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

On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Imre A. Szabo wrote:

> 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

Sorry, I saw that a revolutionary. 

> 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.

Ben Rich specifically states the RCS is like that of a bird. So this new

inferometric system the chinese are using, how easily will it detect a 
non stealthy aircraft? What you state is that because one technology has

one countermeasure, then it is a waste of money. Dispite the fact that 
other technologies are even less effective. 

> 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.

Its an existing radome. An inferometric radome is going to be tens of 
yards across if not hundred of yards across. Take a look at the big 3-D 
Air search radar sets even in use today. There have been general
mumblins 
about stealth being vulnerable to large scale long wave radar. That kind

of radar has very little precision. 

> 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

He's going to easily pick up this low ir signature aircraft on the deck 
from altitude and shoot it down easy? If war were that simple.

> their 15,000 Mig 21's to keep the E-3's busy.  By the way.  What is

All running in tip top shape too I sure. They all have pilots that have 
been to Chines Top Gun I bet. 

> 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 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

Nor can they counter a CVBG. There is no reason to build a huge 60,000 
ton BB with modern fits. You don't need that. They even looked at doing
a 
cheap hull arsenal ship concept. That was way over priced cost wise. The

closest thing I've seen to a shore bombardment specific vessel would be
a 
CG with 2-4 of the 155mm vertical firing howitzers with GPS guided 
projectiles. 

> 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.

You know that the Marines have 5"-45 NGS from several of their Gator 
Carriers as well as the new 5"-62 on the Arleigh Burkes right?

> 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...

You want a single purpose huge naval gunfire support ship? right...thats

economically feasable. Given the variety of jobs vessels are getting, 
unless you haul a lot of aircraft or troops/gear around its not gonna
get 
over 10,000 tons. 

> 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

When they kept cutting the numbers down, it kept costing more and more 
per unit. If they had bought more aircraft, we'd have ended up paying 
far less per aircraft. 

> 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.

> 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.

Which means more tactical strike aircraft are needed. You keep saying 
they are a failure. Yet there has been one lost to ground fire. Pretty 
good for the number of sorties they've done right?

> 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

Show me a major system that was designed recently that doesn't require 
large numbers of maintanance? You want to talk maintanance and cost,
look 
at the cost of a new 50,000 ton BB. You know maintanance costs were why 
the Iowas were decommed right?

------------------------------------------------------------------
- Ryan Montieth Gill	  NRA / DoD# 0780 (Smug #1) / AMA / SOHC -
- ryan.gill@turner.com	    I speak not for CNN, nor they for me -
- rmgill@mindspring.com 	     www.mindspring.com/~rmgill/ -
- '85 Honda CB700S  -  '72 Honda CB750K  - '76 Chevy MonteCarlo  -
------------------------------------------------------------------