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.

 

USA's Overuse of Stealth Technology- Too, Too much of a good thing!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Browno Inspired me to write this thread After his thread on "Hi-Tech Toys".

Stealth technology is valuable, don't get me wrong! If use wisely, it can be a critical asset that can turn the tide of a war in your favor at critical moments. However, like anything else, It can be overused and misused. The US seems to be like a spoiled child in a candy store when it comes to stealth technology. If it's stealth, they WANT it. Right Now there are TOO MANY stealth programs. They use it for everything as if it's unlimited. Folks, Stealth is like any out technology, IT HAS LIMITS!

Here's my list of the good and the bad of stealth:

Advance Technology Bomber/B-2 Spirit: This was one of the BEST uses for stealth they have come up with. Used correctly, the B-2 is a long range aircraft that can attack Air Defenses, Command Centers, Nuclear facilities and other critial targets where you EXPECT heavy air defenses. It can act as the "Tip of the Spear", delivering crippling blows earily and giving friendly forces a decisive advantage strategically. The B-2 is also of emense deturrent value!

Advanced Tactical Fighter/F-22: Of debateable value. The F-22 is a GREAT fighter, however, an Air-to-Air fighter doesn't really need all the fancy stealth. I'm not picking on Lockheed, the Northrop YF-23 would be in the same boat.

A-12 Avenger: I know it was cancelled, but it's still fair game here. Basically a mini B-2 for a ship. One stealth bomber is fine, thank you!

Joint Strike Fighter/F-35: Totally unneeded! A new fighter/strike to fill an F-16\F/A-18\ A-10\AV-8B type role is good, but stealth isn't needed for this mission. Why fly a stealth in daylight at low altitude?

F-117 Nighthawk: Not my favorite aircraft, but has an improtant role when used right. This aircraft, or something simular should be limited to covert op's like supporting Delta Force on secret missions. It's not that great for a normal war time missions, as it is very limited in range and payload. It doesn't need to be doing what it did in the 1991 Gulf War (Hello, that's what the B-2 is for!)


That all for now, but I'll add more when I think of it!

Tim




posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 05:25 PM
link   
The B-2 was not ready for bombing missions during the Gulf war... Gulf war II maybe but not the first one.

Any how, the B-2 and F-117 have totaly different roles and abilities... The fact that they are stealths is the only similarities...



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by D4rk Kn1ght
The B-2 was not ready for bombing missions during the Gulf war... Gulf war II maybe but not the first one.

Any how, the B-2 and F-117 have totaly different roles and abilities... The fact that they are stealths is the only similarities...


I'm aware of that! The B-2 achieve IOC in 1997. My point is the type of mission the F-117 was flying is better suited to the B-2.

The B-2 has much greater capibility then the F-117. The F-117 was intended to support covert Op's, not to do what it was doing inthe first gulf war.

Tim



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   
The A-12 was needed for first-day strike when the B-2 and F-117 were not available. With the A-12, power could be projected anywhere in the world at a moments notice without being seen. It would have also fufilled the Navy's need for a long-range strike aircraft which the Navy is still looking for today.

The F-35 and Super Hornet both are filling spots left behind by the A-6 and A-12.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Again, the F-35 is not unneeded. It will not be replacing the A-10 anytime soon. However, it will need to replace the Hornets and Harriers in the Marine and Navy forces. Stealth just adds to the survivability of the plane no matter the time of day.

With standoff weapons and SDBs the F-35 will be hard to find during strike missions.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   
I read your prievious post about the Hornets. However, I still don't see why the Mariens can't just change their mind and get Super Hornets. Also, why does the F-35 need to be stealth? The Harrier filled the mission just fine without it. their buying an expensive airplane with a bunch of unneeded add-ons. It's like spending $1000 on a delux table saw to cut a simple board. A $5 hand saw can do the job just as well!

Sorry but th e F-35 is Just plain wasteful! We can do just as much with a plane costing 1/2 the price.

Tim

[edit on 26-9-2006 by ghost]



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
I read your prievious post about the Hornets. However, I still don't see why the Mariens can't just change their mind and get Super Hornets. Also, why does the F-35 need to be stealth? The Harrie filled the mission just fine without it. their buying an expensive airplane with a bunch of unneeded add-ons. It's like spending $1000 on a delux table saw to cut a simple board. A $5 hand saw can do the job just as well!

Sorry but th e F-35 is Just plain wasteful! We can do just as much with a plane costing 1/2 the price.

