgive me, Buzz! I forgot that you are an unlearned fool and you understand little of what you read.
A “straw man” is a type of argument that is easily knocked down.
I was referring to the argument you set up about fighting ground troops with an air to air fighter. It was ludicrous on its face and I referred to it as such.

If you want to argue with the big dogs, old son, you might want to learn the language first! (Or stay on the porch!)

The Taliban must not have gotten your message

You prattle like a fool Klansman! Your straw men aside, maybe if you learned what the “F” stood for in F-22, you wouldn’t make such mind numbingly stupid statements?

Gotta love FAC/CAS drivers, they are the closest thing to flying infantry we have. One thing I like about the Marine aviators is that the pilots wear helmet covers on their flight helmets to remind them of the ground pounders. Two other CAS ships of note from Nam were Puff and Spectre.

It is as wasteful as the US occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Beat that dead horse some more, Ruh Roh Reader! Rigor hasn’t fully set in!

Air Supremacy gives our helicopters as well as slow attack airplanes and even large bombers giving “close air support” (B52′s with GPS bombs loitering over the battlefield).

All of that makes our light/fast infantry and mechanized units many times more effective.

Even our logistical power comes from owning the skies.

But yeah, I’m sure glad we could buy some luxury jets for the Congress rather than keep the program alive.

The problem is it is impossible for an hundred odd f-22 fighters to defend our interests over the world. All the enemy (whoever they might be) needs to do is find a situation where their forces are the stronger.

They’d likely impose more damage than we really want to suffer.

Buzz-Tard,

You realize that we have not been using submarines all that much in Afghanistan either?

Could it be that submarines are not of much use in the asymmetrical war context, but very much in another context?

Sir, I applaud you for how far you have come, despite the serious brain injury you obviously suffered in the attempted partial-birth abortion process you lived through.

Evidently, after the abortionist sucked out your brains, you have managed to continue on and live life as a loyal democrat and union shop steward.

Kudos to you sir!

The Omnipotent Obama will oversee a huge downsizing of our military. He is convinced that he really is the messiah that liberal idiots believe him to be. Somewhere is Kenya a village is missing it’s idiot.

Bat One,

A lot older than all of us:

Si vis pacem, paret bellum.

So tell us Angsty Vegetable of the virtues of the “AIMRAAM” missile…

buzzardbreath the racist fuck pops in to support angsty vegetable again.

For angsty vegetable’s benefit, I now repeat buzzardbreaths racist lowlife hits:

[blockquote]

I would never try to defend these sub-humans. I said earlier im [sic] no nigger loving liberal. They are animals, pure and simple. Stay out west… its not safe here. -Buzz

“Sand niggers”

“Porch monkey”

“kike”

“knee deep in shines”

“less than stellar minority’s (sic)”

The only good hood nigger, is a dead hood nigger.

Let’s see who had the balls to get an army of 1.2M gooks pissed off.

“towlhead” [sic]

You don’t think I would actually listen to what that cunt had to say would you?

More nigger shit.

Who the fuck wouldn’t with all the spooks, beaners, and rednecks carrying?[/blockquote]

So, angsty vegetable, what say you as regards the documented record of buzzardbreath?

angsty vegetable,

Are you sure you want to endorse a self convicted racist bigot such as buzzardbreath and embrace him as your defender?

Be sure to click the link and follow back for his actual racist statements before answering…

I note with interest that our angsty vegetable has not answered my earlier question as regards the “AIMRAAM” missle.

I now pose for our soi dissant physicist a second question: Please show us the Radar Equation with particular emphasis on RCS (i.e. Radar Cross Section) and how it relates (linear fashion or exponential) to the other variables in the equation. From this any competent physicist or mathematician can suggest several factors which can ameliorate the benefits of “stealth” (which is really RCS reduction).

I’ll not hold my breath…

What makes you think that someone who writes this much racist filth:

[blockquote]

I would never try to defend these sub-humans. I said earlier im [sic] no nigger loving liberal. They are animals, pure and simple. Stay out west… its not safe here. -Buzz

“Sand niggers”

“Porch monkey”

“kike”

“knee deep in shines”

“less than stellar minority’s (sic)”

The only good hood nigger, is a dead hood nigger.

