Posted: 2/13/2014 8:15:25 PM EDT
I feel the same as this guy, and he knows a hell of a lot more than I do. |
| 1940's radars were long-wavelength, and can perhaps defeat the radar absorption skin of the stealth aircraft. That's not accounting for the fact that the stealth aircraft will be hidden in the ground return, not @ high altitude, nor that a metric (meter band) radar will only give a wide area of the location. Can it warn of an attack? Perhaps. Can it target the aircraft will specific projectiles? No. |
|
Quoted:
"Every 1940's radar can spot any stealth plane in existence" Really..? Anyone have a comment on this? stealth just reduces radar signature, it doesn't eliminate it. For years countries based their air defenses and radar emplacement off of the signatures of non stealth aircraft, because the technology either didn't exist, or wasn't known. So stealth aircraft with a smaller signature could fly between radars without being detected. Now the cat is out of the bag. All a country has to do to defeat stealth is have more/better radar coverage capable of picking up on the reduced signature of the stealth aircraft. Radar technology was developed by the brits in the 40's, and has been modified, but not greatly changed since. So if you had enough old radars in the right place, you could see modern stealth aircraft. ETA This guy seems to know what he is talking about. It is just common sense really. A plane can't be designed to be both fast and slow, nimble and strong. The current DoD acquisition system doesn't have an avenue for common sense warfighting equipment to be fielded until people start to die. Right now, it is just an extension of the worst parts of the political clusterfucks that are the US Congress, and DoD. As this guy says, the number one concern when fielding war fighting equipment is who's congressional district is going to get Federal money. The F35 program was impossible to kill, because it is spread out across many key Congressional districts. Another key problem is that the AF is an exceedingly out of touch service run by self absorbed and out of touch pilots who are obsessed with developing aircraft for, and fighting air to air. And no one believes their own propaganda more than the US Air Force. They are victims of their own success, and the Geo political environment that has allowed them to be the dominant and unchallenged Air Force since WWII. |
|
Quoted:
stealth just reduces radar signature, it doesn't eliminate it. For years countries based their air defenses and radar emplacement off of the signatures of non stealth aircraft, because the technology either didn't exist, or wasn't known. So stealth aircraft with a smaller signature could fly between radars without being detected. Now the cat is out of the bag. All a country has to do to defeat stealth is have more/better radar coverage capable of picking up on the reduced signature of the stealth aircraft. Quoted:
stealth just reduces radar signature, it doesn't eliminate it. For years countries based their air defenses and radar emplacement off of the signatures of non stealth aircraft, because the technology either didn't exist, or wasn't known. So stealth aircraft with a smaller signature could fly between radars without being detected. Now the cat is out of the bag. All a country has to do to defeat stealth is have more/better radar coverage capable of picking up on the reduced signature of the stealth aircraft. All they have to do is have more/better coverage huh? Sounds easy. How do they do that? Be specific. Radar technology was developed by the brits in the 40's, and has been modified, but not greatly changed since. So if you had enough old radars in the right place, you could see modern stealth aircraft. Not greatly changed? What do you consider a great change? Be specific. What is your criteria? Radars in the right place? Where do they have to be in relation to the aircraft to "see" a modern stealth aircraft? ETA This guy seems to know what he is talking about. It is just common sense really. A plane can't be designed to be both fast and slow, nimble and strong. The current DoD acquisition system doesn't have an avenue for common sense warfighting equipment to be fielded until people start to die. Right now, it is just an extension of the worst parts of the political clusterfucks that are the US Congress, and DoD. As this guy says, the number one concern when fielding war fighting equipment is who's congressional district is going to get Federal money. The F35 program was impossible to kill, because it is spread out across many key Congressional districts. Another key problem is that the AF is an exceedingly out of touch service run by self absorbed and out of touch pilots who are obsessed with developing aircraft for, and fighting air to air. And no one believes their own propaganda more than the US Air Force. They are victims of their own success, and the Geo political environment that has allowed them to be the dominant and unchallenged Air Force since WWII. He doesn't, and I suspect neither do you. |
|
Quoted:
Interesting. I wonder if there's a precedent for this boondoggle- govt wasting $$$ trying to develop a one size fits all solution. F-111. It's funny, every time you try to build a plane to do everything, it doesn't do anything very well. When you purpose build a plane to do one thing fantastically, it turns out to also do other stuff pretty well too (F-4, F-16, F/A-18, etc.) Not that I trust the guy in the OP though. |
|
Quoted:
He doesn't, and I suspect neither do you. Quoted:
Quoted:
ETA This guy seems to know what he is talking about. It is just common sense really. A plane can't be designed to be both fast and slow, nimble and strong. The current DoD acquisition system doesn't have an avenue for common sense warfighting equipment to be fielded until people start to die. Right now, it is just an extension of the worst parts of the political clusterfucks that are the US Congress, and DoD. As this guy says, the number one concern when fielding war fighting equipment is who's congressional district is going to get Federal money. The F35 program was impossible to kill, because it is spread out across many key Congressional districts. Another key problem is that the AF is an exceedingly out of touch service run by self absorbed and out of touch pilots who are obsessed with developing aircraft for, and fighting air to air. And no one believes their own propaganda more than the US Air Force. They are victims of their own success, and the Geo political environment that has allowed them to be the dominant and unchallenged Air Force since WWII. He doesn't, and I suspect neither do you. I bolded the part he's correct about. |
|
Quoted:
You speak the truth...Sprey needs to GTFO Quoted:
Quoted:
Fuck Pierre Sprey, he's a one trick pony that hasn't got anything right since the F-16. You speak the truth...Sprey needs to GTFO Actually the F-35 really is a POS unfortunatly. Thats why i quit associating my self with the project. 
|
|
Quoted:
All they have to do is have more/better coverage huh? Sounds easy. How do they do that? Be specific. Not greatly changed? What do you consider a great change? Be specific. What is your criteria? Radars in the right place? Where do they have to be in relation to the aircraft to "see" a modern stealth aircraft? He doesn't, and I suspect neither do you. Quoted:
Quoted:
stealth just reduces radar signature, it doesn't eliminate it. For years countries based their air defenses and radar emplacement off of the signatures of non stealth aircraft, because the technology either didn't exist, or wasn't known. So stealth aircraft with a smaller signature could fly between radars without being detected. Now the cat is out of the bag. All a country has to do to defeat stealth is have more/better radar coverage capable of picking up on the reduced signature of the stealth aircraft. All they have to do is have more/better coverage huh? Sounds easy. How do they do that? Be specific. Radar technology was developed by the brits in the 40's, and has been modified, but not greatly changed since. So if you had enough old radars in the right place, you could see modern stealth aircraft. Not greatly changed? What do you consider a great change? Be specific. What is your criteria? Radars in the right place? Where do they have to be in relation to the aircraft to "see" a modern stealth aircraft? ETA This guy seems to know what he is talking about. It is just common sense really. A plane can't be designed to be both fast and slow, nimble and strong. The current DoD acquisition system doesn't have an avenue for common sense warfighting equipment to be fielded until people start to die. Right now, it is just an extension of the worst parts of the political clusterfucks that are the US Congress, and DoD. As this guy says, the number one concern when fielding war fighting equipment is who's congressional district is going to get Federal money. The F35 program was impossible to kill, because it is spread out across many key Congressional districts. Another key problem is that the AF is an exceedingly out of touch service run by self absorbed and out of touch pilots who are obsessed with developing aircraft for, and fighting air to air. And no one believes their own propaganda more than the US Air Force. They are victims of their own success, and the Geo political environment that has allowed them to be the dominant and unchallenged Air Force since WWII. He doesn't, and I suspect neither do you. I'm gunna duck low to get below the purses and get some popcorn. |
|
If all the F-35 program does is give us a stealth carrier-based strike fighter it will be worth it IMHO. Given the unreliability of our "allies" in much of the turd world, we need a first day of the war strike fighter that doesn't need an airfield. The Air Force and Marine versions are just gravy IMHO. |
|
Quoted:
You speak the truth...Sprey needs to GTFO Quoted:
Quoted:
Fuck Pierre Sprey, he's a one trick pony that hasn't got anything right since the F-16. You speak the truth...Sprey needs to GTFO The current block of the f16s, really everything after the A model, are the antithesis of what he advocated for. |
|
Stealth? Maybe. Maybe not.
