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.

 

Is stealth all that good?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Ok, after reading around on ATS for awhile I've noticed that everythign here is about stealth. Well the I think its cool that the world is engaging in stealth technology but for how much it costs I dont think its worth it. Like you may not be seen by radar but you also cant go over mach. Take the F-117. The plane isnt seen by radar but it moves so slow as not to strip the RAM coating. They are also placing too much reliance on stealth. They are betting so much that the plane wont be seen that they are close to taking the gun away. This would eliminate dogfighting and contrary to what many believe on here I think dogfighting is still a major part of battle. I mean look what they said in vietnam after wwII and Korea. We had to learn how to dogfight again. So I think that stealth is overrated. What is everyone elses point of view?




posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Meh, I dont know. Stealth is good IMO. The F-22 can go over mach without afterburners. Plus I do agree with you on the dogfighting part. Dogfightings not over yet, especially when other nations get stealth and you can no longer rely on your radar to see the enemy.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by out of this world
I dont think its worth it. Like you may not be seen by radar but you also cant go over mach. Take the F-117. The plane isnt seen by radar but it moves so slow as not to strip the RAM coating. They are also placing too much reliance on stealth. They are betting so much that the plane wont be seen that they are close to taking the gun away.


You got some bad information the F-22 can go well over mach speed and is equiped with the 20-mm M61 gun.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by out of this world
I dont think its worth it. Like you may not be seen by radar but you also cant go over mach. Take the F-117. The plane isnt seen by radar but it moves so slow as not to strip the RAM coating. They are also placing too much reliance on stealth. They are betting so much that the plane wont be seen that they are close to taking the gun away.


You got some bad information the F-22 can go well over mach speed and is equiped with the 20-mm M61 gun.


He wasn't talking about the F-22 he was talking about the F-117. And he's absolutely right. It has no gun and is incapable of hitting mach 1 cruising. It also don't have afterburners.

I agree with the stealth. Having half-stealth like in the F-22 is going to be a slight advantage but if it came down to performance or stealth it had damn well better be performance.

Also the age of dogfighting will be around until long-range lasers will be used to down planes. The Su-47 (I hope this is the Berkut) is MADE for such a thing and has the performance to beat down the F-22 in dogfighting. But I think BVR is the purpose of the F-22. it is an interceptor, after all.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0

He wasn't talking about the F-22 he was talking about the F-117. And he's absolutely right. It has no gun and is incapable of hitting mach 1 cruising. It also don't have afterburners.

.


But the F-117 isnt a fighter even though its got a F in its name its a bomber. The days of bombers being armed with guns are long over. So the whole dogfighting point is moot concerning the F-117.

Besides hes talking about a first Gen stealth plane then this isnt 1980



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   
I think he was kind of mixing the two. Hes just saying how everyone sees the f-117 as this god of a plane, but in reality it is crap at its finest and most expensive.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 04:00 PM
link   
The F-117 managed to attack one of the most heavily defended cities in the world without having a single aircraft shot down over and over again.

Baghdad at the time of the Gulf war had More than 3,000 antiaircraft guns and 60 surface-to-air missile batteries protecting it.

The F-117 more then proved itself in 1991 IMHO.

Is it the perfect plane not even close but its decades old tech



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Is stealth all that good?


The answer is simple...YES.

Though many over hype it's abilities (stealth does NOT mean invisable), it is certainly something which greatly helps an aircrafts effectiveness.

Take the B-2 for example. It is capable of penatrating any air defense network in the world, and can do so while only needing 2 aircraft: the B-2 it's self, and 1 refueling tanker. For another bomber to do the same thing would take fighter escorts, extra tankers, electronic warfare aircraft, etc...

So stealth allows you to risk fewer assets, and also frees those assets for other missions.

On a fighter aircraft such as the Raptor, it is just as effective. It makes a fighter able to take on many times it's number and still have an overwhelming advantage. 2 Raptors can take on 10 or more other fighters and kill them all without ever beeing detected.

If nothing else, put yourself in the cockpit of a mig for a moment.

You are flying on a mission KNOWING that there are these stealth fighters out there which can kill you without you ever knowing they were even there. How nervous would you be, knowing at any moment you would just blow up? It is a HUGE psychological edge if nothing else.

BTW, mentioning the F-117 is a poor example. As mentioned, though the F-11 is designated as a fighter, it is a pure bomber. The reason for the "F" was to get the best fighter pilots to want to fly it.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Wait, did someone say "Half-Stealth" when it comes to the F/A-22 Raptor?

People, the F/A-22 doesn't cost 100 million a pop just for looks.

