Re: [Fwd: flanker New China Radar technology threatens US Stealth Aircraft!]

Ryan M Gill wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Nov 1999, Imre A. Szabo wrote:
>
> > You're missing the point.  Reducing RCS is evolutionary.  Stealth
> was a
>
> RCS reduction got its start with the U2. Read Ben Rich's book. Then
> come
> back and say stealth is a waste. Does it surprise you that RCS
> reduction
> is being incorporated into the Arliegh Burkes?

Do you not understand English???  I said RCS is evolutionary.  You even
quoted me.  That means it has a long history, aka U2, Mosquito, etc.  I
read Ben Rich's book when it came out.	I never said I had a problem
with reducing RCS, my problem is with the attempt at effectively
eliminating RCS which is what the F 117 and B 2 tried to do and failed.

>
>
> > attempt at a revolutionary new aircraft.  It failed.  I do not have
> a
> > problem with the R&D phase of the F 117.  We learned a lot.  I am
>
> Skunk works didn't pull Have Blue out of their asses. They built it up
> on
> knowledge from the U2 and SR-71 programs. RCS reduction was used there
> as
> a feature, not as the main focus.

Excuse me.  Did I say we learned a lot about reducing RCS or did I say
we learned a lot???  To clarify your misconception, we learned a lot
about the multi-faceted aerodynamics (actually how aerodynamic they
aren't), we learned a lot about fully automated trim controls, etc.

>
>
> > skeptical about opperational use of the F 117 and the R&D phase of
> the B
> > 2.	Opperational use of the B 2 is a huge waste of my tax money.
>
> > All an SU-27 has to do to find a stealth aircraft is to be in the
> right
> > area.  The new radar will do that.	The IR sensor built into every
>
> What new radar? The new chinese wonder of the world? I'll be that uses
> a
> really large aperature that won't fit on the nose of a Fighter.

That's probably why the Chinese picked the SU-27.  It has by far the
largest radome then any other fighter.	I would be surprised if they
couldn't get it to fit into a SU-27's huge nose.

>
>
> > single SU-27 that is integrated into the fire control for both the
> heat
> > seeking missiles (both short range missiles and medium range
> missiles)
> > and the auto-cannon is capable of picking up the IR signiture of a
> > stealth aircraft, tracking it, and engaging it.
>
> So this SU-27 is just flying around and looking for an easy F-117?
> He's
> not worried about those E-3 Sentries seeing him flying around? He's
> not
> worried about getting whacked by an AMRAMM he never sees coming?

Get the point.	With the new radar and the existing IR sensor the SU-27
is NOT going to be flying around looking for an easy F 117.  That SU-27
is going to swoop in to with in 20 km, the IR is going to lock-on, and
then there is going to be one less F 117.  The Chinese will probably use
their 15,000 Mig 21's to keep the E-3's busy.  By the way.  What is
going to happen when the USAF runs out of AMRAAM's before all 15,000 Mig
21's are destroyed???  Yes, the Chinese really do have 15,000 Mig 21's.

>
>
> > The US could have gotten a lot more bang for the buck for the amount
> of
> > money that has been and is being squandered on the B 2.  We probably
>
> > could have pulled out the plans for the Montana's, modernized them
> with
>
> Please. Take it to Sci.Military.naval and see what Andew and Matt tell
>
> you about that. BB's are great, its an antiquated concept. I'd like to
>
> see a naval bombardment vessel on a DD hull, but a BBsized craft is
> far
> off in left field and won't ever happen. The best you will see is a
> 20,000 ton vessel with a navalized 155mm or 203mm in a vertical mount.
> It
> won't look anything like a WWII Post dreadnaught BB.

The North Vietnamese didn't ask for B-52 to be removed from the theater
of operations, nor aircraft carriers.  They demanded for the Iowa's to
be removed before negotiations.  Why???  Could it be they could counter
(SAM's, Mig's, flack, etc.) the airplanes but they couldn't counter  a
battleship.  Most of the places in the world where are troops are and
going to be deployed in can no more counter a battleship then the North
Vietnamese.  The USN's plans for naval bombardment are horrible, the
current situation is even worse.  I'm glad I'm not a leather neck when
it comes time to pay the price for this stupidity.

>
>
> > nuclear power and automation to reduce crew size, developed extended
>
> The USN isn't doing anything with a Nuke plant that isn't a Nimitz.
> All
> the Ticos are Gas Turbines. All the Arleigh Burkes are Gas Turbines.
> All
> the CGN's are gone.
>

The USN is only putting nuclear power in capital ships and subs.
Battleships have ALWAYS qualified as capital ships.  Even the old slow
battleships in the World War II that were only used for shore
bombardment qualified as capital ships.  The CGN's your talking about
(Virginia class and California class) have one fifth the displacement of
an Iowa...

> > range guided projectiles (probably 200 to 300 nm for the 16" guns),
> and
>
> Where are the 16" guns going to be made? Take the ones out of storage?
>
> Well, you need to start up the production line. Ain't gonna happen.
> 155
> RAM rounds is far more likely with a GPS guidance.

And how much did it cost to start the production line for B 2's???  How
much is it going to cost to re-open that production line???  How much is
it going to cost to open the production line for the successor to the B
2???  We had the money.  We miss spent it. The question is if we are
going to fix the mistakes we made.

>
>
> > built, equiped and crewed half a dozen of them; fixed the 100 B 1B's
> we
> > already have and equiped them with conventional ACM's; converted
> half a
>
> B1B's are already in the Tactical Role. The B2's were there for
> Strategic
> roles mostly. START and SALT has been doing away with the Strategic
> Roles
> for quite a while.

What really is doing away with the strategic role is the break up of the
Soviet Union and the seemingly eternal collapse of the Russian economy.
The multi-polar world makes strategic systems needed, but with no large
clear enemy.

>
>
> > dozen Ohio SSBN to SSGN's.	Now compare all of that to 22 B 2's in
> throw
>
> OHIO's are impractical in that role. The hull size is enormously
> different. Where are we going to get the cruise missles to fill up
> these
> huge SSGNs? We barely keep all the Arligh Burks and Tico's filled with
>
> TLAMs.
>

We'll maybe well just have to re-open the second TLAM planet that is
located in Florida.  You know what else, the cheapest way to deliver
ordnance is the gun.  If we had a balanced and versatile force, we
probably wouldn't be running short of TLAM's anyway.  Either that or
descion makers in Washington who aren't reckless incompetent idiots...

> > weight, utility, and versitility.  Remeber, B 2's can't opperate
> > effectively in the rain.  Why?  The radar absorbent skin absorbs
> water
> > which reflects radar very well.
>
> So they operate at high altitude where there isn't rain. Remember
> that?
> Its the open air storage where they have problems with rain...

And when they try to take off and land.  It really $UCK$ having to dry
out your B 2 for a couple of days because it got wet taking off.
Doesn't help the operational sortie rate either.  Of course we could
just build 4 times the current number of climate controlled hangers and
fly them around so that they will never be rained on taking off or
landing.  But that will be a lot more flight hours...  Let's see.  Did
they ever get the maintenance to flight time down below 120 hours to
1???  I haven't had a chance to check the latest GAO reports on this
major problem with B 2.

IAS