GAO: Tactical Aircraft: Changing Conditions Drive Need for New F/A-22 Business Case"

In article ,
on 17 Mar 2004 22:02:39 GMT,
BUFDRVR attempted to say .....

Face
it - a non-stealthy combat aircraft is obsolete.

I think you may be over stating that point a bit Walt. There's still years and
years of play for non-stealth (and in the case of the BUFF, anti-stealth)
aircraft. In fact, the addition of the F/A-22 ensures that.

You might be on to something there.
A radar signature so massive that radar operators disregard it because
they know nothing that huge could fly.....




--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 01:40:36 GMT, Tank Fixer
wrote:

In article ,
on 17 Mar 2004 22:02:39 GMT,
BUFDRVR attempted to say .....

Face
it - a non-stealthy combat aircraft is obsolete.

I think you may be over stating that point a bit Walt. There's still years and
years of play for non-stealth (and in the case of the BUFF, anti-stealth)
aircraft. In fact, the addition of the F/A-22 ensures that.

You might be on to something there.
A radar signature so massive that radar operators disregard it because
they know nothing that huge could fly.....

And just think if a B-52 could generate large numbers of those massive
radar signatures it would completely blank out the radar operators
scope!
Or instead of one massive flying barn coming at you it would look like
hundreds of flying barns were headed your way from all directions....

You might be on to something there.
A radar signature so massive that radar operators disregard it because
they know nothing that huge could fly.....

I like to call it "anti-stealth"...I think I should patent that....


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

(BUFDRVR) wrote:

You might be on to something there.
A radar signature so massive that radar operators disregard it because
they know nothing that huge could fly.....

I like to call it "anti-stealth"...I think I should patent that....


BUFDRVR

Sure, they think that you're a large CB cell
--

-Gord.

Problem is that measures and counter-measures are developed and
advance so fast that with the advent of successful look-down radars
hiding in the weeds won't work any more. I foresee the employment of
orbital radars/IRs/passive microwave sensors so that any
energy-emitter will be detected and tracked. Coupled with enough
computing power, any object moving in relation to the earth will also
be detected and tracked. This is why I say the only way to go is
stealth - and the sooner the better. It's one hell of a force
multiplier.
Walt BJ