The F/A-22 is fully stealth, and fully capable of going Supersonic without afterburners. It is also capable of firing missiles and fighting at supersonic speeds.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 04:39 PM
link   
I find this hard to believe as far as a topic, lets see, the F-117a is a battle proven light bomber, and the B-2 is a battle proven heavy bomber. And the SR-71 was a battle proven spy plane. Where are far superior non-stealth counterparts?



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 08:37 PM
link   
I heard some company from the cech republik had a radar that could track stealth craft about a year ago, appearantly the US goverment bribed them not to export the radar.
I mean if the czechs can do it the russians will already have one thats much better, so all this stealth is just a waste of money imho.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 08:40 PM
link   
The tracking range of stealth is like 30KM. by the time you have them, the weapons are already in the air.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 09:01 PM
link   

out of this world
Take the F-117. The plane isnt seen by radar but it moves so slow as not to strip the RAM coating.

I have heard this time and time again...and i'll never believe it. Can someone please show me a credible link that states that the RAM coating peels off at high temps and/or high speeds.?



Darkpr0
Having half-stealth like in the F-22 is going to be a slight advantage but if it came down to performance or stealth it had damn well better be performance.

What did you mean when you said "half-stealth"?
and FYI, the Raptor isn't sacraficing anything, it has great performance & stealth.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 09:02 PM
link   


Baghdad at the time of the Gulf war had More than 3,000 antiaircraft guns and 60 surface-to-air missile batteries protecting it.


Does AA guns even matter?

In WW2 it took 10,000 88 rounds to bring a B-17 down. that is a B-17 a big slow bomber.

Why do people use big AA gun numbers to show how difficult it was



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 09:29 PM
link   
think of it as camoflage that helps get near the enemy before the enemy realize he or she is being targeted. thats wats good about stealth. if a stealth fighter like the F-22 can get near a target to bomb or shoot down an enemy fighter or bomber before they realize wat happened and cant react fast enough and even if they did they dont know where to shoot or chase at. like a sniper in a ghille suit where he or she stays still after the shot and the enemy dont know where to look at.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 10:01 PM
link   


think of it as camoflage that helps get near the enemy before the enemy realize he or she is being targeted. thats wats good about stealth. if a stealth fighter like the F-22 can get near a target to bomb or shoot down an enemy fighter or bomber before they realize wat happened and cant react fast enough and even if they did they dont know where to shoot or chase at. like a sniper in a ghille suit where he or she stays still after the shot and the enemy dont know where to look at.


not to mention the coutless lives stealth technology has saved throughout the years of the Gulf War, the current Iraq war and future wars...not only is stealth effective for military purposes, but its keeping American Pilots safe.
also, pretty sure there has only been one F-117 shot down...not sure on this though...
it was a very lucky shot also, the enemy had been tracking it through a vast network of radar over a large area. It shows up so small on radar....I'm surprised they tracked it for so long...
BlueAngel

[edit on 20-9-2005 by BlueAngel]



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 12:18 AM
link   
That single F-117 was shot down because unlike Desert Storm we were flying a routine route and they got wise to it. So they consentrated all of their AAA into that one area. If you've seen pictures or footage of the wreckage you can see it's shot full of bullet holes.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 02:55 PM
link   
This is what happens when RAM coating or an RAS is punctured, it shows up on RADAR like a soar thumb.

One scratch on the RAM, and the smallest of Radio waves can be returned, and BAM you're on RADAR.

The B-2; if the coating on it is ever damaged, the ENTIRE aircraft has to be repainted.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 05:49 PM
link   
The first time I was allowed near an F-117 we were told the only things we couldn't do were take pictures from above/below, and touch the plane. The mere act of touching the RAM coating would cause a massive RCS bloom just from the OIL in your skin.

And an interesting bit of trivia for you........

The B-2 is covered in Duct Tape.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 07:00 PM
link   
one thing I'd like to point out to people who dislike the F-117 because although a Fighter designation, its really a light bobmer-It is a light bomber. Calling a mailman a fire fighter don't mean he can put out fires. The F-117 should be a B-117 considering it really has no AA offensive hardware. Its usefulness has also been understated and I think a few have said this before but I just wanna support it.

The F-117 does its real job, the job it was designed for (airspace penetration and destruction) VERY VERY WELL. The F-117 may be old but for attacks in which it must enter hostile airspace without being detected by radar or patrols, destroy a target, and exit the area safely. it is (i think) yet to be displaced. The usefulness is not in its ability to change with the Sortie profile, but the excellence with which it performs its main, sole task.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join