5 ms·

So they don't actually know what direction to take aircraft in and decided on stealth. Seems reasonable, all else being equal, the party that is detected last

by bserge 5y ago

So they don't actually know what direction to take aircraft in and decided on stealth. Seems reasonable, all else being equal, the party that is detected last has a higher chance of winning. What happens when a new detection method is developed that makes these planes not stealthy? Don't you then just have 4-5th gen craft that cost 2-10x as much? Guess it takes a real war to discover the actual winner of modern warfare.

pat76 5y ago
Like the damn Zumwalt destroyers plans. Bunch of useless boomers in the mil complex full of their own hubris even after loosing to illiterate goat herders they keep coming up with this type of bullshit. I am just glad budgets are evaporating and these clowns are all retiring soon.
- pathseeker 5y ago
  The navy was in a conflict with illiterate goat herders?
  - jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
    I can decode this rant. The Zumwalt class started out as a requirement from the armed forces committee in congress for a replacement for the old battleship Naval Gunfire Support mission. That is sit a bit off the coast and go boom with big guns to help the boots on the ground. Just one wee little problem with that: anti ship missiles have made that a suicide mission since approximately the late 60s. And no, all the stealth in the world wasn't going to make a difference in that when a simple counter battery radar would spot you, not to mention other means. The Navy tried to get out of it but couldn't, so we got stuck building 3 rather useless boats and then canceling the program. Some neat naval design and engineering went into them which may be useful in the future, but it wasn't worth it for the sticker price at all. The people created this fuster cluck are the same folks that kept the battleships operational or semi operational post WW2 when it was clear they were obsolete, at non trivial cost to taxpayers.
    - neuronic 5y ago
      Prime example of why military spending needs to be cut in half at least to focus on what's important. Not to weaken the military but to stop bullshit like this in its track.
      - jabl 5y ago
        Speaking of tracks, apparently production of M1 tanks is going at full pace, thanks to the factories being located in the districts of influential politicians. The military has no need for them though, so they are going straight to storage.
        hef19898 5y ago
        Despite, as far as I know, even the Army saying they don't want nor need these Abrams. Keeping the factories running is good, one never knows when that industrial base might needed at scale. and we no longer in the 40s when car factories could easily converted to tank production. You don't need full capacity production for that, so.
    - kostap 5y ago
      They were given 10 billion to design/build 30 ships. They spent 30-40 billion and got 3 ship that can barely float. Only in the US.
      - jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
        The ships float fine. There's a sort of internet forum meme about them having poor seakeeping due to the unusual tumblehome hull. That's 100% imagined by forum warriors. The boats have remarkable stability and superior seakeeping. That's not the problem with them at all. The problem with them is they they were designed for a mission that was boneheaded from the beginning, and that costs ballooned tremendously to build them. The Navy's plan for them now is to convert them into missile boats for the new hypersonic missiles, if/when those are ready, so they main end up being somewhat useful eventually. But again, you'd not want to spend money the way we had to get to this result if you had some way to rewind the errors.
roenxi 5y ago
> the party that is detected last has a higher chance of winning. Can that be what 'stealth' means? Sensing technology must be progressing faster than the ability to remain off-radar. Between satellites, internet connected mobiles and general improvements in radar technology I'm not sure that a stealth aircraft can be undetected.
- earthbee 5y ago
  Stealth isn't about being undetectable, stealth aircraft have always been detectable, the Serbs shot down a F-117 22 years ago, Iraqi search radars picked them up 30 years ago. But even though they are detectable they can make the enemy have to work harder. Also, stealth should never work alone, it should work in coordination with non-stealth aircraft, drones and stand off jammers as a coherent whole. Detecting stealth aircraft is easy, detecting stealth aircraft against massive background noise from a wall of jammers while missiles and drones are going after your radars is a lot harder. There's no hiding in space, US, Russia and China have all demonstrated abilities to destroy satellites. In a significant war between any of those three nations those satellites will be gone in a week, maybe even a day.
jabl 5y ago
Like you say yourself, stealth isn't a binary thing, but rather a set of techniques to reduce the detection range. You can be assured that Russia and China are working hard on technology to detect stealth planes (e.g. multistatic radar systems). But again, it's not a binary thing. Even with a multistatic radar setup, a stealth aircraft will have lower detection range than a non-stealthy one. And considering both China and Russia are developing stealthy aircraft like Su-57 and J-20, it seems they themselves are not thinking that they have the magic technology that would make stealth obsolete.