Let’s see who had the balls to get an army of 1.2M gooks pissed off.

“towlhead” [sic]

You don’t think I would actually listen to what that cunt had to say would you?

More nigger shit.

Who the fuck wouldn’t with all the spooks, beaners, and rednecks carrying?[/blockquote]

is honest in his protestations of innocence?

Move_Zig,

In the pre-pgm (precision guided munitions) era, the two best close support were the A-6 Intruder and the A-10 Thunderbolt II [that's the official name, frak that, it's the Warthog]. Of the two, the A-6 was better suited to deep penetration strikes, but still benefited from escort.

Now let’s talk about Air Superiority.

When your side effectively decides what flies, and what dies, that is Air Supremacy.

Wnen your side controls the air most of the time, and can reliably deliver strike packages while denying the enemy the ability to reliably deliver strike packages, that’s Air Superiority.

The middle case is a toss up where neither side exercises Supremacy or Superiority consistently.

The next two cases invert the first two cases above.

Stealth Air Superiority Fighters are a key to establishing Air Supremacy or Air Superiority in a hostile integrated air defense situation.

Stealth Bombers and Strike Aircraft are key in reliably delivering strike packages when one does NOT enjoy Air Supremacy or Air Superiority or where tolerance for losses is very low.

In a modern situation the A-10 and A-6 would not be able to accomplish their mission with acceptable losses without Air Supremacy or Air Superiority. The later models of the F/A-18, with their self escort capability, could probably operate with acceptable losses in a situation where neither side had Supremacy or Superiority. Maybe.

The F-35 would probably do better in such situations, but carries less payload (thus requiring more sorties).

Thus the key is to gain Supremacy or Superiority as quickly as possible in an integrated air defense environment, which requires “stealthy” Air Superiority and SEAD assets.

Those two areas are where the F-22 and the F-35 shine.

I have faith we will take our country back before the leftist hoard destroys it. The leftists have overreached and The Tide Has Turned. When coward dems fear to face thier constituents anger as is happening now, its the end for them. We’ll have to rebuild our military, but we’ve been here before.

I love the Warthog Zig but the best strike/CAS aircraft the US ever made was this…

The A-1 Skyraider

Large bomb load, 4 20mm guns for infantry support, long loiter time, tough and easy to fly. Now if you want tank killing, the A-10 is second to none.

My favorite Vietnam story has a Spad pilot running out of ammo so he cracks his canopy, leans out and shoots at the NVA with his 1911.

Nice explanation Greg.

Will,

It seems readily apparent that what the Left have been doing since gaining power has been to consistently take actions which seriously hurt the United States:

- looting the treasury,

- killing domestic energy self-sufficiency and

- gutting our military.

No doubt, they are messing with the intelligence community behind the scenes as well, if the Carter and Clinton administrations are reliable indicators as to what the Left always does, once in power.

Feel free to add any examples I might have missed.

angsty vegetable,

Should I take it then that the ‘d’ in your explanation is actually ‘r’ as in “range” then perhaps we are on the same sheet here.

RCS varies with f (as in frequency) of the Radar. Other factors include Antenna Gain and various features of the receiver. RCS reduction usually reduces signal at the receiver such that the signal of interest falls into the range of random noise. Such signals can still be passed by a sufficiently intelligent filter (one that filters for doppler or one of several other indicators of a valid contact).

Bi-static and other large (real or synthetic) aperture radars are particularly effective against reduce RCS targets, as are many advanced airborne radars which look down on the contact of interest.

Here endeth the lesson.

Greg, the SAM was a radar-guided SA-3! Over 45 y/o tech, that’s freakin’ amazing! (Though the F-117 may have lacked a RWR.)

That may have worked in its favor because of it long wave lengths helped it paint the target better. The F-117 is late 1970 tech (facets) which we have discarded in favor of radar absorbing materials. All stealth aircraft are vulnerable to the old Mark I eyeball, human, two each. That said, I would still prefer a “stealthy” aircraft to a non-stealthy one. In a combat situation any advantage helps.

