Posted on 04/28/2006 4:58:14 AM PDT by snowrip
WHAT? WHAT DID YOU SAY?
Yep, the ground would shake and you would feel them go by, very cool.
I wish they'de never closed Mather, it killed Rancho Cordova for a while but they're coming back little by little.
What really made me mad was that Mather had lots of Capehart housing which was deemed, not good enough, for low income housing. I guess it was good enough for the airmen and their families who lived there though.
Now they've got McMansions out there.
At least you air farce types got parts for your aircraft.....the navy could not get parts for our aircraft, we had to sh*t them!!!!!!
That kind of detection system -- if it works -- might be valuable in a "limited air war" where we wouldn't target a nations 'civilian communication systems'. I can't imagine that we would leave a country's cell phone system untouched in a major conflict. You could expect its use as a backup to military systems. The Iraqi insurgency uses it for IED triggers.
I'm inclined to believe that the F-117 got knocked down over Serbia for more mundane reasons: predictable flight patterns, advance warning by spys operating near Aviano AFB, maintenance problem that invalidated the stealth, etc. Still, it doesn't pay to be overconfident in your technological advantages.
I suspect OUR version of it works...Lockheed Martin's Silent Sentry for one, and BAE and Roke Manor Systems, for another.
The disturbing thing is that the Chi-Comms may have long ago already cracked the math...with of course...the usual Chinese Expatriate Scientists help...and are just needing to figure out the hardware implementations. We may find out how costly that breach of security is sooner than anyone expects.
No kiddin'! I saw one fly over during an air show at Hill AFB... it looked like a scene from "Batman Goes Militant."
I once saw an SR-71 at a Chicago air show. That was like Darth Vader circling your city.
No fewer than five misspellings of hangar, including the title. The writer obviously knows how to spell the word, since it is spelled correctly once.
"that the usual access panels and such on the B-2 must be" would be correct without the word "must."
"because of the result of" should say "as a result of"
"This means, that whenever there is a crises" is one of the most hideous sentence fragments in the whole article. It doesn't need the comma, and "crises" is a plural word.
"A team of four robots were installed, to liquid coating to B-2s" Good grief! A team was installed, and to do what to or with a liquid coating?
"the Indian ocean Still" A missing comma at the end of Indian Ocean, and forgetting the capital 'O.'
I might add that when saying B-2s, it would be a good place for the apostrophe, as in B-2's. It doesn't become a posessive just because of an apostrophe.
All-in-all, this is low-C work. I can't imagine anyone getting paid for it.
uh - neutron bomb?
Stealth is actually fairly old. Really discovered in the 1950s, first applied in 1982 (F117) it's been around and in use for many years, just the MSM and layperson is aware of this aspect today.
Stealth detection is not as easy as it seems. The long wavelengths can pick up "something somewhere" but lack any clarity. Stealth is part of the package; it's not everything by itself. It reduces the effectiveness of enemy radar and is in fact as on the F117/B2 across a broad spectrum of the electromagnetic spectrum. The IR signature is reduced as well, as are the actual magnetic properties.......
Of course the Russians love their jumping tanks, plasma stealth and fleets of forward swept winged fighters. What they state on their “Magic Mig” web pages is superfluous. It’s more wishful thinking not reality.
A SA2/3/5/6/9/11/Hawk/Roland the effectiveness of SA10/12/….. is greatly reduced with stealth. It’s physics at work. Even the EF, Rafale….., MIGs and SU’s incorporate some stealth characteristics. A B2, or even F117 is more than just stealth. It’s also massive planning behind the scene, EW, doctrine, intel on the threat, SEAD….. It’s not stealth alone, but nonetheless it’s an aspect that greatly diminishes the effectiveness of threat weapons systems.
Pointing out that ONE F-117 had been shot down and knowing that this type of plane flew in Panama, Iraq 1991, Iraq 2003, Balkans……. Realize that the F117 shot down took off in Spang. And it it’s known that we were being monitored as to movement of our forces. The enemy probably knew from where and when we were coming. That this plane had been used many times is no discredit to what stealth achieved. It’s a matter of reference. Iraq 2003 is a near unprecedented success as far as a military operation is concerned. Never before in history has a nation rolled up another so swiftly, that was so large, on the other side of the planet, with so few losses, fighting in such huge cities under such harsh climatic conditions. Success is a matter of how one defines it. Stating that “one” plane getting shot down is somehow a discredit or proof of the lack of importance of this technology is a far stretch.
Today, most threat nations know the bare metrics of our stealth platforms. There are probably some things they already can do to mitigate the advantage somewhat. Even so, it’s still very effective at reducing the effectiveness of the threat systems out there. Fact is, a B2 is not out there alone. Somewhere in the vicinity there will be other platforms like say an F15C orbiting (past) or a F22 (present). If Mr. Mig wants to get close to that B2 he’s in for a rude awakening. But that’s just my opinion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb
Google is your friend.
I would hope so. But right now we have just a bare handful more F-22s than we have B-2's! And wouldn't an F-15 of any version be a big give away to the enemy that we had an operation underway...a 'force packet' en route?
Technically, the B1-B is not considered to be a supersonic bomber. Most reports have it capable of 1.2 mach at altitude and in a serious dive but it is designed to be a low-altitude penetration type that sacrifices speed for agility and stealth.
The higher you fly, the more detectable you are and that is what shot down the B70 Valkyrie & F108 projects. The lower you fly at speed the less time someone has to range you, much less shoot at you. Thus the Supersonic B1-A that was killed by James Earl Carter became the B1-B under Ronald Wilson Reagan and is probably the better aircraft for the current conditions.
You don't have to be on top of what you're protecting. The F15C can be quite some distance away and still be devoted to a B-2.
Many times those birds are there anyway. Example: Iraq 2003. You always had F15's/16/18s in the sky there. So it's not like they are giving anything away.
Chances of an F-15 orbiting over the mainland unmolested...nil.
Sure we can. We have bases in Japan, S. Korea, Guam.......
These debates always degenerate into comparisons of "future theoretical” threat vs. "real world present day" allied platforms.
Our legacy platforms such as a Viper 50/52 is still top notch compared to the threat. An AIM120C or even older B (as many of our allies use) will still suffice most of the time. And truth is we begin fielding AIM120D already to some units this year!
Real world - The best threat N. Korea has to throw against us (air breathing) is a MIG29C. A present day Viper 50 with our load out has a definitive advantage. The biggest threat N. Korea probably has against something like a B2 is their SA5 (a strategic SAM).
Platforms like the F22 are needed because they are the “door kicker”. They are the ones that can do exactly that which you claim would be an issue. They can operate in a high threat environment and have huge ranges/loitering times. Without these platforms we would end up in a war of attrition. The F15 is not really getting replaced completely by the F22. At least not soon. Although one must caveat that with the fact that the USAF is anticipating that they will bump up the number of F22s in their fleet. After all the talk about cuts and further cuts and possible cancellation and and and, the USAF now is anticipating to buy more than their low balled figure that was quoted by all the doomsdat prophets. But that largely went uncommented.
Hanger Queen
Uh, the simulator...or the real bird...the Falcon?
Ahem. If you had a Secretary of Defense, who was at best, agnostic as to the merits of the F-22, and at worst, antagonistic because of the cost...that might queit things. Particularly since that SecDef had day-dreams of scads of cheaper UAV's eclipsing everything else...and who frequently made rumored threats to terminate the F-22 outright...would you be 'counting chickens' openly?!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.