Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: TwentyFo on March 11, 2008, 07:57:50 PM
-
I can't believe it's true. One of the coolest planes ever. Read the article.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/11/stealth.fighter.ap/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/11/stealth.fighter.ap/index.html)
-
My radiography director (a retired AF veteran from Gulf War 1) in UNLV mentioned this to me ~3 weeks ago.
I saw a photo of his F-16A and he started talking about planes.
He said F-117s will be replaced by UCAVs.
-
Yup...it's all about funds and there's not alot left over for a sub sonic late 70s tech airplane that can't do a whole lot but drop bombs. The F-22 does it's job and then some!
-
Calling it a fighter was an example of optimism winning over reality.
-
When can I buy one on ebay?
-
Calling it a fighter was an example of optimism winning over reality.
I think it was more politics but I like your definition better.
-
I got to see one at the first Alliance airshow. :salute
-
I got to see it at Nellis when they first showed it to the public in the early 90's. Saw it on radar before that. ;)
-
dont replace the f-117's!
my best friend flew one of those
-
Iron....Tell me they had bomb doors open, gear down or at least a transponder on.
You didnt see them on radar in a wartime configuration did you? If you did I would be very suprized and disappointed!
Strip(er)
-
It was downhill for that aircraft ever since a couple of mooks in serbia with some machine guns shot one down.
-
How would you like that on your resume.
Only guy in history to be shot down in a Stealth Fighter :salute
-
News flash for ya's there exists a radar that has been in use here in Oz for decades that has no problems at all seeing these guys. It's the keystone in our air defence network and it works it's magic by looking DOWN on the target as opposed to looking AT it. There is a much greater radar cross section in the plan view no matter how you try to mask it. Also stealth is really not going to do much for you, as another poster has pointed out in another thread, who cares if you've got the cross section of a bumblebee, if you're a bumblebee doing Mach 2 you're going to get shot at! :rofl
-
Iron....Tell me they had bomb doors open, gear down or at least a transponder on.
You didnt see them on radar in a wartime configuration did you? If you did I would be very suprized and disappointed!
Strip(er)
I wouldn't even have mentioned it except that now they are decommissioning it. I was a radar tech in the AF and we maintained several sites on Nellis as well as the range. Rather not say more.
-
I guarantee you the sun will rise again (regardless of cloud cover) on the 23rd of April.
<S>
-
News flash for ya's there exists a radar that has been in use here in Oz for decades that has no problems at all seeing these guys. It's the keystone in our air defence network and it works it's magic by looking DOWN on the target as opposed to looking AT it. There is a much greater radar cross section in the plan view no matter how you try to mask it. Also stealth is really not going to do much for you, as another poster has pointed out in another thread, who cares if you've got the cross section of a bumblebee, if you're a bumblebee doing Mach 2 you're going to get shot at! :rofl
Its not that simple. First off while JORN is an impressive systems its had its share of problems, besides, it is an American company that's a major partner in it anyways.
Secondly the use of lower frequencies for radars is no secret. The problem with it is its entirely dependant on the state of the Ionosphere to get the secondary bounce back it would need in order to detect a stealth aircraft. In much the same way your Dads Ham radio would go inop during morning or sunset hours. And you dont think USAF doesnt know that? We would simply attack from the east at daybreak, and the west at sunset, and within a day or two JORN would be scrap metal.
What JORN is really useful as is in detecting ships. Ships on the water go much slower, have much larger radar returns, and for a maritime nation with such a large coastline it is cheaper to build JORN then it would be building and manning all those extra navy ships needed to secure the coast. AND the extra airforce assets. That's why the Aussies built it, in order to secure their coastline/borders. Not primarily as a defense against stealth.
It is NOT a magic bullet against stealth aircraft. It would prove useful but its entirely dependant on conditions beyond anyone's control, "Ionosphere"/"weather", and successful strikes against its 2 main processing stations would render it useless. Luckily the Aussies are great friends of the Americans because against a stealth airforce like the USN/USAF JORN would have very limited value.
-
This was taken at Edwards at their Air Show 3 years ago. This bird was due to be decommisioned and sent to the smithsonian. They had to get special permission from the DoD for the paint scheme. When it fliped on it's side the crowd went nuts.
(http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/3972/f117nn5.th.jpg) (http://img90.imageshack.us/my.php?image=f117nn5.jpg)
-
Take this for what it's worth, but radar operators from the French Air Force back in 98, told me that they could pick it up pretty well when using their old 30cm band radars, but "not" with the newer ones. I personaly don't know squat.
-
dont replace the f-117's!
my best friend flew one of those
Is his name Paul?