It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why spend so much on useless planes?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Well those Top Secret projects are mostly used for experimental reasons and when we design something that has incredible capabilities and one that is need in numbers we will develop them like the F-117 B-2 and SR-71. Remember the B-2 and F-117 were not made public for about a decade after they entered service, maybe something was developed in the 90’s and is flying now that will be made public in a few years, who knows.




posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
Just a question, if WW3 would happen, would the US take alot of mothballed aircraft back into service? like all those F-4's, B-52's, A-6's etc?


Probably not F-4's - but a lot of newer stuff. When most planes are taken out of service they are put into storage that allows them to be removed within a short (couple of weeks time). The USAF recently started doing this to some B-1's. Airframes that are no longer supported (F-4's,F-111's,A-6's) probably don't fall into this category - but older F-15's/F-16's/B-1's/etc. are available for contingency situations.



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 11:01 PM
link   
westpoint23 says:




these aircraft or weapons do not become public until a very long time after they are out into service.


Are you saying that we have, now -- in service (which, I guess, means in large scale production) -- the new successor to the F-22 and F-35 and no one knows about it?

Or are you saying that the F-22 and the F-35 have been in production for a long time and we're just finding out about it?

I don't think military procurement works that way.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 02:50 AM
link   
However in a larger war where the enemy has the capacity to disrupt the U.S. economy as well as meet their production toe to toe those expensive tech toys may well become a liability when you're faced with the question of making 1 wing of the tech toy vs. 3 wings of fighters more or less equivilent to the enemie's. While the tech toy may boast better kill ratio's, range and firepower the three more regular fighters will be more useful in a large scale war but will be neglected developpment wise. Even worse most of these high tech planes lean heavily on a few technologies which if defeated would leave it instantly obsolete(ie stealth). This is one of the reasons why I'm somewhat worried for the U.S. having invested only in planes that depend heavily upon stealth technology. Now under peace terms or smaller wars this is fine because there isn't a technically savvy enemy with lots of exposure to stealth technology trying to defeat it. With a larger war you run into problems, the enemy has the capacity and will to defeat stealth then it's only a matter of time. Now with one little radar upgrade(well probably a BIG one actually) all those expensive stealth planes have become poor but fast fighters only particularily good at running away. We have to understand that all technology eventually gets defeated and we shouldn't design our war machines to depend so heavily on one technology that may fail upon them. A more balanced approach would allow for better logevity as certain aspects of its design are defeated or surpassed.
Consider the following, could an F-15 or Su-37 defeat an F-22 if stealth wasn't a factor? What if instead the enemy managed to prevent our BVR missiles from locking?
Neither of these would be easy but assuming a competent enemy some of these things will pop up and you shouldn't be risking total capitulation in the air if they do. Making frontline fighters that can have their biggest strengths negated without totally losing effectiveness seems to me something that should be top priority as opposed to making the perfect plane for today.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by omega1
China outnumbers our standing airforce ten to one. now that is one heck of a good reason to have good fighter jets.


Cite your source! According to the Gunnis Book of World Records 2005 The largest standing Air Force in the world is The United States Air Force! Now China does have the largest ARMY, but the biggest Air Force belongs to the USA. No offense, but check your facts against a credible source before you make a claim.

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amur Tiger
However in a larger war where the enemy has the capacity to disrupt the U.S. economy as well as meet their production toe to toe those expensive tech toys may well become a liability when you're faced with the question of making 1 wing of the tech toy vs. 3 wings of fighters more or less equivilent to the enemie's. While the tech toy may boast better kill ratio's, range and firepower the three more regular fighters will be more useful in a large scale war but will be neglected developpment wise. Even worse most of these high tech planes lean heavily on a few technologies which if defeated would leave it instantly obsolete(ie stealth). This is one of the reasons why I'm somewhat worried for the U.S. having invested only in planes that depend heavily upon stealth technology. Now under peace terms or smaller wars this is fine because there isn't a technically savvy enemy with lots of exposure to stealth technology trying to defeat it. With a larger war you run into problems, the enemy has the capacity and will to defeat stealth then it's only a matter of time. Now with one little radar upgrade(well probably a BIG one actually) all those expensive stealth planes have become poor but fast fighters only particularily good at running away. We have to understand that all technology eventually gets defeated and we shouldn't design our war machines to depend so heavily on one technology that may fail upon them. A more balanced approach would allow for better logevity as certain aspects of its design are defeated or surpassed.
Consider the following, could an F-15 or Su-37 defeat an F-22 if stealth wasn't a factor? What if instead the enemy managed to prevent our BVR missiles from locking?
Neither of these would be easy but assuming a competent enemy some of these things will pop up and you shouldn't be risking total capitulation in the air if they do. Making frontline fighters that can have their biggest strengths negated without totally losing effectiveness seems to me something that should be top priority as opposed to making the perfect plane for today.