"Yesterday, at a subcommittee hearing attended by just half a dozen Senators, the Pentagon’s top weapons buyer made a blunt admission: The military’s most expensive program, the stealthy F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, has been hacked and the stolen data used by America’s adversaries. Under Secretary Frank Kendall didn’t say by whom, but the answer is almost certainly China, a cyber superpower whose People’s Liberation Army Air Force has recently rolled out some suspiciously sophisticated stealth fighter prototypes of its own. The Russians also have skilled hackers and “5th Generation” stealth jet programs, but they’re not suspected of such direct copying, at least not yet." http://breakingdefense.com/2013/06/top-official-admits-f-35-stealth-fighter-secrets-stolen/ |
|
Quoted:
All they have to do is have more/better coverage huh? Sounds easy. How do they do that? Be specific. Not greatly changed? What do you consider a great change? Be specific. What is your criteria? Radars in the right place? Where do they have to be in relation to the aircraft to "see" a modern stealth aircraft? He doesn't, and I suspect neither do you. Quoted:
Quoted:
stealth just reduces radar signature, it doesn't eliminate it. For years countries based their air defenses and radar emplacement off of the signatures of non stealth aircraft, because the technology either didn't exist, or wasn't known. So stealth aircraft with a smaller signature could fly between radars without being detected. Now the cat is out of the bag. All a country has to do to defeat stealth is have more/better radar coverage capable of picking up on the reduced signature of the stealth aircraft. All they have to do is have more/better coverage huh? Sounds easy. How do they do that? Be specific. Radar technology was developed by the brits in the 40's, and has been modified, but not greatly changed since. So if you had enough old radars in the right place, you could see modern stealth aircraft. Not greatly changed? What do you consider a great change? Be specific. What is your criteria? Radars in the right place? Where do they have to be in relation to the aircraft to "see" a modern stealth aircraft? ETA This guy seems to know what he is talking about. It is just common sense really. A plane can't be designed to be both fast and slow, nimble and strong. The current DoD acquisition system doesn't have an avenue for common sense warfighting equipment to be fielded until people start to die. Right now, it is just an extension of the worst parts of the political clusterfucks that are the US Congress, and DoD. As this guy says, the number one concern when fielding war fighting equipment is who's congressional district is going to get Federal money. The F35 program was impossible to kill, because it is spread out across many key Congressional districts. Another key problem is that the AF is an exceedingly out of touch service run by self absorbed and out of touch pilots who are obsessed with developing aircraft for, and fighting air to air. And no one believes their own propaganda more than the US Air Force. They are victims of their own success, and the Geo political environment that has allowed them to be the dominant and unchallenged Air Force since WWII. He doesn't, and I suspect neither do you. More radars with more coverage? I have to explain that? More radars spread across the same geographic area in any semblance of a functional area air defense plan. Or more powerful radars able to compensate for the lack of cross section, absorption and reflection on a so called stealth plane. I'm not going to go through this like it is kindergarten, and am not interested in trying to impress you. If you know anything, then you know we won't be discussing specifics on here for good reasons. How about instead, you explain to me how I or the video is wrong? What are the major advancements in radar technology the last 70 years? And what is their applicability to the discussion at hand? And why can't old unsophisticated radars detect "stealth" if in the right position? How about you tell us why the guy in the video is wrong? Why is an F35 better for CAS than an A-10? Better for air to air than an F-16 or F-15? Better bomber than any of them in our inventory? Explain one benefit of adding the retarded cost of the F35 to our inventory? The only half assed argument I've ever heard is that the older designs are getting too many hours and are becoming maintenance intensive. Ok so build some more, or develop something that replaces at least one of them with something better. That can't be any more expensive than this worthless bureaucratic clusterfuck. It really doesn't do anything well, and is a tremendous waste of money. |
|
Quoted:
The info is out there if you look for it. Unfortunately, stealth is not the free pass it used to be.  Stealth does what it's supposed to do. If and when we ever have to fight a country with some first world electronics that other country is going to have to tie up a lot of time, money, manpower and resources to defeat our "stealth". Remember how we won the cold war? Star Wars might have been a pipe dream in the 80's, but the Soviets sure spent a lot of time, money, manpower and resources trying to come up with ways to defeat it. |
