5 ms·

This is quite the boondoggle, not a lot of change out of billion dollars per aircraft, remember that as you work yourself to death. "Stealth" has such a limite

• gateorade 4y ago
  This is objectively false though. We could take a deep dive into the relevance of the Serbian shoot down but it’s kind of irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, stealth technology means that an aircraft needs to be significantly closer to a radar for it to be detected compared to a normal aircraft. That also means it has to be closer still for a threat radar to develop a weapons quality track. Theres not really any known radar technology that can mitigate this, it’s basic physics. It’s much easier to see an object on radar that returns orders of magnitude more energy to the radar. Stealth does not a limited utility. In fact it’s rapidly going to become an absolute bare minimum for any tactical aircraft.
  • Guthur 4y ago
    So in the next 10-20 years we wont have any significant advances in detection technology or methodologies? Even if, for arguments sake, the aircraft is at the moment leaps and bounds ahead of the nearest peer competitor military there is going to be limit to how effective a new coat of paint will be for the B-21 in 10 years time. To get your monies worth from this thing you'd want a lot greater effective service life than that and without stealth the B-21 would have dramatically diminished it's dollar to effectiveness ratio.
    • pohl 4y ago
      Even just 20 years of strategic deterrence is probably worth the price tag.