The Marines want something to replace both the Hornet and the Harrier. They are choosing a smart thing to do, which is buy an aircraft that can do both aircraft's job. Only using one plane cuts down on maintence costs, reduces aircraft down-time, and just makes everything easier.

Yes, perhaps the F-35 doesn't need all of the avionic and electronic add-ons the US military wants. However, I find the stealth features pretty useful during covert strike missions and even in daytime missions. SAM sites will have a hard time trying to detect the F-35 and anything that makes the pilot's life easier is better. The USAFs positions is probably why risk 5 or 6 F-16s when 2 F-35s could do the mission with more precision?

About the F-22 not needing stealth: It was meant to completely dominate the sky not just be decent at air to air missions. From I've been hearing so far, stealth is well worth it during air to air and air to ground missions. I know I'd rather not be seen when flying into the battlefield. That and its avionic capabilities are its main advantages over the F-15 it was meant to replace.



[edit on 26-9-2006 by JFrazier]



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Marine JSF advantage is not only stealth it has also twice the range of Harrier, can carry larger payload and it's VTOL system is better than Harrier's. It has also more advanced equipment compared to Harrier.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
Right Now there are TOO MANY stealth programs. They use it for everything as if it's unlimited. Folks, Stealth is like any out technology, IT HAS LIMITS!


What are these limits you speak of?

From what I see, consideration for radar returns has not adversely affected the manouverability of the F-22 too much and it has not affected the payload/range of the B-2 - the two most critical factors for both aircraft for their mission objectives.




The JSF was ill-conceived from the get-go so please don't use it as a factor in this argument, the project specifications doomed it to failure. Its just been a constant shock that those people in charge, especially considering how smart they are, even bothered trying to do it. A perfect example of a jack-of-all trades, master of none machine.

Heck, some would say jack-of-all trades, good at none.



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
What are these limits you speak of?


1. Stealth Aircraft are NOT invisible- See the thread on How Stealth works! Stealth Technology Explained

2. Even with the latest technology, stealth aircraft require more maintance to remain combat ready.

3. A stealth has to be bigger then other aircraft of the same payload, because EVERYTHING has to fit inside the aircraft.

4. Stealth is expensive! It foolish to make a big investment unless you expect a Bigger payoff.

5. The main Advantage of stealth is in achieveing surpise. If all your planes are stealth, you loose some of this surprise.

Tim



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
1. Stealth Aircraft are NOT invisible- See the thread on How Stealth works!

2. Even with the latest technology, stealth aircraft require more maintance to remain combat ready.

3. A stealth has to be bigger then other aircraft of the same payload, because EVERYTHING has to fit inside the aircraft.

4. Stealth is expensive! It foolish to make a big investment unless you expect a Bigger payoff.

5. The main Advantage of stealth is in achieveing surpise. If all your planes are stealth, you loose some of this surprise.

Tim


1. Everyone knows that! [apart from the imbeciles]

2. The F-22 and JSF are supposed to be very maintenance friendly, indeed, an F-22 squadron requires less than half the logistics support of an F-15 squadron for an equivalent deployment.

3. Having everything inside also offers manoverability and aerodynamic efficiency benefits

4. Not really, the expensive bit has been done already [initial research and development of computer simulation codes and facilities], it would be ludicrous not to benefit from that knowledge now. It would be something akin to stopping F-22 production right now... because an F-16 is cheaper. Initial gain for alot of longer term pain.

5. While you may lose strategic surpise [as in, the enemy will know you have alot of VLO aircraft], you will still achieve tactical surprise if your personnel are any good [as in, the knowledge you are hard to see on radar won't help him see you]. Anyway, is there a country in the world that does not know America has LO aircraft?



posted on Sep, 28 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
Stealth technology is valuable, don't get me wrong! If use wisely, it can be a critical asset that can turn the tide of a war in your favor at critical moments. However, like anything else, It can be overused and misused. The US seems to be like a spoiled child in a candy store when it comes to stealth technology. If it's stealth, they WANT it. Right Now there are TOO MANY stealth programs. They use it for everything as if it's unlimited. Folks, Stealth is like any out technology, IT HAS LIMITS!


i woukld like to hear how it can be over used and misused and stealth has no limits because it is constantly evolving to become even stealthier.



