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

Ryan M Gill wrote:

> On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Imre A. Szabo wrote:
>
> > And I suppose being told to read a book I already own and have read
> as
> > well is not a personal attack.
>
> Well, its certainly a bit less confrontational...your arguments seem
> to
> miss much of what Ben Rich states in his book. Using your arguments
> the
> one U2 that was shot down would be proof of the program's failure and
> its
> lack of viablity. You know the U2s are still flying? They are called
> TR-1s now.
>

I never said the loss of one F 117 made them obsolete.	I said the
emergence of detection methods that make their stealth features
mariginal effective do make them obsolete.

U-2 were just obselet over areas where the Soviet Union could shoot them
down.  I've seen several large pieces of Gary Power's U-2.  They're on
display at several military musseums in Russia.  They're still proud
about shooting him down.  I am aware of the details about how the did
it.

Personally, I think U-2's would make great ASAT platforms.  Very high
altitude and long loiter time; good for launching anti-satalite
missiles.  Granted the Raptor/Talon would have been better.  But it was
cancelled.  Raptor was the name of an un-manned aircraft with a similar
to a U-2 in areodynamics but much smaller.  Talons were the kinnetic
kill IR missiles.  This system was originally to be used for ballistic
missle defense with a look down shoot up fire control.	A look up shoot
up fire control would have been eaiser to develop and perfect ASAT
applications in LEO (Low Earth Orbit).	There is no reason we could get
by U-2's instead of the Raptor, but we will still need the Talons or
some other ASAT.

IAS