If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
ROTFL! Oh really, and what pray tell is your practical insight to draw that
conclusion, compared to that of a combat vet who has a wardrobe full of 'dont that' T Shirts. Combat vets should try to do what they supposed to do best, we are not going to re-fight Vietnam war or any war in the past,if f16 or f22 were available during Vietnam war,it would be magnificent,but it was 30 years ago and science and technology did not stop in 70s. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Rasimus wrote:
: In 1966, while I was flying the F-105 over N. Vietnam, we lost one : every 65 missions. In 1991, during Desert Storm we lost one fixed wing : aircraft every 3500 mission. In 2003 in Iraqi Freedom we lost one : fixed wing aircraft in 16,500 mission. However, the last two operations were characterized by an almost total lack of opposition in the air. The biggest threat to US combat aircraft these days seems to come from small and IR-guided, portable missiles; or even from machine guns. Very expensive anti-radar stealth seems to offer little protection against these. Reducing the IR signature seems to be more useful, but only really effective against a primitive seeker. (But MANPADS tend to be much smaller than AIM-9 and I suppose that it will be difficult to equip them with an all-aspect or imaging IR seeker.) : Stealth aircraft are more survivable. We don't have many, because the : military competes for $$$ against the welfare princesses and : redistribution of wealth candidates who run for election on a platform : of taking from "them" and giving to the masses. AFAIK the US social security system runs with a positive balance, i.e. money is flowing from it into other departments, not the other way around. But that aside, the US military budget is huge, it vastly outspends every other nation, and if it has few stealth aircraft that is in part because until now, these have really been prohibitively expensive both to buy and to operate in large numbers. Besides, the numbers were not needed anyway: The B-2 and even more so the F-117 were ver^y specialized designs, and aircraft that require special maintenance procedures and climate-controlled hangars are of limited operational usefulness. For stealth to be really useful, it must be made compatible with dirt strips and pierced metal planking. However, that was in part because the design of the F-117 and the B-2 were willing to compromise very little stealth for other characteristics. The F-22 and F-35 must involve an increase in RCS as a penalty for lower cost and easier maintenance, while relying on new materials and manufacturing procedures to get good results. Part of the attractiveness of a new design is that it may actually be cheaper to buy and operate than its precedessor. Manufacturers and officials seem to have promised this for every weapons program since the late 1960s; I don't actually know of a program that also achieved this goal. For the F-22 a high degree of stealth may be worth the investment. For the F-35 I am not so su I expect that 80% of the time, these aircraft will be flying with large non-stealthy external ordnance. -- Emmanuel Gustin |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Emmanuel.Gustin" wrote in message ... Ed Rasimus wrote: snip The B-2 and even more so the F-117 were ver^y specialized designs, and aircraft that require special maintenance procedures and climate-controlled hangars are of limited operational usefulness. They have already proven their operational usefullness. In view of that fact, the above is an unsupportable assertion. For stealth to be really useful, it must be made compatible with dirt strips and pierced metal planking. It already is "really useful". The loss of one stealth aircraft against how many hundreds of sorties into environments that were rich with radar directed threats in Iraq and former Yugoslavia. Again, your statement is not supported by the facts. snip Emmanuel Gustin |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Kevin Brooks wrote:
: The B-2 : and even more so the F-117 were very specialized designs, and : aircraft that require special maintenance procedures and : climate-controlled hangars are of limited operational usefulness. : They have already proven their operational usefullness. In view of that : fact, the above is an unsupportable assertion. I wrote "limited operation usefulness", not "no operational usefulness". Penalties such as these are acceptable for a small number of aircraft with specialized roles. They are not acceptable for the main body of an air force. If the F-16 had had the maintenance requirements of the B-2, the Gulf Wars would simply not have been fought. In some ways stealth has been a backward step; since the 1960s engineers have aimed to reduce maintenance requirements and turn-around time, and to make aircraft less dependable on well-equipped bases. The need for this was obvious in Korea and Vietnam, as well as from the budget... The first generation of stealth aircraft reversed this trend, a most unwelcome limitation on their use. : For stealth to be really useful, it must be made compatible : with dirt strips and pierced metal planking. : It already is "really useful". The loss of one stealth aircraft against how : many hundreds of sorties into environments that were rich with radar : directed threats in Iraq and former Yugoslavia. Allow me to point out that the USAF has bought only 59 F-117s and equipped only two operational squadrons with them. To me this reflects a rather sober view of the operational usefulness of the type: An useful accessory to the arsenal, but not able to replace more conventional types. Before Stealth can be incorporated in the backbone of the air frce, serious technical problems need to be solved, and compromises must be made. It is true that the loss rate of the F-117 has been low: The low rate of other USAF aircraft has also been low, to the point of making a comparison statistically insignificant. -- Emmanuel Gustin |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
incorporated in the backbone of the air frce, serious technical problems need to be solved, and compromises must be made. It is true that the loss rate of the F-117 has been low: The low rate of other USAF aircraft has also been low, to the point of making a comparison statistically insignificant. -- Emmanuel Gustin Sort of a narrow view of air operations, I would say. Having particiapted in a number of 100 plane raids in SEA against a single point target that a single B-2 cold take out now I'd say the tradeoffs with Stealth is no brainer. The high maintenance requirements for stealth and the controlled hangar environments are mainly a matter of materiels used in maintaining stealth coatings and those materials have been much inproved in the past decade. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
However, that was in part because the design of the F-117 and
the B-2 were willing to compromise very little stealth for other characteristics. The F-22 and F-35 must involve an Frontal RCSs of B2 and f22 are identical. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Which is:
1.) incorrect I hate to disappoint you,but correct 2.) irrelevant. You are correct here,in the era of multistatic and UWB radars,classical RCS values are IRRELEVANT. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stealth homebuilt | C J Campbell | Home Built | 1 | September 15th 04 08:43 AM |
SURVEY on manuals - most important for builders, but never good?? | T-Online | Home Built | 0 | January 23rd 04 04:37 PM |
F-32 vs F-35 | The Raven | Military Aviation | 60 | January 17th 04 08:36 PM |
How long until current 'stealth' techniques are compromised? | muskau | Military Aviation | 38 | January 5th 04 04:27 AM |
Israeli Stealth??? | Kenneth Williams | Military Aviation | 92 | October 22nd 03 04:28 PM |