Next Gen Stealth Bombers

[-Snafu- 77]

When it is hit by a guided missile first.

A highly expensive secret weapon designed to give the U.S. a one shot, first strike capacity in a war that was never fought.

They have used it.

They can't afford any more and the cold war is long over.

Stealth technology has reached and eclipsed it's zenith.

@Rock,

Just a quick query, why do you think something with a 5% reduction in radar profile, will be able to go an extra 180/200 miles without getting locked?

Wouldn't 5% of 200 miles be an extra 10 miles?

The other one as you stated made it back to base. Which implies that it was never forced down and that is usually associated with being shot down.

No, stealth technology has not had its day. RockofSL has quite a bit of experience in working with military aircraft. Above he stated that what you said isn't true. I appreciate his input on this because of his experience. I learn from it. I know little about this stuff. You don't seem to be an expert on the stuff either. You don't want to learn. You just want to argue. Familiar words, Baff1?

[max power 21]

Any development in warfare is designed to act as a combat multiplier. This can crudely be boiled down to a kill-to-death ratio enhancer. Whether it's extended stand of range, increased accuracy, reduced observability, increased service ceiling, better communications, better sensors, or better tactics, what you want is to be able to stop what the enemy is doing without having them stop you. Stealth is no different from say developments in the focke wulf 190's aerofoil. Under certain conditions, against certain threats, these technologies give you an edge against the people you are fighting if they are employed responsibly.

It's like counting cards vs. not counting cards. Counting cards will give the card counter some 1% edge over the house in blackjack. If you lose a hand of blackjack counting cards does this mean that card counting is dead, or is it the direct expression of the imperfect but very real advantage that card counting gives you?

[Baff1 0]

But some developments are a dead end.

For example, if the costs to the manouverability of the airframe outweigh the gains from decreased detection that can be a combat divider not multiplier.

Or if the increased price of the airframe does not allow you to deploy in overwhelming force....

Is one stealth plane really worth 10+ non stealth planes?

@Snafu, you are not Rock. I think he is fully able to speak for himself without your help.

The aircraft in question did make it back to base.

But it never made it any further.

It had been hit by a missile and never flew again.

In your imagination you may believe that dispite taking a hit from a missile, that making it back to base counts as not being shot down, but the point remains that it was successfully targetted and hit by enemy fire.

It's stealth advantage had been lost.

All an F-117 is now, is a flying brick that has problems making evasive manouvres and staying in the air.

[-Snafu- 77]

@Snafu, you are not Rock. I think he is fully able to speak for himself without your help.

The aircraft in question did make it back to base.

But it never made it any further.

It had been hit by a missile and never flew again.

In your imagination you may believe that dispite taking a hit from a missile, that making it back to base counts as not being shot down, but the point remains that it was successfully targetted and hit by enemy fire.

It's stealth advantage had been lost.

All an F-117 is now, is a flying brick that has problems making evasive manouvres and staying in the air.

I know I am not Rock but thought I would point out that he works/worked in the design of aircraft IIRC.

Quote[/b] ]

The aircraft in question did make it back to base.

But it never made it any further.

It had been hit by a missile and never flew again.

That does not constitute being shot down. It never as as far as I can remember. You are the only person to do this.

Quote[/b] ]All an F-117 is now, is a flying brick that has problems making evasive manouvres and staying in the air.

What's the solution? They improve it. Most technologies advance as time passes. Did the say, 'the assault rifle is finished' when the then new M16's jammed up in the jungles of 'Nam? Was the tanks day over when they were cut up with ATGM's during the Yom Kippur War?

No and no. The technologies simply advanced and improvements were made and/or new designs were produced.

Furthermore, as I stated earlier, the F117 was kept a secret by the US government before its existence was acknowledged. It's not ridiculous to assume that the US has a stealth aircraft that has surpassed the F117 and has simply kept it secret.

States/groups/kingdoms have always looked for ways of gaining an advantage against their opponent or potential opponent. Stealth is part of this. F117 isn't as good as it used to be? Design a better stealth aircraft.

The fact is that you made a ridiculous claim (with no real evidence) and tried to pass it off as a universal truth even when someone more knowledgeable stated otherwise.

[max power 21]

But some developments are a dead end.

For example, if the costs to the manouverability of the airframe outweigh the gains from decreased detection that can be a combat divider not multiplier.

Or if the increased price of the airframe does not allow you to deploy in overwhelming force....

Is one stealth plane really worth 10+ non stealth planes?