Nothing negative but please split your next posts up into paragraphs, that made my head hurt,

And i think stealth will no easily be defeated, true the Countries US fights now are smaller enemies But alot of those smaller enemies get there sophisticated radar tech from Russia or china, Its better russia/china supply there stuff to little countries and Stand back and See if it works then think they are safe if The US ever Comes pounding on there door

I had heard that Russia supplied Iraq with The Best GPS jammer Tech that russia had Just to see if it was affective at jamming US GPS Guided Missile, Which the GPS Jammer failed Badly, So the same i think is for the Radar tech that they have,

I have no source to back this up But i had read in A Combat Aircraft magazine, that the Only way for the US to keep track of there own stealth aircraft is a military GPS locator in the Plane, so unless the Enemy has snuck over here and Put there own GPS trackers on the planes i dont think They will defeat Stealth..... Yet



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 05:48 PM
link   
The aircraft that are being designed or already have, i.e flying saucers, anti- gravity discs, etc will probably not be used to fight enemies on earth! You know where i`m coming from?



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Are you saying that we have, now -- in service (which, I guess, means in large scale production) -- the new successor to the F-22 and F-35 and no one knows about it?

Or are you saying that the F-22 and the F-35 have been in production for a long time and we're just finding out about it?

I don't think military procurement works that way.



No that's not what I’m saying, I’m simply trying to say that right now there could be another B-2 type of aircraft flying and we don't now that it officially exists. Or there could be several experiment aircraft being tested that we have not idea about. Like I said the B-2 F-117 SR-71 all were kept secret until about a decade after they first entered service.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Are you saying that we have, now -- in service (which, I guess, means in large scale production) -- the new successor to the F-22 and F-35 and no one knows about it?

Or are you saying that the F-22 and the F-35 have been in production for a long time and we're just finding out about it?

I don't think military procurement works that way.



No that's not what I’m saying, I’m simply trying to say that right now there could be another B-2 type of aircraft flying and we don't now that it officially exists. Or there could be several experiment aircraft being tested that we have not idea about. Like I said the B-2 F-117 SR-71 all were kept secret until about a decade after they first entered service.


Yeah, it all depends on the nature of the aircraft. F-22 and 35 are going to replace just about every old fighter/bomber we have. The whole project, from prototypes to contract award, to production have been shown to the public.

The F-117, on the other hand, was awarded it's contract in 1978 and the first aircraft was delivered from Lockheed in 1982. The Air Force seriously considered using it when we bombed Tripoli in 1986, but decided it was still too classified to risk. The Pentagon acknowledged that it existed in 1988 and the aircraft was first shown at a dog and pony show press gathering in 1990.



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Wow I never knew that there were so many sercret jets build that long time ago. I wonder have they updated them or replaced them during all these years? Where do they hid these planes? Area 51? Or do they just dismantle them



posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by PeanutButterJellyTime
And yes, they're all used. Remember two years ago in Iraq?


excatl what happened 2 years ago in iraq?



posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghost

Originally posted by omega1
China outnumbers our standing airforce ten to one. now that is one heck of a good reason to have good fighter jets.


Cite your source! According to the Gunnis Book of World Records 2005 The largest standing Air Force in the world is The United States Air Force! Now China does have the largest ARMY, but the biggest Air Force belongs to the USA. No offense, but check your facts against a credible source before you make a claim.

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance


1. Is that referring to the amount of personnel or aircraft?
2. If it is referring to the number of aircraft, is it probably including mothballed aircraft. That could be put back into service if needed.
3. If you mean number of ACTIVE AIRCRAFT, I believe China does have the most.

[edit on 27-4-2005 by NWguy83]



posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 07:33 AM
link   
It did have the largest air force before, but I don't know about now. Before it was full of those old vintage jets like MiG-15, MiG-17s, MiG-19s, etc. There was like 3000 MiG-19s or something. Lots of them have been scrapped or given lesser roles in favour of modernisation.
www.globalsecurity.org...



posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by scorpionxx

Originally posted by PeanutButterJellyTime
And yes, they're all used. Remember two years ago in Iraq?


excatl what happened 2 years ago in iraq?


We used F-117's, B-1B's and B-2's to bomb Iraq. That's what happened two years ago.



posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 09:12 PM
link   



That B-2??? Wow I had no idea America actually use them!!!



posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 10:17 PM
link   
They were first used in Kosovo, but that was more of a publicity stunt. They were used fairly extensively in Iraq.



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by NWguy83

Originally posted by ghost

Originally posted by omega1
China outnumbers our standing airforce ten to one. now that is one heck of a good reason to have good fighter jets.


Cite your source! According to the Gunnis Book of World Records 2005 The largest standing Air Force in the world is The United States Air Force! Now China does have the largest ARMY, but the biggest Air Force belongs to the USA. No offense, but check your facts against a credible source before you make a claim.

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance


1. Is that referring to the amount of personnel or aircraft?
2. If it is referring to the number of aircraft, is it probably including mothballed aircraft. That could be put back into service if needed.
3. If you mean number of ACTIVE AIRCRAFT, I believe China does have the most.

[edit on 27-4-2005 by NWguy83]


I'm not sure! I believe that refers to active and reserve aircraft. It doesn't break it down so youo can see how exactally the force is divided up. The book only states that the US Air Force, is the largest air force in the world. Also, when you take Black Projects into account, there is no way to get an exact number of aircraft. The best we really can hope for is a rough estimate!

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance

[edit on 28-4-2005 by ghost]



posted on Apr, 29 2005 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Are you talking about the 2005 Guinness Book of World Records?
If so what page does it say that on I have the book but I cant seem to locate that fact.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join