Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Airforce offical talks about F-22 Stealth

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Airforce offical talks about F-22 Stealth

    http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/hta.../20051125.aspx

    November 25, 2005: The U.S. Air Force, in it’s effort to get money to build more F-22s, has revealed just how “stealthy” the F-22 is. It’s RCS (Radar Cross Section) is the equivalent, for a radar, to a metal marble. The less stealthy (and much cheaper) F-35, is equal to a metal golf ball. The F-35 stealthiness is a bit better than the B-2 bomber, which, in turn, was twice as good as that on the even older F-117. Much older aircraft, like the B-52, have a huge RCS, which makes them very easy to spot on radar. But with a smaller RCS, it's more likely that the aircraft won't be detected at all.

    The air force revealed this information, which is usually kept secret, because it wants to make the case that it makes more sense to cut production of the F-35 (which cost $30-50 million each), so that more F-22s (that cost over $100 million each) can be bought. Most of the air force generals are former fighter pilots, and the F-22 is a much hotter fighter than the F-35 (which is basically a fighter-bomber, with emphasis on the latter function.) This is causing an international uproar, because of the many foreign countries that are buying the F-35. Some of these countries have contributed money for the development of the F-35. The F-22 will not be exported, because it uses so much top secret technology.

  • #2
    If I was the Airforce I would have bought only 50-70 F/A-22s. It is without doubt the best fighter in the world, but its price is ridiculous and I would prefer the F-35 to fill the number advantage of our airforce that was lost. The down sides of the F-35s are that their max speed is only mach 1.5 which makes it slower to get across the battlefield and to a target quickly and that it has a small payload when it needs to keep its stealth. However, it is manuverable enough to get the job done in a dogfight and it carries enough fuel to get across the battlefield. Overall the Airforce has made a big mistake to be completely reliant on the F/A-22. I know they need it to advance the technology of our military, but shouln't have used most of the money on a small airforce.

    Comment


    • #3
      If only we'd listened to you, we wouldn't make this tragic mistake.

      Ah well, complete mastery of the air was nice while it lasted, but it's all been pissed away because nobody had your insight into what the USAF needs for the future.

      But thanks for letting us know where we went wrong.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by canoe
        [url]The F-35 stealthiness is a bit better than the B-2 bomber, which, in turn, was twice as good as that on the even older F-117.
        I was under the impression that both the B-2 and F-22 were superior to the F-35 in terms of stealth, especially all-aspects.

        The big, glowing hole in the back of the F-35 can't help matters.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Bluesman
          If only we'd listened to you, we wouldn't make this tragic mistake.

          Ah well, complete mastery of the air was nice while it lasted, but it's all been pissed away because nobody had your insight into what the USAF needs for the future.

          But thanks for letting us know where we went wrong.
          Your exaggerating. I didn't say "we lost mastery of the air" or that "they needed to listen to my insight." It was just an opinion. The F-22 and F-35 will have no trouble keeping mastery of the air, but when our forces need to be stretched out across the world that's the only problem you would have with a small airforce since it has little room to stretch.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by B.Smitty
            I was under the impression that both the B-2 and F-22 were superior to the F-35 in terms of stealth, especially all-aspects.

            The big, glowing hole in the back of the F-35 can't help matters.
            Thats not my statement its a direct copy and paste from the article. But it looks like the F-35 has pretty good stealth capabilities, its probably got a slight advantage due to the fact its a fraction of the B-2's size.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by canoe
              Thats not my statement its a direct copy and paste from the article. But it looks like the F-35 has pretty good stealth capabilities, its probably got a slight advantage due to the fact its a fraction of the B-2's size.
              Yes, I saw the post on stratpage a couple days ago. ;)

              The F-35 is smaller, but the B-2 flying wing is nearly optimal when it comes to shaping, IIRC.

              The large, vertical tail surfaces, inlets and exhaust of the F-35, along with the fat, flat fuselage just doesn't seem condusive to a low RCS.

              Plus, I've always heard that the F-35 is meant to be "stealth on the cheap", with smaller frequency band coverage, over more limited aspects.

              'Course all of this is speculation as the real capabilities are classified and/or undefined (in the case of the F-35).

              Comment


              • #8
                It's not an all-aspect RCS.
                Interms of strategy, the F/A-22 is the aircraft that the Airforce needs more right now. It needs an aircraft fleet that can establish air superiority. Right now, it doesn't have one. The F-35 is not that aircraft. If what we need is air to ground cover after air dominance has been established, the F-16 has proven it fulfills that mission nicely.

                Comment


                • #9
                  The final cost of f35s will be substaintially more than 50 million which is being floated around.
                  Hala Madrid!!

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X