You're on the wrong track.  The unit cost of the f-22 is 137 million USD, the cost of the F-35 is 83 million, and the cost of the Eurofighter Typhoon is 123 million.

Also, all aircraft have strengths and weaknesses. These just dictate how you should engage the enemy, given their strengths and weaknesses. In the vietnam war, the F-4 was less manoeuvrable than nearly every fighter adversary it went up against. Because it was large and lumbering did not mean that it was a liability to the US war effort. In fact, through superior training and tactics, the pilots were able to exploit its superior power and vertical performance. The design was highly successful.

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

But some developments are a dead end.

For example, if the costs to the manouverability of the airframe outweigh the gains from decreased detection that can be a combat divider not multiplier.

Or if the increased price of the airframe does not allow you to deploy in overwhelming force....

Is one stealth plane really worth 10+ non stealth planes?

You're on the wrong track.  The unit cost of the f-22 is 137 million USD, the cost of the F-35 is 83 million, and the cost of the Eurofighter Typhoon is 123 million.

Lets get this right... what you are quoting is estimated costs based on FY2000 production batch size. The more accurate unit cost figures for the 2007/2008 estimated production runs are:

<ul>- F-22 x 100-111 airframes = US$189 per airframe

- F-35 x 1172 (currently estimated from interested nations) = US$119 per airframe.  Although if several nations withdrawn (which seems very probable*) from the project costs are expected to rise over the US$150 million mark per aircraft due to ongoing devleopment problems and testing.

- Eurofighter x 625 confirmed orders and options on ~80 more = US$108 million expected to reduce down to US$80 million mark by the 300th airframe when the production and development costs are recouped.Its also worth noting that this is the only mature project that actually has more than 100 in service aircraft.

* This is in part due to the US policy of refusing technology transfer.  Meaning that any nation buying the F-35 will be totally dependent on the US to service and upgrade the aircraft for its entire service life of about 30 years!  And of course the spiralling costs.  The original cost was estimated on between 2000 and 3000 aircraft production run over 15-20 years.

To put this into perspective the Saab Gripen NG is estimated at US$67 Million per aircraft including a full service package, which the F-22 and F-35 doesnt include.  Nor does the Eurofighter come with the same deal but they aren’t as reliant/desperate form export sales as Saab is right now.

@Snafu, you are not Rock. I think he is fully able to speak for himself without your help.

...

I know I am not Rock but thought I would point out that he works/worked in the design of aircraft IIRC.

You are right I do work in the aerospace industry.

@ Baff he wasnt replying for me just using my post to reinforce his point.  I think you two should sort out whatever your problem is in private because it seems to be bubbling over from debate into an argument.

[Baff1 0]

Quote[/b] ]

The aircraft in question did make it back to base.

But it never made it any further.

It had been hit by a missile and never flew again.

That does not constitute being shot down. It never as as far as I can remember. You are the only person to do this.

Quote[/b] ]All an F-117 is now, is a flying brick that has problems making evasive manouvres and staying in the air.

What's the solution? They improve it. Most technologies advance as time passes. Did the say, 'the assault rifle is finished' when the then new M16's jammed up in the jungles of 'Nam? Was the tanks day over when they were cut up with ATGM's during the Yom Kippur War?

No and no. The technologies simply advanced and improvements were made and/or new designs were produced.

Furthermore, as I stated earlier, the F117 was kept a secret by the US government before its existence was acknowledged. It's not ridiculous to assume that the US has a stealth aircraft that has surpassed the F117 and has simply kept it secret.

States/groups/kingdoms have always looked for ways of gaining an advantage against their opponent or potential opponent. Stealth is part of this. F117 isn't as good as it used to be? Design a better stealth aircraft.

The fact is that you made a ridiculous claim (with no real evidence) and tried to pass it off as a universal truth even when someone more knowledgeable stated otherwise.

That constitutes being shot down.

If your memory is poor, that's your problem.

More critically it demonstrates that the stealth is no longer working and hence why the technology is defunct; which is the proposition and the context in which the plane being "shot down" or not is relevant. Please, no more argument for arguments sake.

Yes M16's jam.

The 5.56 also has a finite limit to it's penetration power. Once reached, no amount of tweaking will ever make it do more.

Not all technologies can be improved. The spear is about as advanced as it can ever usefully be.

Only it's day is done.

That's not to say it isn't still with us to some extent on the battlefield in the form of a bayonet, only that spear warfare is a thing of the past.

Technologies can become redundant.

The F117 was no great secret. Everybody knew of it's existance, they just hadn't got it's radar profile because they hadn't flown it at airshows or near foreign military installations or aircraft. (unlike the F-22).

