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

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?

> 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. 

> 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. 

> 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?

> 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. 

> 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.

> 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. 

> 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. 

> 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. 

> 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...

------------------------------------------------------------------
- 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  -
------------------------------------------------------------------