Re: [Fwd: flanker New China Radar technology threatens US Stealth Aircraft!]
From: "Imre A. Szabo" <ias@s...>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 12:48:09 -0500
Subject: Re: [Fwd: flanker New China Radar technology threatens US Stealth Aircraft!]
Let's see now. We've spent well over 45 billion dollars in acquisition
costs, not counting R&D costs nor Operationing costs (mega bucks...
Think air condistion aircraft hangers...) That's more then 3 billion
dollars a year. Well now, we could bribe most of our enemies for 3
billion dollars a year and pocket the R&D and operating costs. As for
success use of stealth, it's great against spear chuckers. But do you
need stealth aircraft to bomb spear chuckers???
You completely mis-understand my logic. Submarines were designed to be
solitary hunters. And they are still a viable in that role 100 years
after the first moderately successful designs. Stealth aircraft were
designed to be solitary bombers. Need no escorts to assist them on
their bombing missions. After 15 years, F 117's are no longer viable in
that role. After less then 5 years of opperations, B 2's are no longer
viable in that roll. There are no publicly known improved stealth
aircraft technologies that will make stealth aircraft viable again.
My logic is this. It will cost far less to develop and field stealth
detection system then to develop and field stealth aircraft. Therefore
stealth aircraft is a bad strategy because it will cost far more for the
US to get back and maintain a competative advantage.
> LOL! I guess it was a failure for the past ten or fifteen years we've
> using it succsefully in combat. haha. By your logic submarines were a
> failrure the first time the Hunley was sunk.