Pictures of it were in great abundance. Everyone knew how much it cost too. You can't hide that kind of a budget from congressional debate or a manufacturing industry of that size in an underground cave.

You can't test fly and train squadrons of them without people seeing them in the air.

It was a secret weapon, but not a secret.

Stealth is every bit as good as it used to be, but it is still a one battle wonder. A one use first strike weapon.

The only reason to design a new one would be if the same military objectives were being planned for as were when the first lot was designed (and if that was the cheapest/most effective method of attack).

They aren't. There will be no pre-emptive strike on Russia. It's not in the nature of the conflicts they are planning for.

And yes I have no real evidence to make my claim, but then you have none to refute it either.

I would suggest that you re-read Rocks comments on stealth and rather than just focusing on the elements that re-inforce your arguement, you take them as a whole and try and understand the overall picture of what he is saying.

He doesn't need you to be his spokesperson and neither do I.

[Baff1 0]

Also, all aircraft have strengths and weaknesses.  These just dictate how you should engage the enemy, given their strengths and weaknesses.  In the vietnam war, the F-4 was less manoeuvrable than nearly every fighter adversary it went up against.  Because it was large and lumbering did not mean that it was a liability to the US war effort.  In fact, through superior training and tactics, the pilots were able to exploit its superior power and vertical performance.  The design was highly successful.

The F-117 has had only limited success. It was highly successful in it's first campaign, but ineffective and withdrawn thereafter.

In my opinion the strength of the F-117 design was it's ability to pass through enemy radar guided defences without being targeted/detected and it's weakness was aerodynamic performance.

It strength has since been neutralised and now all we are left with is a poorly aerodynamic bomber that is significantly less capable than many other existing airframes available for the USAF to call on.

The F4 is currently superior to the F-117.

[max power 21]

Lets get this right... what you are quoting is estimated costs based on FY2000 production batch size. The more accurate unit cost figures for the 2007/2008 estimated production runs are:

<ul>- F-22 x 100-111 airframes = US$189 per airframe

- F-35 x 1172 (currently estimated from interested nations) = US$119 per airframe.  Although if several nations withdrawn (which seems very probable*) from the project costs are expected to rise over the US$150 million mark per aircraft due to ongoing devleopment problems and testing.

- Eurofighter x 625 confirmed orders and options on ~80 more = US$108 million expected to reduce down to US$80 million mark by the 300th airframe when the production and development costs are recouped.Its also worth noting that this is the only mature project that actually has more than 100 in service aircraft.

* This is in part due to the US policy of refusing technology transfer.  Meaning that any nation buying the F-35 will be totally dependent on the US to service and upgrade the aircraft for its entire service life of about 30 years!  And of course the spiralling costs.  The original cost was estimated on between 2000 and 3000 aircraft production run over 15-20 years.

To put this into perspective the Saab Gripen NG is estimated at US$67 Million per aircraft including a full service package, which the F-22 and F-35 doesnt include.  Nor does the Eurofighter come with the same deal but they aren’t as reliant/desperate form export sales as Saab is right now.

Thanks for clarifying.  Though, let's not get carried away with the particulars regarding what is a mature project or not. Since we aren't arguing the differences of project status, just the mean cost of aeroplanes vs other aeroplanes.  For this we need to try to make a hypothetical retrospective observation of their mean cost through their lifetime- or pick some point in their respective lives and compare directly.  In this regard it might also be appropriate to include upkeep costs and that sort of thing.  I'm sure you would be a better authority on this than anything I could find in however much time it would be before I stopped looking.

If I read him correctly, baff1 was attempting to say that no benefit from stealth could possibly recoup the cost of each aeroplane, and that the cost was somewhere in the order of 10 times the cost of a non stealth alternative.  Once we figure out what the cost of each aeroplane is to the end user, we can figure out what the difference is.  We can then compare the difference to some measure of effectiveness.  There was some study that used the su-35 as an opponent in some simulation and found numbers that you could use as a measure of air to air effectiveness... there are some problems with that but I've not seen anything better. At least, that's how I figure you can quantify these concepts and evaluate the claims.

Quote[/b] ]

The F-117 has had only limited success. It was highly successful in it's first campaign, but ineffective and withdrawn thereafter.

In my opinion the strength of the F-117 design was it's ability to pass through enemy radar guided defences without being targeted/detected and it's weakness was aerodynamic performance.

It strength has since been neutralised and now all we are left with is a poorly aerodynamic bomber that is significantly less capable than many other existing airframes available for the USAF to call on.

