American Overuse of Stealth

So, by the general consensus, people believe that the f-22 is unrivaled. Okay. Stay in your little universe. The U.S. does have about 5 Fighter contracted companies working for their government, so we might have the advantage. However, You have to realize that THE WORLD HATES US!. Now, if, say, Europe and Asia were TO BE FED UP WITH OUR CRAP, whats to prevent them from an alliance? Then, say,... And this is the kicker..... Say the European and Asian aircraft companies ...... Conglomerated to work for one power!! I think that it would be a safe assumption that we would have some problems on our hands. NO OFFICIAL IN U.S. GOVERNMENT HAS TAKEN THIS INTO ACCOUNT. We are not prepared for a what if Scenario. And with all the problems that are constantly being found with stealth tech, I'm not sure I would want to fly against a 5th generation fighter. Also ladies, please keep in mind that the ultimate determining factor is the pilots skill. A pilot can down a f-22 raptor in a f-4 phantom if he/she was good enough.. So just keep in mind, a superpower is a temporary thing. We must enjoy the advantage while we can, if we even have an advantage. Overuse of stealth means that they will find an "anti stealth" fighter. Or...... Do they already have One??? *cough* MAPO* cough * S-47* well, we'll never know for sure, or so we hope!

Geez nice rant there, i'd like to see how an F-4 using semi active homing Sparrows can take down a Raptor using LPI radar, less than a third of the detection range of an F-4 and AMRAAMs.in a BVR fight. In a close in fight it would be even worse, the Phantom II would end up in a spin if it tried to even remotely attempt to get into a turning fight.

Originally posted by intelgurl
I think that you are lumping strategy together with resource attributes which can confuse the issue.

Originally posted by Just a Plane old dude
Other countries ...rely on speed (1) first strike(2) maneuverability (3) and a strong airframe (4) to get the job done.

Where speed, manueverability and airframe strength are attributes, first strike is a strategy.
Why is this difference important?
Because the main function of "stealth" is for first strike.

US air war strategy calls for the first wave of any air attack be accomplished with cruise missiles and stealth attack aircraft.
What stealth does is simply further enable the effectiveness of the first strike; knocking out the enemies' command, control and communication as well as their surface-to-air assets.

Is there an over dependance of stealth by the US?
Probably not, because even with all the articles about anti-aircraft technology capable of defeating stealth ( Russian S-300, etc) the fact is the stealth aircraft are still less vulnerable to such air defenses as a non-stealth aircraft.



What stealth provides is not a fallable invisibility to radar, but rather a smaller window in which the enemy can react to an attacking aircraft.

Where a non stealth supersonic aircraft may be seen by radar hundreds of miles away, a stealth aircraft such as the F-22 will be visible to the human eye long before it is visible on a radar screen.
Thus giving the fire control officer nothing to lock on until it's too late, (provided the F-22 is set up for ground attack and is prepared to attack the SA site).

I am so glad the Plane Master is back! The gurl that puts intel in intelgurl.

Thanks spittinCobra. Without your spelling abilities, "Integurl", , The world might be able to function. Just remember that it's ignorami like you (That's Ignoramus plural) that make the "wurld" go "rowned"

Originally posted by Just a Plane old dude
Thanks spittinCobra. Without your spelling abilities, "Integurl",

, The world might be able to function. Just remember that it's ignorami like you (That's Ignoramus plural) that make the "wurld" go "rowned"

I am cunfused, Are you dissing me? Im not sure what I miss spelled.

Originally posted by SpittinCobra

Originally posted by Just a Plane old dude
Thanks spittinCobra. Without your spelling abilities, "Integurl",

, The world might be able to function. Just remember that it's ignorami like you (That's Ignoramus plural) that make the "wurld" go "rowned"

I am cunfused, Are you dissing me? Im not sure what I miss spelled.

You didn't, as far as 'just a plane old dude' is concerned its a case of;

WHOOSH!

"What was that?"

That was the point mate, right over your head it went

He must not know of Intelgurl, I thought your exposition of her name was rather witty actually.