|
Quoted: Stealth does what it's supposed to do. If and when we ever have to fight a country with some first world electronics that other country is going to have to tie up a lot of time, money, manpower and resources to defeat our "stealth". Remember how we won the cold war? Star Wars might have been a pipe dream in the 80's, but the Soviets sure spent a lot of time, money, manpower and resources trying to come up with ways to defeat it. Quoted: Quoted: The info is out there if you look for it. Unfortunately, stealth is not the free pass it used to be. Stealth does what it's supposed to do. If and when we ever have to fight a country with some first world electronics that other country is going to have to tie up a lot of time, money, manpower and resources to defeat our "stealth". Remember how we won the cold war? Star Wars might have been a pipe dream in the 80's, but the Soviets sure spent a lot of time, money, manpower and resources trying to come up with ways to defeat it. Plus, since those air defense resources are the first target, every time the enemy loses one of those battles, it gets harder and harder for them to win. |
|
Quoted:
Stealth does what it's supposed to do. If and when we ever have to fight a country with some first world electronics that other country is going to have to tie up a lot of time, money, manpower and resources to defeat our "stealth". Remember how we won the cold war? Star Wars might have been a pipe dream in the 80's, but the Soviets sure spent a lot of time, money, manpower and resources trying to come up with ways to defeat it. Quoted:
Quoted:
The info is out there if you look for it. Unfortunately, stealth is not the free pass it used to be. Stealth does what it's supposed to do. If and when we ever have to fight a country with some first world electronics that other country is going to have to tie up a lot of time, money, manpower and resources to defeat our "stealth". Remember how we won the cold war? Star Wars might have been a pipe dream in the 80's, but the Soviets sure spent a lot of time, money, manpower and resources trying to come up with ways to defeat it. Do you really think we are winning the economic war here? How much do you think these mobile radars cost vs our "stealth" aircraft? |
|
Quoted: Plus, since those air defense resources are the first target, every time the enemy loses one of those battles, it gets harder and harder for them to win. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The info is out there if you look for it. Unfortunately, stealth is not the free pass it used to be. Stealth does what it's supposed to do. If and when we ever have to fight a country with some first world electronics that other country is going to have to tie up a lot of time, money, manpower and resources to defeat our "stealth". Remember how we won the cold war? Star Wars might have been a pipe dream in the 80's, but the Soviets sure spent a lot of time, money, manpower and resources trying to come up with ways to defeat it. Plus, since those air defense resources are the first target, every time the enemy loses one of those battles, it gets harder and harder for them to win. |
|
Quoted: Stealth does what it's supposed to do. If and when we ever have to fight a country with some first world electronics that other country is going to have to tie up a lot of time, money, manpower and resources to defeat our "stealth". Remember how we won the cold war? Star Wars might have been a pipe dream in the 80's, but the Soviets sure spent a lot of time, money, manpower and resources trying to come up with ways to defeat it. Quoted: Quoted: The info is out there if you look for it. Unfortunately, stealth is not the free pass it used to be. Stealth does what it's supposed to do. If and when we ever have to fight a country with some first world electronics that other country is going to have to tie up a lot of time, money, manpower and resources to defeat our "stealth". Remember how we won the cold war? Star Wars might have been a pipe dream in the 80's, but the Soviets sure spent a lot of time, money, manpower and resources trying to come up with ways to defeat it. You won the cold war? |
|
Quoted:
Do you really think we are winning the economic war here? How much do you think these mobile radars cost vs our "stealth" aircraft? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The info is out there if you look for it. Unfortunately, stealth is not the free pass it used to be. Stealth does what it's supposed to do. If and when we ever have to fight a country with some first world electronics that other country is going to have to tie up a lot of time, money, manpower and resources to defeat our "stealth". Remember how we won the cold war? Star Wars might have been a pipe dream in the 80's, but the Soviets sure spent a lot of time, money, manpower and resources trying to come up with ways to defeat it. Do you really think we are winning the economic war here? How much do you think these mobile radars cost vs our "stealth" aircraft? Them durn Roooskie's are spending money to develop stealth aircraft and ways to counter our stealth. |
|
Quoted:
Do you really think we are winning the economic war here? How much do you think these mobile radars cost vs our "stealth" aircraft? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The info is out there if you look for it. Unfortunately, stealth is not the free pass it used to be. Stealth does what it's supposed to do. If and when we ever have to fight a country with some first world electronics that other country is going to have to tie up a lot of time, money, manpower and resources to defeat our "stealth". Remember how we won the cold war? Star Wars might have been a pipe dream in the 80's, but the Soviets sure spent a lot of time, money, manpower and resources trying to come up with ways to defeat it. Do you really think we are winning the economic war here? How much do you think these mobile radars cost vs our "stealth" aircraft? Bingo. that is the true question. The days of America having by far the biggest wallet are coming to an end. Yes, let us throw a plane that costs 350 mil a pop versus China and see how far that goes. They will have a numeric advantage so large in both radar and their own planes it won't matter how good this turd is. Think tank warfare in WWII. |
|
Quoted: The reality of that is any site that comes hot for more than 30 seconds is going to eat a HARM shortly, known sites will already be toast. This has little to do with us building a flying pig which cost 300+million a copy, we are not doing the F35 program to run the Soviet Union broke trying to counter it, the truth is it is breaking us. What is the price of a new Aircraft Carrier? several billion? would we be better served with another carrier or 6 or 7 F35s? The only way the known sites will already be toast is if we toast them. We'll toast them with the F-35. Just think of it as an F-117 that isn't a flying brick. And the F-35 is hardly a flying pig. It is designed to win wars, not look pretty at an airshow like the Migs. |
|
Quoted:
F-111. It's funny, every time you try to build a plane to do everything, it doesn't do anything very well. When you purpose build a plane to do one thing fantastically, it turns out to also do other stuff pretty well too (F-4, F-16, F/A-18, etc.) Not that I trust the guy in the OP though. Quoted:
Quoted:
Interesting. I wonder if there's a precedent for this boondoggle- govt wasting $$$ trying to develop a one size fits all solution. F-111. It's funny, every time you try to build a plane to do everything, it doesn't do anything very well. When you purpose build a plane to do one thing fantastically, it turns out to also do other stuff pretty well too (F-4, F-16, F/A-18, etc.) Not that I trust the guy in the OP though. Anyone want some F-111 cockpit doors? I still have a pile of parts in my yard including about 3 feet of DZUS rails from the center console area. |
|
Quoted:
F-16E Block 60? Quoted:
Quoted:
So, what is the right answer? Should've stuck with the F-22....more F-15E's?? F-16E Block 60? Super Falcon, Similar (if not completely based off of) the Japanese F2, preferably with organic ECM capabilities on the airframe. That's something we can buy a fleet of without bankrupting the country. |
|
Quoted:
"Every 1940's radar can spot any stealth plane in existence" Really..? Anyone have a comment on this? Well known and understood by anyone with a knowledge of radar and physics. Why, with limited exceptions, is there not widespread use of 1940s era radar? In the real world, there are tradeofffs you make when designing systems. A gain in capability in one area costs you somewhere else. |
|
Quoted:
That presumes there is a single right answer. Quoted:
Quoted:
So, what is the right answer? Should've stuck with the F-22....more F-15E's?? That presumes there is a single right answer. GD is find of the "one right answer": F-22, A-10, and now apparently, 1940s era radar. |
|
How much do missile advancements play into the mix? If you can shoot and forget from 100 miles out, should dogfighting still be in the mix?
What about missile truck / UAV strategy? Seems like you could have 10 UAV's with 2 missiles under their wing for every manned fighter now days |
|
Quoted:
How much do missile advancements play into the mix? If you can shoot and forget from 100 miles out, should dogfighting still be in the mix? What about missile truck / UAV strategy? Seems like you could have 10 UAV's with 2 missiles under their wing for every manned fighter now days This. Don't tell the fighter mafia. |
|
Quoted:
How much do missile advancements play into the mix? If you can shoot and forget from 100 miles out, should dogfighting still be in the mix? What about missile truck / UAV strategy? Seems like you could have 10 UAV's with 2 missiles under their wing for every manned fighter now days If you like the continuous carving out of requirements, technological overreach,and cost growth of the F-35 program, you will love the recommendation above. |
|
Quoted: GD is find of the "one right answer": F-22, A-10, and now apparently, 1940s era radar. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So, what is the right answer? Should've stuck with the F-22....more F-15E's?? That presumes there is a single right answer. GD is find of the "one right answer": F-22, A-10, and now apparently, 1940s era radar. Don't forget Arfcom's most favorite plane of all time.  |