The F4 is currently superior to the F-117.

I thought the point of it was that the aerodynamic performance of the aircraft was moot, as it wasn't to encounter any situation in which its aerodynamic performance would be tested. And to be fair, it accomplished missions that I understand were impossible for any other aircraft.

And, if I understand correctly, this is evidence toward the claim that stealth is dead, yes? The premise that the f-117 is obsolete is of course true, but all kinds of military aircraft go obsolete all the time. Sometimes these aircraft have great growth potential, sometimes their growth potential is very poor. This doesn't mean that their technologies, like stealth, afterburning, super-cruise, retractable landing gear, infrared or what have you have outlived their usefulness, and should not be refined in future aircraft.

[-Snafu- 77]

Quote[/b] ]

The aircraft in question did make it back to base.

But it never made it any further.

It had been hit by a missile and never flew again.

That does not constitute being shot down. It never as as far as I can remember. You are the only person to do this.

Quote[/b] ]All an F-117 is now, is a flying brick that has problems making evasive manouvres and staying in the air.

What's the solution? They improve it. Most technologies advance as time passes. Did the say, 'the assault rifle is finished' when the then new M16's jammed up in the jungles of 'Nam? Was the tanks day over when they were cut up with ATGM's during the Yom Kippur War?

No and no. The technologies simply advanced and improvements were made and/or new designs were produced.

Furthermore, as I stated earlier, the F117 was kept a secret by the US government before its existence was acknowledged. It's not ridiculous to assume that the US has a stealth aircraft that has surpassed the F117 and has simply kept it secret.

States/groups/kingdoms have always looked for ways of gaining an advantage against their opponent or potential opponent. Stealth is part of this. F117 isn't as good as it used to be? Design a better stealth aircraft.

The fact is that you made a ridiculous claim (with no real evidence) and tried to pass it off as a universal truth even when someone more knowledgeable stated otherwise.

That constitutes being shot down.

If your memory is poor, that's your problem.

More critically it demonstrates that the stealth is no longer working and hence why the technology is defunct; which is the proposition and the context in which the plane being "shot down" or not is relevant. Please, no more argument for arguments sake.

Not if it makes it back to base. It wasn't forced down. There is a difference.

Quote[/b] ]More critically it demonstrates that the stealth is no longer working and hence why the technology is defunct

But you don't know that!

Quote[/b] ]Yes M16's jam.

Instead of retiring it they issued cleaning kits with a cartoon manual on how to do it called 'How to clean your Sweet 16'.

Quote[/b] ]Technologies can become redundant.

Indeed. It is rather early to say stealth is dead. Especially when investment into it is continuing.

Quote[/b] ]The F117 was no great secret.

Err, it was.

From CRACKS IN THE BLACK DIKE, SECRECY, THE MEDIA,

AND THE F-117A by Jim Cunningham

Quote[/b] ]IN NOVEMBER 1988 a decade of secrecy was lifted from one of the most enigmatic aircraft projects of all time: the Lockheed F-117A stealth fighter. In the 10 years since the program was officially announced by the Carter administration, numerous reports have been published in both the technical and popular media about the aircraft. Now that the program has moved out of the "black" (secrecy) realm.

Quote[/b] ]There will be no pre-emptive strike on Russia.

With the resurgence of Russia who knows what the current situation could turn into. In addition Russia is not the only potential enemy. There's China. Which keeps its claim on Taiwan and the US who keeps backing Taiwan sovereignty.

Quote[/b] ]And yes I have no real evidence to make my claim, but then you have none to refute it either.

Rock's post. The development of the F22 and F35 and of course the article at the beginning of this topic. These indicate that stealth or low observable technology still has a future. Also the similar situation with tanks when their superiority was compromised by ATGM's.

If you have no evidence then why argue your point?

Quote[/b] ]I would suggest that you re-read Rocks comments on stealth and rather than just focusing on the elements that re-inforce your arguement, you take them as a whole and try and understand the overall picture of what he is saying.

You said stealth has had its day he said that's unlikely and that the media perception of it is dead. If you actually meant the media perception of it then my apologies.

Quote[/b] ]He doesn't need you to be his spokesperson and neither do I.

I didn't mean to be but since you went on to Spokesperson that you value opinions of people in a debate who have personal experience with the topic at hand I thought I would point it out.

[Baff1 0]

I think the aerodynamic performance is key to it.

That's one of the reasons why I suspect the stealth on the F-22 isn't up to much.

I think it's a trade off, so that if you want high manouverability you can't have massive stealth. That's just my impression of course.