But stealth tech is still an unknown. The Serbs managed to shoot down an F-117!? (If the radar’s wave-length is approximately twice the length of the aircraft then stealth tech doesn’t work.) Your lopsided F-22 kill stats require that the F-22 is stealth, if it is not, then it only matches, or maybe loses, to Su-35/37 fighters.

The Serbs that shot down the f-117 got a little lucky and we got very stupid. The F-117 had been flying the same route package for some time. The Serbs set up along the route. By their own admission they could detect the aircraft a 50km out. They had 17 seconds to detect and engage. They did and the F-117 was shot down but the key is they need all of those 17 seconds. The problem with that is that the F-22 is not a strike aircraft. Further it has a better RCS and is MUCH faster (the F-117 had a cruise speed of .9 mach while the F-22 has a cruise speed of 1.5 mach). So if the Serbs would have been shooting at an F-22 they would not have been able to engage. If you mix in different strike routes its is doubtful that the Serbs could have hit the F-117 either. Stealth is like camouflage. It doesn’t keep the enemy for detecting you it just reduces the ability of the enemy to see you. If you are up and walking around or doing predictable things you will be spotted and engaged.

your plan is to be so powerful that Russia and China join forces to defeat us?

You prattle like a fool, Klansman.

Angsty,

You should get your money back…

Proof isn’t being helpful.

Sorry, Carrick! I can’t correct all of Buzz’s mistakes, I already have a full time job!
Buzz is the only one around here that makes Hannitized look like a Rhodes scholar!

Buzz:

Your over your head Graves, quit while your behind.

Proof isn’t being helpful. It’s

“You’re over your head, Graves! Quit while you’re behind.”

AV:

Also, RCS is the main parameter only when the radar’s wavelength is less than 1/2 of the object’s apparent length.

So that should work fine for the application of a modern radar system to an object the size of a plane, yes?

Why act so hootie on an obvious point?

And instead of asking ME what I would do

No one asked you a fucking thing fur ball, go lick your asshole like a good kitty.

Oh…

And whoever or whatever is behind the account “Buzz” is a racists, sexist, bigoted asshole. The mind that produced those purulent comments on race and sex is unfit for the company of human beings.

Rodney,

Sir Winston’s dictum about war and honor echoed ancient wisdom.

Killing the F-22 program won’t help us improve it, and will kill that entire line of research. Very bad idea.
Let’s cut some wasteful social spending, instead of weakening our national defense capabilities.

(continued)

But what I am hearing from some of you are some of the same failed arguments that caused a great deal of needless deaths of American pilots in generations past. ACM is still a pre-requisite for total domination of the air. Stealth may be a great advantage for a space, but sooner or later the Chi-Coms and Russians will have it for themselves or find a way to circumvent this advantage.

Note that Lockheed Martin’s release does not address infared stealth against modern IRST (infa-red scan and track) air to air systems, which are present on advanced European and Russian designs and have ranges up to 70km. Nor does it make any claims concerning superior maneuverability against thrust-vectoring opponents like Russia’s MiG-29OVT and the most modern members of the SU-30 family, or canard-equipped “4.5 generation” aircraft like the Dassault Rafale, EADS Eurofighter, or Saab’s Gripen.

Thus, STEALTH, in and of itself, cannot be the end-all-to-be-all of new aircraft development.

If there has been one constant in air warfare, maneuverability has been a key deciding factor between victory or death in each war that has been fought, from the airspace over WWI Ypres to modern-day air combat.

Those without maneuverability have had to resort to diving hit-and-run attacks, such as those used by German fighters in WWI and the Flying Tigers over China. Those are fall-back positions and no substitute for reliably being able to bring your weapons to bear on the enemy, while denying him the same.

I am relying, like the rest of you, on open-source material. I am not encouraged by the negatives I am reading about the F-35. Certainly, I can also find positives, but then again, the contractor has billions of reasons to say there is nothing wrong. Yet, it would appear that for all the positives, the F-35 still has substantial teething problems and is not expected to be operational before 2016.