by bserge 5y ago

pat76 5y ago

Like the damn Zumwalt destroyers plans. Bunch of useless boomers in the mil complex full of their own hubris even after loosing to illiterate goat herders they keep coming up with this type of bullshit. I am just glad budgets are evaporating and these clowns are all retiring soon.

pathseeker 5y ago
The navy was in a conflict with illiterate goat herders?
- jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
  I can decode this rant. The Zumwalt class started out as a requirement from the armed forces committee in congress for a replacement for the old battleship Naval Gunfire Support mission. That is sit a bit off the coast and go boom with big guns to help the boots on the ground. Just one wee little problem with that: anti ship missiles have made that a suicide mission since approximately the late 60s. And no, all the stealth in the world wasn't going to make a difference in that when a simple counter battery radar would spot you, not to mention other means. The Navy tried to get out of it but couldn't, so we got stuck building 3 rather useless boats and then canceling the program. Some neat naval design and engineering went into them which may be useful in the future, but it wasn't worth it for the sticker price at all. The people created this fuster cluck are the same folks that kept the battleships operational or semi operational post WW2 when it was clear they were obsolete, at non trivial cost to taxpayers.
  - neuronic 5y ago
    Prime example of why military spending needs to be cut in half at least to focus on what's important. Not to weaken the military but to stop bullshit like this in its track.
    - jabl 5y ago
      Speaking of tracks, apparently production of M1 tanks is going at full pace, thanks to the factories being located in the districts of influential politicians. The military has no need for them though, so they are going straight to storage.
      - hef19898 5y ago
        Despite, as far as I know, even the Army saying they don't want nor need these Abrams. Keeping the factories running is good, one never knows when that industrial base might needed at scale. and we no longer in the 40s when car factories could easily converted to tank production. You don't need full capacity production for that, so.
  - kostap 5y ago
    They were given 10 billion to design/build 30 ships. They spent 30-40 billion and got 3 ship that can barely float. Only in the US.
    - jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
      The ships float fine. There's a sort of internet forum meme about them having poor seakeeping due to the unusual tumblehome hull. That's 100% imagined by forum warriors. The boats have remarkable stability and superior seakeeping. That's not the problem with them at all. The problem with them is they they were designed for a mission that was boneheaded from the beginning, and that costs ballooned tremendously to build them. The Navy's plan for them now is to convert them into missile boats for the new hypersonic missiles, if/when those are ready, so they main end up being somewhat useful eventually. But again, you'd not want to spend money the way we had to get to this result if you had some way to rewind the errors.

roenxi 5y ago

> the party that is detected last has a higher chance of winning. Can that be what 'stealth' means? Sensing technology must be progressing faster than the ability to remain off-radar. Between satellites, internet connected mobiles and general improvements in radar technology I'm not sure that a stealth aircraft can be undetected.

earthbee 5y ago
Stealth isn't about being undetectable, stealth aircraft have always been detectable, the Serbs shot down a F-117 22 years ago, Iraqi search radars picked them up 30 years ago. But even though they are detectable they can make the enemy have to work harder. Also, stealth should never work alone, it should work in coordination with non-stealth aircraft, drones and stand off jammers as a coherent whole. Detecting stealth aircraft is easy, detecting stealth aircraft against massive background noise from a wall of jammers while missiles and drones are going after your radars is a lot harder. There's no hiding in space, US, Russia and China have all demonstrated abilities to destroy satellites. In a significant war between any of those three nations those satellites will be gone in a week, maybe even a day.

jabl 5y ago

Like you say yourself, stealth isn't a binary thing, but rather a set of techniques to reduce the detection range. You can be assured that Russia and China are working hard on technology to detect stealth planes (e.g. multistatic radar systems). But again, it's not a binary thing. Even with a multistatic radar setup, a stealth aircraft will have lower detection range than a non-stealthy one. And considering both China and Russia are developing stealthy aircraft like Su-57 and J-20, it seems they themselves are not thinking that they have the magic technology that would make stealth obsolete.