# Why has only the U.S. developed "Stealth" aircraft?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-only-the-u-s-developed-stealth-aircraft/86249
**Category:** Factual Questions
**Created:** [October 9, 2001, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-only-the-u-s-developed-stealth-aircraft/86249 "2001-10-09T03:15:12Z")
**Posts on this page:** 11
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)
#### Post date: [October 9, 2001, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-only-the-u-s-developed-stealth-aircraft/86249/21 "2001-10-09T15:05:45Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by London\_Calling \*
> **I also understand that to be the explanation. What I’m not sure about is the distinction between a ‘delivery system’ i.e. the plane and the bombs themselves. Without knowing very much, I’ve assumed the targeting of the bomb is not done on the B2 but rather by the pre-programmed software onboard the bomb. Thus my confusion over the need to fly B2’s from Missouri.**
A “weapons delivery system” is all the hardware, electronics, and software necessary to get the ordnance to it’s target. This may or may not include stuff directly attached to the weapon at some point in it’s journey to the target, such as (ASW stuff here) the rocket attached to the Mk-46 torpedo in an ASROC, the Launcher from which an ASROC is fired, the Sonar systems that detect the submarine, and the electronics that turn sonar info into targeting info. The _weapon_ that actually goes after the submarine is a Mk-46, but lots of other components played a part in getting it to it’s target.
The B-2 doesn’t use particularly unusual ordnance, and none of the _bombs_ have pre-programmed software. Even “smart” bombs are pretty stupid. Bomb: “I see the pretty light. I’m flying to the pretty light. Boom!”
TV guided missiles are even dumber. Missile: “Tell me where to go, boss. Boom!”
Cruise missiles have pre-programmed software (and can be air-dropped), and I’m unsure if stand-off munitions are pre-programmed or not. When you air-drop a cruise missile, the parent aircraft doesn’t tell the missile where to go, the missile already knows, _but_, the parent aircraft has to get the missile close to it’s designated launch point or the missile gets lost.
The point is that the B-2 has some of the most sophisticated targeting systems in the world, and doesn’t miss much. If you’re _trying_ to be precise, you bring the gun with the best sights available, from however far away.
Also: The B-2 is a long-ranged beast, and requires fairly specialized support. It’s cheaper to fly it half-way 'round the globe for a mission, than it is to move all of it’s support equipment and personnel half-way 'round the globe.
---
### Author:  [@DougC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DougC)
#### Post date: [October 9, 2001, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-only-the-u-s-developed-stealth-aircraft/86249/22 "2001-10-09T18:05:50Z")
> [@](#):
>
> Also as a previous poster pointed out we also know that the emperor is naked and our radar systems can see them! - owl
-
-
- Um, -I’m going from memory here, but if I recall right, the incident in question (a British _detection_ system locking onto a F117 during an F117 appearance at a British airshow) was a test of a _visual_ targeting system, under clear skies and during daylight. It may be more sophisticated than that, but do note that stealth aircraft are typically deployed at night, and any visual system would have _very_ limited range, even subject to local conditions.
- Also as I read it, it is true that all the US stealth aircraft are “detectable by radar”, the US found out as much, but the circumstances are extreme: you have to have an _airborne_ radar transmitter operating above the (stealth) aircraft, and ground stations below. Anything in the air will cast a radar “shadow”, so to speak, but these are not ordinary battle conditions, as the enemy plane transmitting the radar would get shot down PDQ. The reason that stealth aircraft are useful is that nobody else can yet build _completely airborne_ radar that can track them. If (and when) anyone can, it will be a snap to put the radar on an ordinary missle. - MC
---
### Author:  [@geepee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/geepee)
#### Post date: [October 9, 2001, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-only-the-u-s-developed-stealth-aircraft/86249/23 "2001-10-09T20:11:23Z")
smart bombs can be smart GBU 32 the JDAM is a smart munition it has a GPS seeker head in it which is preprogrammed (or with late models can be reprogramed)
to hit a target at a GPS coordinate
also stealth is no magic bullet all it does it reduce the range that you can be detected at , so you can avoid the enemy fighters and SAMs until you can get a favourable position or escape
---
### Author:  [@xizor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xizor)
#### Post date: [October 9, 2001, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-only-the-u-s-developed-stealth-aircraft/86249/24 "2001-10-09T21:18:47Z")
As for the OP, I think the biggest reason is the fact that you must walk before you run. In order to build a stealth bomber, you must first:
1). be able to build an airplane.
2). Then you must be able to build a military airplane.
3). Then you need some cool space technology.
4). Then you can put it all together in a stealth bomber. Very few countries can get past step one, let alone 2 and especially not 3. The only one close is Russia and as posted earlier they do have some stealth craft.
---
### Author:  [@aramis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aramis)
#### Post date: [October 9, 2001, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-only-the-u-s-developed-stealth-aircraft/86249/25 "2001-10-09T23:01:17Z")
Niobium Knight said
> [@](#):
>
> …at a UK airshow a couple years back a US Stealth Fighter flew and the RAF managed to lock onto it (they cunningly used the aircraft’s appearance to try out some new detection system) so it’s not quite a stealthy as you might think.