F-35 a total failure like the F-111
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
– In the F-22′s case, reasons could be advanced to explain why Spey’s F-22 analysis parameters were wrong, such as the F-22′s thrust vectoring and controllable tail surfaces to offset Spey’s unidimensional wing loading analysis, the tactical implications of having the ability to cruise above Mach 1 without afterburners, and stealth that has defeated AWACS aircraft and worked against international fighter pilots even at relatively short ranges. F-22 pilots have also racked up incredibly lopsided kill ratios in American and international exercises, far in excess of “normal” performance for new aircraft, that back up their pilots’ performance claims.

This is all much harder to do for the F-35, which remains a developmental aircraft and lacks key aerodynamic features like combat thrust vectoring (Harrier, SU-30 family, MiG-29OVT, F-22A), canards for fast “point and shoot” manevers with high off-boresight short-range missiles (some SU-30 family, Rafale, Eurofighter, Gripen), or loaded supersonic cruise (F-22A). The F-35 has also been designed from the outset to feature less stealth than the F-22A, though it will be stealthier than contemporary 4.5 generation European and Russian aircraft. Aircraft intake size and hence volume are set unless the aircraft is redesigned, and wing size, angle and loading can all be observed.

At Home And Abroad, Criticism Of F-35 Persists
September 20th, 2008
– A former Pentagon official involved in the development of the F-16, F-18 and A-10 aircraft in the 1970s said in an influential defense publication that “the F-35 is a dog.”

…
“even without new technical problems the F-35 is a dog. If one accepts every performance promise the DOD [Department of Defense] makes for the aircraft, the F-35 will be overweight and under-powered.”

First off, if there are those who have an inside track on the F-22/F-35 development programs, I can defer to someone with first-hand knowledge. Then again, if you are working with those programs, chances are you should not even be taking part in this discussion due to national security concerns.

Second, AV has yet to support ANY of his points. So you peruse Wikipedia and pick up some lingo? Show your work and support your arguments.

Let’s see URLs.

Third, the reality behind the acquisition of any weapons system is a confluence of competing interests: the Leftists (AV being one) will want to ensure that the US military, to the greatest extent possible, is hobbled, bled white and emasculated. Government contractors, for their own parts, will want to land a multi-billion-dollar contract. (I worked for three of them at various points of my life, as well as working on many defense mergers) The military, particularly the ones closest to the fighting, in my mind are the ones to listen to when it comes to know what the military actually needs in the air.

A generation or so ago, in response to the miserable performance of American century series fighters over Vietnam, seasoned pilots like Boots Blesse, organized the Fighter Mafia and pressured the Pentagon for a re-write of the doctrines which had been disasterously adopted by high-level thinkers, specifically, that Air Combat Maneuvering (ACM) was a thing of the past and that speed and missiles were the advent of the New Pushbutton Warfare. The weaknesses of such thinking were brought to light in Vietnam where the smaller, cheaper and more agile MiGs’ could turn circles around F-100′s, F-101′s and other members of the Century Series. Our aircraft suffered from lack on on-board cannon and close-in dogfight capability.

MiG-19′s and -21′s, equipped with heavy caliber cannon, could reliably engage Allied aircraft. American aircraft, on the other hand, would often see their missiles drop off the rail after hitting the FIRE button, only to see the malfunctioning missile to continue falling into the triple canopy jungle below.

The Vietnamese experience, and the lesson the Israeli Air Force offered in 1967 of just how deadly a traditionally oriented fighter force could be, elicited two responses from the Air Force and Navy.14 The first response was a total change in fighter weapons training. The so-called fighter weapons schools of the Navy and Air Force, which emphasized air combat hassling in the tradition of the Second World War and Korea, were revitalized. The results of training could be incorporated in combat in a much briefer span of time than developing and fielding a new fighter force. Following Korea, the air combat “lessons learned” from F-86s versus MiG-15s had been distilled into an influential fighter primer entitled “No Guts, No Glory!” by Frederick C. (“Boots”) Blesse.15 Sadly, however, the lessons had largely been ignored. Writing in 1968 Gen Bruce K. Holloway, himself a noted fighter ace, stated that

between 1954 and 1962, the USAF training curriculum for fighter pilots included little, if any, air-to-air combat. This omission was partly a result of doctrine, which then regarded tactical fighters primarily as a means for delivering nuclear ordnance [emphasis added]. It was partly a reflection of concern for flying safety. In any event, as late as October 1963, it was reported that only four of 30 pilots in one fighter squadron had ever shot aerial gunnery.16

