StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Ok, heres an interesting little debate. Should the Air Force concentrate its technology on stealth fighters and bombers, or go more towards high speed aircraft able to carry alot of munitions? Personally, i feel we rely too much on the F-117 and B-2, i mean, they both are late '70s technology and it is just a matter of time before a radar is developed that can successfully, reliably, and consistently pick up current stealth technology.

Valkyries.

Those were quite possibly the COOLEST airplanes ever!

Steath all the way

I want to see the B-5 and F-24 as Stealthy as we can make them, rolling off the assembly line in 2015

NF_Utvol wrote:Those were quite possibly the COOLEST airplanes ever!

You do know that I'm talking about the Valkyries from Macross. right?

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:

NF_Utvol wrote:Those were quite possibly the COOLEST airplanes ever!

You do know that I'm talking about the Valkyries from Macross. right?

Bah! Brood War Valkyries forever!

XaLEv wrote:

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:

NF_Utvol wrote:Those were quite possibly the COOLEST airplanes ever!

You do know that I'm talking about the Valkyries from Macross. right?

Bah! Brood War Valkyries forever!

*gasp*! You heretic!! Battroid mode, GERWALK mode forever, \/\/00t, \/\/00t !!

Another reason im for the heavy hitters is the fact that the odds of us fighting against high tech nations such as Russia (the place that the B-2 and F-117 were designed to attack) is so small it is almost 0. We will be in fights with less developed nations such as Afghanistan and other rogue states. The most developed countries with which we will be fighting right now that have any sort of radar defenses are Iraq and North Korea, and we can take out what little bit they have with radar seeking missiles and cruise missiles, without having to put american pilots lives on the line as much. Another thing that is a good idea is UAVs. They keep our boys (and girls for that matter) from having to put their lives in the way of danger. Hehe, heres a little tidbit. On vacation in Las Vegas, me and my dad were taking a drive to Death Valley. The road we took went around the southern edge of Nellis AFB (which contains the Groom Lake test site, aka Area 51). There were sensors set up around the perimeter of the base that could be seen on hill tops around it. And there were Predator UAVs being test flown right next to the highway, two of them passed us not 50 yards off the road and about 50 feet off the ground. That was COOL!!!

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:

XaLEv wrote:

Spanky The Dolphin wrote: You do know that I'm talking about the Valkyries from Macross. right?

Bah! Brood War Valkyries forever!

*gasp*! You heretic!! Battroid mode, GERWALK mode forever, \/\/00t, \/\/00t !!

Oh, i thought you were talking about the big white delta winged bombers the air force tested inthe late 60s

Yeah, those were pretty cool, too.

NF_Utvol wrote:Ok, heres an interesting little debate. Should the Air Force concentrate its technology on stealth fighters and bombers, or go more towards high speed aircraft able to carry alot of munitions? Personally, i feel we rely too much on the F-117 and B-2, i mean, they both are late '70s technology and it is just a matter of time before a radar is developed that can successfully, reliably, and consistently pick up current stealth technology.

Yes, focus on hard-hitting conventional aircraft. Current stealth technology is becoming more and more outdated (and mostly worthless against flak and many shoulder-fired AA missiles), whereas there's almost no target that can't be cracked with enough 500 pound bombs.

Hehe, I'd say both Valkyries are cool Plus there's a bit of a connection between the two. Shoji Kawamori decided to be an aeronautical engineer because he admired the XB-70 so he named his fictional aircraft, the VF-1.
http://www.mahq.net/mecha/macross/sdfmacross/vf-1s.htm

Well I'd say the USAF should focus more on robust mass-produced fighters with a heavy punch.

Keep up with the standard fighter, fighter bomber type aircraft for conventional use. However keep and maintain a stealth program of one size or another for special use. Its better to have a stealth and not need it, then to need a stealth and not have one.

We need a mix of capabilities. Stealth makes planes harder to see, not invisible.

One thing nobody mentioned is the role that UCAV's might play in the future. We are just beginning to see them now with things like Predator.

