5 ms·
Something people apparently generally don't realize is that the stealth claim has only ever been about the front profile of the aircraft. Nobody is claiming the
by a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
Something people apparently generally don't realize is that the stealth claim has only ever been about the front profile of the aircraft. Nobody is claiming the F-22 is invisible, just that it's rather hard to see from a distance if it's coming straight at you. And going straight at enemy fighters and air defense radars is the role of the F-22. Radar onboard an enemy fighter is not going to be long wave. So I don't really get Sprey's claim that stealth is a scam. The stealth claims are modest and accurate as best I can tell.
- Bluestrike2 12y agoThe biggest problem is that stealth has always been surrounded by political demands all the way back to the first stealth aircraft. Given Sprey's target audience with the interview and the way he chose his words (particularly at first), I think it's likely that he was addressing the prevailing belief that stealth aircraft are invisible aircraft. That said, you've hit the nail on the head in terms of the difference between being stealth (re: invisible, such as what Sprey's railing against) and being low-observable. Public comments about the JSF program by Lockheed, military spokespersons, and congressional supporters alike have all touted the plane's stealth capabilities to an extent that makes me wonder how many actually understand the difference between the two. Given the likelihood that operational demands (particularly close air support for the Marines with the F-35B... not that CAS missions could every be very stealthy) will make the entire point moot, I really don't understand all the emphasis on it.
- opendais 12y agoYa. Stealth made sense on the F-22 with its air superiority role. The F-35....not so much.