This revitalized fighter training, emphasizing air combat maneuvering and stressing the continuity of the fighter experience from the days of Oswald Boelcke and Edward Mannock of the First World War, was in place in time for the renewed and intensified air war that broke out in 1972.17

The second response to the disturbingly low victory/loss rate in Vietnam was a clamor for better fighter aircraft, particularly highly maneuverable airplanes having excellent acceleration, agility, visibility, an internal gun system, and a thrust-to-weight ratio exceeding one. Vietnam, it may be said, provided the impetus for the sixth-generation superfighters of the late 1970s and 1980s: the F-14, F-15, F-16, and F/A-18. So, too, did the threat of a new generation of Soviet fighters, particularly after the 1967 Tushino air show, where a wide range of prototype fighters was displayed before Western observers. While many of these remained in the prototype stage, others did spawn operational derivatives in the same fifth-generation category as the F-4.

(NOTE: The author of the above-quoted article uses a different measure of the Generations of fighter aircraft)

Rodeny, you pointed out a typo in AMRAAM, it was a late night post, do you want a gold-star sticker?

Also, RCS is the main parameter only when the radar’s wavelength is less than 1/2 of the object’s apparent length.

Even when RCS is the dominant parameter (i.e. hi-freq radar), radar return is proportional to RCS / d^4

So it takes 10,000 times less RCS to be reduce detection range by one-tenth.

You happy? I’m sure you’ll find my typos/thinkos. I’ll prepare you a gold sticker in advance.

Oops, to reduce detection to one tenth of the range, not by one tenth.

Me not make a good lawyer, me not good at wordings!!

Thanks Buzz, I should ignore Da Wiz, he’s just trolling. Probably angry because he’s a Unix sys admin. A shitty job.

Anyway, he’s probably gone elsewhere to learn up on radar.

Da Wiz and Carrick, try reading Antennas by Kraus. The 1/2 wavelength case is interesting because it might be why the Serbs could shoot down a F-117. Stealth might be causing a revival of old-school techniques.

Most likely there are many other tricks. Apparently the Indians refused to use their Su-30MKI radars in an exercise with British Typhoons, maybe they have something they’re hiding too.

Greg, the SAM was a radar-guided SA-3! Over 45 y/o tech, that’s freakin’ amazing! (Though the F-117 may have lacked a RWR.)

Here endeth the lesson. — Da Wiz

That’s pretty funny you think you are giving me a lesson.

You could have got most of that from my other posts on this site about radar and stealth tech. Or Wikipedia.

You may even remember that a while back that I noted the SAAB Gripen can have its radar function in a synthetic aperture mode, using a data-link with other Gripens. Most likely to detect stealth, and the F-35 will have the same feature apparently.

What makes you think Buzz is racist? He himself says his posts are mainly meant to be provocative, for entertainment. I have no idea what his real views are, can you read his mind Da Wiz?

wizzo, when you copy/paste, you are suppose to put it in “Quotes”, here I will fix it for you.

RCS varies with f (as in frequency) of the Radar. Other factors include Antenna Gain and various features of the receiver. RCS reduction usually reduces signal at the receiver such that the signal of interest falls into the range of random noise. Such signals can still be passed by a sufficiently intelligent filter (one that filters for doppler or one of several other indicators of a valid contact).
Bi-static and other large (real or synthetic) aperture radars are particularly effective against reduce RCS targets, as are many advanced airborne radars which look down on the contact of interest.

Nice try though.

Youtube of the Sukoi Su-35.