[edit on 16-9-2004 by waynos]

Originally posted by Just a Plane old dude
So, by the general consensus, people believe that the f-22 is unrivaled. Okay. Stay in your little universe. The U.S. does have about 5 Fighter contracted companies working for their government, so we might have the advantage. However, You have to realize that THE WORLD HATES US!. Now, if, say, Europe and Asia were TO BE FED UP WITH OUR CRAP, whats to prevent them from an alliance? Then, say,... And this is the kicker..... Say the European and Asian aircraft companies ...... Conglomerated to work for one power!! I think that it would be a safe assumption that we would have some problems on our hands. NO OFFICIAL IN U.S. GOVERNMENT HAS TAKEN THIS INTO ACCOUNT. We are not prepared for a what if Scenario. And with all the problems that are constantly being found with stealth tech, I'm not sure I would want to fly against a 5th generation fighter. Also ladies, please keep in mind that the ultimate determining factor is the pilots skill. A pilot can down a f-22 raptor in a f-4 phantom if he/she was good enough.

. So just keep in mind, a superpower is a temporary thing. We must enjoy the advantage while we can, if we even have an advantage. Overuse of stealth means that they will find an "anti stealth" fighter. Or...... Do they already have One??? *cough* MAPO* cough * S-47* well, we'll never know for sure, or so we hope!

Looking at this post, he seems a little digruntled.

Thanks for clearing it up for me.

Plane Old Dude.....

Listen - there are several reasons why China and Europe would never band together. But lets say they did, and they were both hell bent on destroying the US (which wouldn't happen as Europe and China depend on the US economically) there is this little thing you keep forgetting about. I'll spell it out for you "N"-"U"-"K"-"E"-"S". Surely you have heard of MAD (mutually Assured Destruction)? The US has many times the number and quality of nukes that the combined might of all of Europe and China have.

Plus, to assume that because all of these countries simply banded together would imediatly produce superior weapony is foolish. The US has a clear, well defined lead in Aerospace technology. That group would be playing catch up for a while before they even fielded a direct rival.

BTW - like others said, I am going to assume you have had no experience in dealing with Intelgurl. Not only is she very nice, often times going out of her way to inform uneducated people like yourself, but she also happens to work for a company that suplies large amounts of military equipment in the aircraft field. To put it simply, she has that "subject matter expert" title for a reason.

Other countries don't make stealth aircraft because they are not able to do it

That's one of the funnyest statements i've read in a long time apart from the letter from my MP.

BAe Can and will build Stealth aircarft or look we ARE a partner in JSF.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Plane Old Dude.....

Listen - there are several reasons why China and Europe would never band together.

- The most glaring one being that most Europeans have American relatives and vis-versa.

The rest is irrelevant.

[edit on 17-9-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by Just a Plane old dude
So, by the general consensus, people believe that the f-22 is unrivaled. Okay. Stay in your little universe. The U.S. does have about 5 Fighter contracted companies working for their government, so we might have the advantage. However, You have to realize that THE WORLD HATES US!. Now, if, say, Europe and Asia were TO BE FED UP WITH OUR CRAP, whats to prevent them from an alliance? Then, say,... And this is the kicker..... Say the European and Asian aircraft companies ...... Conglomerated to work for one power!! I think that it would be a safe assumption that we would have some problems on our hands. NO OFFICIAL IN U.S. GOVERNMENT HAS TAKEN THIS INTO ACCOUNT. We are not prepared for a what if Scenario. And with all the problems that are constantly being found with stealth tech, I'm not sure I would want to fly against a 5th generation fighter. Also ladies, please keep in mind that the ultimate determining factor is the pilots skill. A pilot can down a f-22 raptor in a f-4 phantom if he/she was good enough.

. So just keep in mind, a superpower is a temporary thing. We must enjoy the advantage while we can, if we even have an advantage. Overuse of stealth means that they will find an "anti stealth" fighter. Or...... Do they already have One??? *cough* MAPO* cough * S-47* well, we'll never know for sure, or so we hope!

I would like to know how you know what the US govt is, and is not prepared for? Do you know all the nasty toys that the US has, but wont come out and play with until there is no other option?

I'm willing to bet that the US has aircraft, avionics, and weapons that are deadlier, and more advanced than anything the general public knows about like the F22. Who knows what is lurking in some waaaay above top secret hangar somewhere just waiting for the day somebody thinks that they have the big advantage.

i MISUNDERSTOOD! I thought............................... my sorry, My a$$hole friend said that i was being dissed when he read this post. Plus i've been dealing with a school internet ban, so plz excuse my outburst... Is there any way to nuke this entire topic? Seriously tho, we should try and form a joint- operation with Europhyter, dassault, or one of the other Delta wing fighter companies. Altho, I did hear mention that delta wing tech is Unreliable, and slightly unstable. It looks cool though. How come the U.S. doesn't do crazy aerial maneuvers like the Pugachev cOBRA? They never do anything cool at airshows. just fly like airliner pilots.( Funny story tho, this one time on a Pan Am flight......). Planes should be heard, seen, and flaunted. Nothings better than seeing a Su-37 or YF-33 UP CLOSE! Except, of course, for flying them.