The F117 has a retractable radar reflector specifically so that it _can_ be seen by air traffic control radars when it’s flying in civilian airspace under routine conditions. At an airshow, it would almost certainly have the reflector deployed.
---
### Author:  [@Arjuna34](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arjuna34)
#### Post date: [October 9, 2001, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-only-the-u-s-developed-stealth-aircraft/86249/26 "2001-10-09T23:14:14Z")
The Germans were on the brink of producing a stealth bomber at the end of WW2- the [Horten XVIII](http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/horten.html).
Arjuna34
---
### Author:  [@Dr.Lao](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Lao)
#### Post date: [October 9, 2001, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-only-the-u-s-developed-stealth-aircraft/86249/27 "2001-10-09T23:26:06Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by aramis \*
> \*\*The F117 has a retractable radar reflector specifically so that it _can_ be seen by air traffic control radars when it’s flying in civilian airspace under routine conditions. At an airshow, it would almost certainly have the reflector deployed. \*\*
Really? Why don’t they just turn their transponder on?
---
### Author:  [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)
#### Post date: [October 10, 2001, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-only-the-u-s-developed-stealth-aircraft/86249/28 "2001-10-10T01:26:27Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Tranquilis \*
> The point is that the B-2 has some of the most sophisticated targeting systems in the world, and doesn’t miss much. If you’re _trying_ to be precise, you bring the gun with the best sights available, from however far away.
>
> Also: The B-2 is a long-ranged beast, and requires fairly specialized support. It’s cheaper to fly it half-way 'round the globe for a mission, than it is to move all of it’s support equipment and personnel half-way 'round the globe.
Sure, the accuracy thing makes sense. I guess I don’t really know why, if the targeting tech is available, it should be limited to B2’s.
I also haven’t yet grasped why GPS guidance systems (on board bombs) can’t work and make the plane based targeting (increasing the possibility of human error) redundant.
Anyhoo, thanks for the explanation **Tranquilis**
---
### Author:  [@Mekhazzio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mekhazzio)
#### Post date: [October 10, 2001, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-only-the-u-s-developed-stealth-aircraft/86249/29 "2001-10-10T03:12:12Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by London\_Calling \*
> Sure, the accuracy thing makes sense. I guess I don’t really know why, if the targeting tech is available, it should be limited to B2’s.
It’s not. It’s just that of the readily-available strategic assets (B1, B52, B2) the B2 has the best equipment. Most all tactical assets (attack fighters) are as good or better in the accuracy department but not necessarily so at high altitude. Also, being tactical, they may not be suitable for a task at hand. Besides, we have the horridly expensive things. Might as well use em.
> [@](#):
>
> I also haven’t yet grasped why GPS guidance systems (on board bombs) can’t work and make the plane based targeting (increasing the possibility of human error) redundant.
A GPS-guided bomb is not as precise as a laser-guided one.
## High altitude level bombing Circular Error Probable (from [fas.org](http://fas.org))
\>60m Standard bomb w/ modern FCC
~30m INS guidance
~15m GPS/INS guidance
\<10m Laser guidance
In optimimum conditions with the best targetting kit, an LGB from 25,000 feet can hit a 1-square-meter target. There are other issues as well. Obviously a GPS guided bomb is not going to be able to hit anything even semi-mobile.
---
### Author:  [@Jai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jai)
#### Post date: [October 11, 2001, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-only-the-u-s-developed-stealth-aircraft/86249/30 "2001-10-11T00:41:08Z")
India is currently developing the MCA (Medium Combat Aircraft) which is an out-and-out stealth plane.
---
### Author:  [@Osakadave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Osakadave)
#### Post date: [October 11, 2001, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-only-the-u-s-developed-stealth-aircraft/86249/31 "2001-10-11T04:07:10Z")
> [@](#):
>
> Japan could do it, but has laws against military buildup.
To pic a slight nit, Japan does have laws (article 9 of the constitution being the primary one, which in part states: “land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized”). However, these have been “interpreted” to allow “the right of national self-defense”. Persuiant that goal, Japan has built a very modern “military” known as the Jietai or Self Defense Forces (SDF) of about 250,000 troops equiped with domestically produced, US produced, or US based armaments. These include 157 F-15Js and 18 (eventually 130)[F2As](http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f2/) ([more info on the F2A](http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRF2A.htm)), partially domestically produced (60% Japanese) fighter/interceptors compatable to the F-16 or F-18. The point of all this being that Japanese laws against military buildup are not what prevents Japan from devloping stealth technology. Japan hasn’t doen so for the same reason other US allies haven’t - it’s not neccessary. I would not be surprised if Japan did produce stealth technology in the future.
The JASDF: [http://www.jda.go.jp/jasdf/indexe.htm](http://www.jda.go.jp/jasdf/indexe.htm)
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-only-the-u-s-developed-stealth-aircraft/86249.md?page=1)