Advanced Tactical Fighter/F-22: Of debateable value. The F-22 is a GREAT fighter, however, an Air-to-Air fighter doesn't really need all the fancy stealth. I'm not picking on Lockheed, the Northrop YF-23 would be in the same boat.


true the f-22 doesnt need all the fancy bits like stealth, however stealth gives the f-22 the chance to shoot down all (i think) other planes before the other plane has even picked them up on radar never mind got a lock on. and as im sure you know at the alaskan war games the f-22 had a win to lose ratio of 108-0. Without stealth do you think this would have been possible? i sure as hell dont.


Joint Strike Fighter/F-35: Totally unneeded! A new fighter/strike to fill an F-16\F/A-18\ A-10\AV-8B type role is good, but stealth isn't needed for this mission. Why fly a stealth in daylight at low altitude?


i partially agree on this. however the f-35 will be doing attack missions against nations armed with large numbers of cheap (and otherwise but mostly cheap) sam's where as the f-15, f-16 and av-8b either didnt face such a threat or faced a lower level threat. stealth isnt important for an extremely low level plane such as the a-10 designed primarally for tank busting, but the f-35 will also attack bases guarded by sams and if it cant penetrate the air defences then it is worthless so to the f-35 stealth is as vital as to the f-22.


F-117 Nighthawk: Not my favorite aircraft, but has an improtant role when used right. This aircraft, or something simular should be limited to covert op's like supporting Delta Force on secret missions. It's not that great for a normal war time missions, as it is very limited in range and payload.


i agree although i would like to add that it could be used to kick down the proverbial door for a wave of unstealth planes/cruise missiles/helicopters as i believe it did in the second gulf war.

justin

[edit on 28-9-2006 by justin_barton3]



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 03:33 AM
link   
I have to disagree. The stealth in the F-22 is very valuable. Because of it the F-22 can move without getting noticed and it gives it a capability to bomb without getting noticed.

The F-35 will aslo need the steathat night time. You have to agree with me on that. Simply said stealth might not be a must, but it sure hell is valuable.

[edit on 29-9-2006 by Figher Master FIN]



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by justin_barton3



F-117 Nighthawk: Not my favorite aircraft, but has an improtant role when used right. This aircraft, or something simular should be limited to covert op's like supporting Delta Force on secret missions. It's not that great for a normal war time missions, as it is very limited in range and payload.


i agree although i would like to add that it could be used to kick down the proverbial door for a wave of unstealth planes/cruise missiles/helicopters as i believe it did in the second gulf war.


Justin,

I see the logic in your thinking. However, I feel that in today's time the job of "Kicking down the Door", could be done more effectively by the B-2 with it's longer range and heavier payload. One B-2 with 16 JDAM's can hit the same number of targets in ONE mission as 8 F-117's. Second, The B-2 has better range which means it needs less support from tankers, which are a critical and often over streached resource on today's combat zone.

Tim



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
I have to disagree. The stealth in the F-22 is very valuable. Because of it the F-22 can move without getting noticed and it gives it a capability to bomb without getting noticed.


The F-22 isn't supposed to be bombing stuff anyway. It's an Air Superiority Fighter, it was design to replace the F-15. The Air Force added the bombing idea because they weren't sure if they could convince congress to buy a new plane purely for the air to air mission.



The F-35 will aslo need the steath at night time. You have to agree with me on that. Simply said stealth might not be a must, but it sure hell is valuable.
[edit on 29-9-2006 by Figher Master FIN]


The F-15E, F-16, F/A-18, and AV-8B all made it without stealth at night. No offence but I think you are Missing my Whole Point: They are OVERUSING Stealth technology. Using today's technology you can build a stealth replacement for the C-141 if you want it. If you use it to deliver paratroopers at night, the stealth would be valuable then too.

Where would you draw the line? A stealth cargo plane, A stealth AWACS, A stealth VIP aircraft for war times? Each of these is possible, and one could argue a use for any of them if he or she wished too.

Ok Figher Master FIN, Where would you draw the line? How much is too much in your oppinion?

Tim



posted on Sep, 29 2006 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghost

Originally posted by kilcoo316
What are these limits you speak of?


1. Stealth Aircraft are NOT invisible- See the thread on How Stealth works! Stealth Technology Explained

2. Even with the latest technology, stealth aircraft require more maintance to remain combat ready.

3. A stealth has to be bigger then other aircraft of the same payload, because EVERYTHING has to fit inside the aircraft.

4. Stealth is expensive! It foolish to make a big investment unless you expect a Bigger payoff.

5. The main Advantage of stealth is in achieveing surpise. If all your planes are stealth, you loose some of this surprise.

Tim

Hey Tim, long time no see.
Is this another attempt by you to discredit the US lead and emphasis/reliance on stealth technologies? Your rehashing here, you know, been there done that type stuff.