There's nothing wrong with delta wings per se, thats why they have been a popular choice with designers for more than half a century, deltas also allow the designer to create an aircraft that is naturally stable, which is the opposite to what you seem to have been told, think Concorde, or even Space Shuttle gliding in to land. Both stable delta's. A delta wing can have an adverse effect on a tailplane because of the blanking effect at high angles of attack where the airflow is effectively screened from the rear control surface. Thats why the two aforementioned aircraft plus the Mirage delta's don't have a tail at all.

The instability you refer to is caused on the European fighters like Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen not by the delta wing but by the canard foreplanes, this isn't a drawback or a design fault as your post implies, it is a deliberate feature put there to counteract the delta's natural stability because instability greatly enhances the aircraft's combat manoeverability.

Hope this clears the delta issue up for you.

[edit on 17-9-2004 by waynos]

Originally posted by RAB
Other countries don't make stealth aircraft because they are not able to do it

That's one of the funnyest statements i've read in a long time apart from the letter from my MP.

BAe Can and will build Stealth aircarft or look we ARE a partner in JSF.

Without Lockheed Martin the JSF program wouldn't be nearly as good, you have to admit that, I don't it would have the quality of stealth for one.

[edit on 17-9-2004 by Hockeyguy567]

quote: Originally posted by Just a Plane old dude
So, by the general consensus, people believe that the f-22 is unrivaled. Okay. Stay in your little universe.

Apparently you do not feel that the F-22 is unrivaled... by what criteria are you making this judgement?

quote: Originally posted by Just a Plane old dude
The U.S. does have about 5 Fighter contracted companies working for their government, so we might have the advantage.

Let's see... The US has Boeing, Lockheed-Martin and Northrop-Grumman... who am I missing?
But what does it matter that the US only has 3 military aerospace fighter manufacturers? All 3 of these major aerospace production companies have highly advanced R&D programs and facilities and unprecidented funding both internally and from the DoD.

quote: Originally posted by Just a Plane old dude
And with all the problems that are constantly being found with stealth tech

I would be interested in finding out what specific problems you are referring to concerning stealth. Although stealth technology is constantly evolving and maturing, it is important to understand that stealth technology is not the holy grail of military aerospace, it is just another asset that adds to the survivability of the aircraft.

As I stated before, stealth does not provide a total blanket invisibility to radar, but rather a significantly smaller window in which the enemy can react to an attacking aircraft.

It is also not a good idea to compare problems found with 1st generation stealth and try to attribute such problems with current stealth technology.
For instance it is easy for a SAM manufacturer to say "we can shoot down stealth planes"... but what stealth plane and what generation of the technology are they referring to? They rarely if ever acknowledge that.

quote: Originally posted by Just a Plane old dude
I'm not sure I would want to fly against a 5th generation fighter.

Since an F-22 IS a 5th gen fighter, I'm sure there are plenty of pilots in the world who would not care to fly against the Raptor. No other country currently has a gen 5 fighter on the assembly lines.

quote: Originally posted by Just a Plane old dude
... the ultimate determining factor is the pilots skill. A pilot can down a f-22 raptor in a f-4 phantom if he/she was good enough..

With the technology native to the F-4 the only chance a Phantom would have against a Raptor is by relying on visuals because the AN/APQ-120 Westinghouse radar cannot "see" an F-22 Raptor. (heat-seekers not withstanding).

The F-22 is far more manueverable and much faster than a Phantom, the F-22 has a power-to-weight ratio of almost 2-1 and the F-4 Phantom has a power-to-weight ratio of 1.18-1, on top of which the F-22 does not have to use afterburners to go supersonic, the F-4 does.
Sure a Phantom driver could luck out and bring a Raptor down, but the chances of such an occurence are rather slim.

]quote: Originally posted by Just a Plane old dude
So just keep in mind, a superpower is a temporary thing. We must enjoy the advantage while we can, if we even have an advantage. Overuse of stealth means that they will find an "anti stealth" fighter. Or...... Do they already have One??? *cough* MAPO* cough * S-47* well, we'll never know for sure, or so we hope!