VF5SS wrote:Hehe, I'd say both Valkyries are cool Plus there's a bit of a connection between the two. Shoji Kawamori decided to be an aeronautical engineer because he admired the XB-70 so he named his fictional aircraft, the VF-1.
http://www.mahq.net/mecha/macross/sdfmacross/vf-1s.htm

Well I'd say the USAF should focus more on robust mass-produced fighters with a heavy punch.

Hehe, I'm currently majoring in Aerospace Engineering. Maybe I can help design fighters with more punch when i graduate and go to work with Lockheed. Hehe, ill design a plane that can make the F-22 look like a stealthified Cessna with peashooters under the wings... LOL

One thing nobody mentioned is the role that UCAV's might play in the future. We are just beginning to see them now with things like Predator.

You didnt read my post a couple posts up did you. I talked a bunch about them. Oh, and they are using Predators with Hellfire missiles in Afghanistan if im not terribly mistaken.

Stealth is the future, especially since the United States is not the only country working on tactical air Defense lasers.

You didnt read my post a couple posts up did you. I talked a bunch about them. Oh, and they are using Predators with Hellfire missiles in Afghanistan if im not terribly mistaken

Oops, I missed that part. Read the part about conflicts with high tech opponents then turned to answer the phone.

This is an interesting tidbit on cell phone networks and stealth.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/ ... ealths.htm

Sea Skimmer wrote:Stealth is the future, especially since the United States is not the only country working on tactical air Defense lasers.

It might be the future, and I think we ought to have a well maintained stealth force. But the odds of us going to war with other countries that are developing technologies such as this is INCREDIBLY small. The only countries that we should be worried about with technoliges such as that are China and North Korea. Iraq has the chem. weapons, but a few 2000 lb GBUs can take care of that. I like the idea of the air defense lasers. I think we should remain wary of the threat of nuclear missiles from rogue nations such as North Korea and even Cuba to a small extent. Also, we might have another country to worry about in the future. Russia. All it would take is a hard liner president to get elected and a few strings for him/her to pull, and they could be back to a communist state. And with the economic problems russia has, It might be possible. With our current stealth technology, i would much rather be flying in a b-1 than I would a b-2 though.

TrailerParkJawa wrote:

You didnt read my post a couple posts up did you. I talked a bunch about them. Oh, and they are using Predators with Hellfire missiles in Afghanistan if im not terribly mistaken

Oops, I missed that part. Read the part about conflicts with high tech opponents then turned to answer the phone.

This is an interesting tidbit on cell phone networks and stealth.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/ ... ealths.htm

In the four or so years since this idea was first proposed, it has become quite clear that this tech will never be accurate enough to guide a weapon onto the aircraft. And Russia has already modified an ARM to home on cell phone emissions..

Basically it lets you know your going to die just before the B-2 drops a SDB or JSOW on your emitter and control can.

Your probably right, my main point is that Stealth is not invulnerable.

TrailerParkJawa wrote:Your probably right, my main point is that Stealth is not invulnerable.

Nothings invulnerable, most L band search radars can see an F-117 at 12 miles, and a B-2 at 5. However, it's not practical to have the radars that close together, so the bombers just fly around them through the gaps.

And of course DEAD assets may just blast a gap. That’s why the Small Diameter bomb is going to be such a great weapon, it will allow a single Stealth aircraft to destroy swarms of individual air defense vehicles while remaining at a fairly safe range. Then things like the F-35 can safely throw on there external pylons and really get into the fight.

an F-117 was shot down in bosnia, whether a lucky shot or was seen by radar, we will never know

What is a DEAD asset ? Do you mean SEAD ?

Dont forget that Stealth needs to operate at night, another limitation.

But, over all I think that stealth aircraft are invaluable in the opening stage of any conflict to hit high value, high threat targets. Then you bring in the B-52's.

I remember when testors released the F-19 model and there was such a hullabaloo about it. The real thing turned out to look very different. ( a little off topic )

an F-117 was shot down in bosnia, whether a lucky shot or was seen by radar, we will never know

IIRC, it was not a lucky shot, but a combonation of knowing ahead of time the flight paths of Nato strikes. In other words, they knew where to look and when.

Here is a better idea. Get some of the smaller near to earth asteroid, adn threaten to send them smashing down on the offendign country/continent.