Your making assumptions with certainty, yet lacking the information to fully back them there assumptions, again. Btw, if stealth is so "over-rated," pray tell, why are other nations attempting to incorporate that technology into their own aircraft, missile, vessels, etc. designs and applications?

Anyhow, as I disagreed with you in the past when this was discussed, I am still in disagreement with you on your perspective on this topic/issue of stealth. No need for me to rehash my arguments against your perspective, all one needs to do is utilize the search function and the topic of "stealth."

[edit on 29-9-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
The F-22 isn't supposed to be bombing stuff anyway. It's an Air Superiority Fighter, it was design to replace the F-15. The Air Force added the bombing idea because they weren't sure if they could convince congress to buy a new plane purely for the air to air mission

Now the US has realized that the Raptor just may be one of the best if not the best SEAD/DEAD striker in the military. The Raptor may just be more valuable in that role than full out air superiority. Dozer has mentioned that they do a lot of air to ground training these days.



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 06:42 AM
link   
Allright, yes I agree the F-22 was designed to be an air-superiority fighter. But that doesn't mean it can't do other missions. I got very convinced that the F-22 would be an ideal bomber in some missions. I'll try to look up the tread for you.

"The F-15E, F-16, F/A-18, and AV-8B all made it without stealth at night." Yes, they made it without stealth then. When those planes where were new stealth wasn't that important. But you can't mix up two different generations. In the future steath will become even more important, I'am sure. Planes have capabilities to penetrate even deeper inside enemy territories. And you have to agree, stealth isn't bad. Would the F-22 be as good without steath? no. Stealth gives you the element of surprise. One of the best elements to posess.



[edit on 30-9-2006 by Figher Master FIN]



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghost


Where would you draw the line? A stealth cargo plane, A stealth AWACS, A stealth VIP aircraft for war times? Each of these is possible, and one could argue a use for any of them if he or she wished too.

Ok Figher Master FIN, Where would you draw the line? How much is too much in your oppinion?

Tim


It depends on what grounds you propose your overuse theory.
What are YOU drawing the line with reference to?
I'm sorry to sound critical, but the arguement seems to defeat itself.

You cannot have 'too much overuse of stealth' as long you are assured that its viability will exist for the lifetime of the airframes/units you apply it/its principles to.
If you're assured the same then hell apply some stealth paint to your infantry as well!

The deal here is that the only way stealh becomes 'too much of overuse' is when somebody develops a failsafe counter to it. Then your capabilities are decided only by 'how much' of your forces have you applied it to(these are effectively w/o stealth now and for our arguement's sake 'useless') and how much have you invested in other means of achieveing military superiority that are NOT dependant solely(or completely) on stealth to get that edge.These remainders would constitute the now remaining superiority that you have.
Its a matter of competitive market economics really, and obviously the key lies in the following factors:

a) Evolve your 'edge' (stealth here) continuously so that you are always a step ahead or at least in-step with the counters to stealth.
b) Evolve other technologies (TVC, missiles, point defences etc. etc.) continuously such that they maintain an edge or are in-step with their counters/counterparts out there.
c) Build platforms that use both (a) & (b) in a multi-tiered structure such that if one 'edge' is lost, the platform isn't rendered completely useless and can still hold its own if not 'overwhelm' the new opponent.
d) Build technologies that serve the same purpose as your current perceived 'edge' (steatlh) but involving a completely different approach and keep it on standby (good example would be plasma stealth?).
e) Have prototypes that employ (d) and/or (b).

Having said this, I'd like to add that IMHO the US has done a decent job of following most of the above principles except (d) and (e) which involve obvious budgetary gambles.
The practical examples of this strategy is the AIM-120D, USAF TVC
and Laser/EM points defences(I feel this is the future to all mobile minature point defences).



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
Marine JSF advantage is not only stealth it has also twice the range of Harrier, can carry larger payload and it's VTOL system is better than Harrier's. It has also more advanced equipment compared to Harrier.


But w/o stealth how does it compare to any normal 4th gen fighter?
I think the only advantage is its improved VTOL capability (along with other technologies that multiply capabilites); such that it is an extremely flexible in deployment and asymmetric warfare(The same advantages the VTOL of the Harrier and the YAK-141 gave).
Is the VTOL really that improved?
It seems to be tooo complicated to be a mass produced, heavily stressed
(used very often) system. Hope the designers took cues from the Harrier VTOL MTTF and other maintanence parameters.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join