The world hating the US is a political thing and if the world ganged up on the US I would think that the world (including the US) would become a vast nuclear wasteland... but that's just my opinion.

The SU-47 is not in production but it will be a gen 5 fighter supposedly designed to match the F-35 JSF, not the F-22.
As for being an "anti-stealth" fighter, I would like to know what makes it more "anti-stealth" than any other fighter?
I know it has "low observable" features, but I'm not sure that it would qualify as a stealth aircraft.

Here are a couple of interesting notes regarding the F-22 and it's radar visibility....

Dick Mather project manager at Lockheed-Martin has this to say regarding the stealth of the F-22...
"How large the F-22 Raptor appears on radar is classified and depends on the quality of the radar. However, it can be said that the F-22 doesn't appear on even the most sophisticated radar systems until it is almost too late to shoot. "You might get your sights up and maybe get a shot, or maybe not, because that...(Raptor) is "ZOOM!" right through your field of view..." then it disappears off the screen.

Paul Metz, the first test pilot to fly the F-22 described an exercise in which the pilot of a fully updated F-15 with the latest avionics on board was told that Metz was approaching head on in an F-22. The F-15's updated radar failed to find the Raptor.
"The first time he got a read on me was visually, when I flew right over the top of him..."
Paul Metz, USAF Ret., former Lockheed-Martin Chief Test Pilot


Intelgurl


[edit on 17-9-2004 by intelgurl]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
yeah much better equipped sure, ;like buying fighters without a cannon cuz lack of money and cutting your forces by half. Damn sounds like they are well equipped to me.

EXSCUSE ME?
we have a cannon on baord hell next airshow you go to with an RAF EF in it ask them to show you the cannon ,bet you they will show you a pretty clean polished cannon. you know why? because we dont use it and unlike may USAF pilots LIKE SOMEONE ON THIS BOARD ,most of the time we dont need to strafe cause our missile actually hit the right targets. (not dissing USAF just the ones that bomb our troops.)

Oh wait devil the US has some of the best and most precise missiles on the planet. And the ones that bomb or shoot down your jets are friendly fire it happens in all wars our pilots and missile operators don�t recognize your jets or tanks so we blow them up simple as that human error can never be erased.

BAe Can and will build Stealth aircarft or look we ARE a partner in JSF.

Are you serious? The only thing you are contributing to the JSF program is in the VSTOL and engines. the stealth and avionics are 100% made and produced by the US government.

[edit on 17-9-2004 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Oh wait devil the US has some of the best and most precise missiles on the planet. And the ones that bomb or shoot down your jets are friendly fire it happens in all wars our pilots and missile operators don�t recognize your jets or tanks so we blow them up simple as that human error can never be erased.

dude so now your saying that its your troops fault huh. funny how there wasnt a real air battle with iraqi planes,and since when does iraq have sea kings or lynx's ?
really come on man,i can understand them not knowing what the aircaft was but the least they could do was check.

Are you serious? The only thing you are contributing to the JSF program is in the VSTOL and engines. the stealth and avionics are 100% made and produced by the US government.

[edit on 17-9-2004 by WestPoint23]

yeah thats onyl after we shipped em to you in the 1960's
also so what we didnt make the stealth big deal we still made the VSTOL and i think at least a very large amount of VSTOL depends on avionics.

Britain also contributes the rear fuselage and empennage for every F-35, which are naturally of equal technology to the rest of the plane, not just the STOVL equipment for the F-35B. OK, its not much but its the biggest inroad on a US fighter programme by an overseas manufacturer ever, when in the past we would just have to buy them and lump it.

Are you serious? The only thing you are contributing to the JSF program is in the VSTOL and engines. the stealth and avionics are 100% made and produced by the US government.

[edit on 17-9-2004 by WestPoint23]

yeah thats onyl after we shipped em to you in the 1960's
also so what we didnt make the stealth big deal we still made the VSTOL and i think at least a very large amount of VSTOL depends on avionics.

The VSTOL enginws that the UK first designed did not work very well, there were many many crashes. However we did improve them, but the Harrier still has the worst mantinence record of any aircraft in the US inventory (don't know about the UK inventory). 140 AV-8A/B's lost in just accidents, that is not good. It is almost 1/3 of the the total Harrier force.

[edit on 18-9-2004 by Hockeyguy567]