And I think we've reached the point in the development of stealth technology where aircraft designers are more intrested in the traditional concerns of manouverability and payload etc again than they are of stealth.

I don't really believe that the F22 is a "stealth" aircraft in the same way that the F 117 is at all.

I have no trouble buying into related and knock-on technologies, a stealth lite so to speak, but I don't expect the models shown in this thread to be going into production.

[Baff1 0]

Quote[/b] ]The F117 was no great secret.

Err, it was.

No mate. It wasn't.

I'm not a super spy and I knew about it and just about every other male in the world knew of it too.

All the kids at school had posters of it.

It's pictures were in all the magasines and on TV.

The blueprints. specification, radar image and design processes may have been a secret but it's existance and purpose were not.

If it wasn't featured on Tomorrow's World I will be very suprised.

In the same way the armour on an M1 Abrams is a secret.

Everyone broadly knows what it is and how it is supposed to work, but not the specific technical data.

[-Snafu- 77]

The article I mentioned above about the F117 in the media during the 1980's makes no mention of any poster. It mentions drawings, model kits and other things like that being produced but none of them were accurate.

The public knew there were stealth aircraft flying but there was no great detailed knowledge about it until 1990 when the air force released information about the F117 (another stealth aircraft had been acquired).

You are right that it wasn't completely secret. My bad.

Link

[max power 21]

I think the F-117 was in service for something like 7 years before it was unveiled to the public.  It was highly secret for a while.  The pentagon even went so far as to Microprose while they were developing the f-19 game to make sure they had no access to any secrets.  Testors and Microprose had a bunch of information about stealth technology and methods, and it shows in their f-19 concept.  But, as an attempt to divine what the actual f-117 was going to look like, it was a total failure. It's a shame though, that testor's F-19 concept is a rad looking plane, especially from the front.

@Baff1

The f-22, so I read in this thread, is more stealthy than the f-117.  How can you say that it is not a true stealth aircraft?  And surely you can see that saying that a high performance fighter, regardless of stealth technology, isn't a true stealth aircraft, and then saying that stealth is dead because stealth aircraft can't perform is a bit messed up...  The reason why the f-22 is a better aerodynamic performer is that they have the computing power to calculate curves with constantly changing radii and their impact on RCS and airflow.  The shape of the aircraft is still very much dictated by RCS.  They just have to compromise aerodynamic performance less now.

[Vultar 0]

Yeah, accidentaly I have an screen of it rl.

The next generation US government stealth bomber.

xD

[USSRsniper 0]

I think the F-117 was in service for something like 7 years before it was unveiled to the public.  It was highly secret for a while.  The pentagon even went so far as to Microprose while they were developing the f-19 game to make sure they had no access to any secrets.  Testors and Microprose had a bunch of information about stealth technology and methods, and it shows in their f-19 concept.  But, as an attempt to divine what the actual f-117 was going to look like, it was a total failure.  It's a shame though, that testor's F-19 concept is a rad looking plane, especially from the front.

@Baff1

The f-22, so I read in this thread, is more stealthy than the f-117.  How can you say that it is not a true stealth aircraft?  And surely you can see that saying that a high performance fighter, regardless of stealth technology, isn't a true stealth aircraft, and then saying that stealth is dead because stealth aircraft can't perform is a bit messed up...  The reason why the f-22 is a better aerodynamic performer is that they have the computing power to calculate curves with constantly changing radii and their impact on RCS and airflow.  The shape of the aircraft is still very much dictated by RCS.  They just have to compromise aerodynamic performance less now.

"highly secret", it was only highly secret for public Since it was impossible to keep things secret during cold war..

[zinc 0]

Northrop and Boing have unveild there next generation designed Stealth bombers that are apprenetly in development.

http://gizmodo.com/5051610....erspace

Northrop one looks cool.

Man, that's old tech. The Aborigines were using that shape to kill kangeroos ten thousand years ago.

At least if it runs out of fuel, it'll always come back to base.

[GeneralCarver 0]

Man I wonder how much these cost each? Maybe they should just keep what they got for awhile. I mean, the B-52 is going to have a 100 year service life before its retired. Amazing.

Don't ever doubt that some of these decisions are just simply to spend money and get rich. War profitering. There's a lot of money invoved in this.

We are so far ahead of most countries, we could afford to wait awhile.

[sk3pt 0]

A few days ago, Norway chose F-35 as the replacement for our aging F-16s. The only remaining competitor was Gripen, after Eurofighter pulled out.

Cool plane, but so is the F-16 !

errr... not quite on topic, I know.