Regardless of your feelings on the war, you still have to be awed by the sheer awesomeness of our military vehicles...

[RossGr]

IF this thread about AWESOME militay vechicals then why are we talking about planes? They are indeed cool but this is an indication of just how big the truely AWESOME military machines are. That pic was taken of the USS John F Kennedy in 1971.

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: SaltBoy
Stealth Bomber
Stealth Fighter

Both taken from the Air Force Website

Regardless of your feelings on the war, you still have to be awed by the sheer awesomeness of our military vehicles...

Actually they make me sick. How many people could have been fed with all of the money wasted on that crap?

How nice,the fact that if Canada put in an equal share of cash into the defence of north america that the American taxpayer wouldnt have to foot the lions share of the bill. So rest well tonight you and your money had nothing to do with it. That said how much money did you give to feed the hungry last year?

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Superdoopercooper
Marshall... You have ruined my unscathed view of the Aura and Myth that is the SR-71. Man... the SU37 or the Mig29 or somehting could almost hit Mach 3. What a waste for such a big, sleek, beautiful airplane.

But you know... if that thing was invented in the 50s/60s, then think of the craziness they have now that they don't tell us about. I.e... the Aurora or whatever. Mach 5 or 6. I need one of these. You could get to Asia in about 2 hours or soemthing silly.

Yeah, we'll only hear about what they tell us about. We have had secret aircraft in one form or another for the last 50 years, and I doubt that has changed now. Maybe in 20 years we'll hear about a spy plane that was flying around in the 90's.


About the SR-71, the beauty of it is that it can cruise at over Mach 3 for hours. The other planes can make a quick dash up to their top speed before they have to return to base to refuel. The Mig-25 was the fastest Russian fighter, and it could only make a quick dash up to its top speed of Mach 2.8. I hear that they could dash to nearly Mach 3, but the engines were junk after such a dash and had to be replaced. In other words, they could not even make a quick burst of the speed that the SR-71 is designed to cruise at for hours.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: yllus
The B2 was basically a failure, wasn't it? Something about it originally being intended to go in on solo bombing missions undetected, unload its payload and streak home undetected. But considering the cost of losing even just one B2 is so enormous each bomber is escorted by fighters on each run anyway. We might as well just use B1Bs, F16s or whatever the heck else is in the arsenal.

I wouldn't say it's a failure, it's just that the threat that it was designed to counter (Soviet Union) is no longer there.

Against Iraq there is no need for it, since F-16's, F-15's, etc. have the range to strike the heart of Baghdad and also can fly into enemy territory without getting shot down.

When the Soviet Union was our main enemy, F-16's, F-15's, etc. would not have nearly enough range to make it into the heart of Soviet territory, and even if they could they'd be shot down by the Soviet Union's massive air defenses. B-52's could reach, but they'd also be sitting ducks for SAM's. So a new stealthy bomber was designed that could penetrate the air defenses. By making a bomber with a reduced radar signature, it would be able to get through the cracks in the Soviet Union's air defenses.

With Iraq, you can get away with flying just about anything over the country and dropping its bombload. All you need is a jet that can carry bombs. But over the Soviet Union, most of those aircraft would never have made it to their target. An aircraft that was very hard to detect was required.

It was a successful design for what it was made to do. You never know when you're going to need it. If we ever get into a conflict with an enemy with accurate air defenses, the need for a stealthy bomber will make itself clear after large numbers of our conventional aircraft are lost over enemy territory.

 

[skyking]

Another feature of the A-10 design is the high placement of the engines. They are intended to be blanked by the wing from below and forward, to help with IR handheld missle attacks. The engines, as are all pylon mounted jet engines, are designed to come off if a catastrophic failure is happening, and the A-10 can make it back to base with one engine completely gone!

 

[Marshallj]

I've also heard that the engines and vertical stabilizers are redundant and interchangeable. If one engine gets taken out, it can still fly back on one engine. And if a vertical stabilizer gets taken out, the plane can still fly. They're interchangeable in that the one from the left side can be used on the right, and vise versa.

 

[MadRat]

The B-2 is a failure as a stealth high-altitude bomber, true, but then again so are all stealth aircraft. It is successful as a stealth penetration bomber. Low wavelength radar signals have always been able to detect them at long range and high wavelength radar can detect them at short ranges. The trick is that the B-2 can be put into a position so that it chooses when to be exposed to these radar reflections, making them an inefficient way to detect the bomber. What the designers did not anticipate was the unexpected success of cheap microwave detectors in passive radar detection networks. By the time these pick up the B-2, though, it is probably too late to defend against it.

It is a very efficient AND successful design as far as hauling loads for distance. Its fuel efficiency makes other bombers pale by comparison.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: SickBeast

U.S. Constitution Online

and your point being? why the hell should billions of dollars be spent on weapons and not food or humanitarian aid?

If we didn't spend money on the military, we would be conquered by a country (likely ruled by a dictator) that did. This is such a basic, simple issue that to even question why is laughable.
Sure, let's not have a military, and just leave the rest of the world to themselves. That'll work reall well.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: MadRat
The B-2 is a failure as a stealth high-altitude bomber, true, but then again so are all stealth aircraft. It is successful as a stealth penetration bomber. Low wavelength radar signals have always been able to detect them at long range and high wavelength radar can detect them at short ranges. The trick is that the B-2 can be put into a position so that it chooses when to be exposed to these radar reflections, making them an inefficient way to detect the bomber. What the designers did not anticipate was the unexpected success of cheap microwave detectors in passive radar detection networks. By the time these pick up the B-2, though, it is probably too late to defend against it.

It is a very efficient AND successful design as far as hauling loads for distance. Its fuel efficiency makes other bombers pale by comparison.

I dont think stealth ever meant not being able to be completely invisible by radar. What the b-2 can do is fly around radar stations since it is much less visible from longer ranges. The b-2 also forces the enemy to invest in more radar stations and larger networks that the passive systems require. The b-2 is a system that cannot be ignored.

 

[MadRat]

Actually, charrison, the B-2 was never meant to evade long range radar. The inaccuracies of long range radar make it only good for early warnings and absolutely useless for interception. The principles behind backscatter radars that make up the bulk of strategic radar systems make it difficult to pinpoint whether an object is say 700 or 800 miles away, making it difficult for ground controllers to vector in interceptors using the generalized information it displays, BUT at the least it does know its there!

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: MadRat
Actually, charrison, the B-2 was never meant to evade long range radar. The inaccuracies of long range radar make it only good for early warnings and absolutely useless for interception. The principles behind backscatter radars that make up the bulk of strategic radar systems make it difficult to pinpoint whether an object is say 700 or 800 miles away, making it difficult for ground controllers to vector in interceptors using the generalized information it displays, BUT at the least it does know its there!

From what I understand, it can absorb/deflect enough on the long range stuff to be invisible. Only as it gets closer does it appear on radar. This greatly reduces the early warning time.

 

[Marshallj]

From what I've heard about different types of radar, one type is able to detect stealth aircraft but not give accurate positioning info or lock onto targets, and the other is able to lock onto targets but isn't very good for detecting stealth aircraft.

So chances are they'll know that a B-2 is somewhere in the vicinity (from info from their long wave distant warning radar), but their missiles won't be able to lock on to shoot it down.

 

[MooseKnuckle]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Actually they make me sick. How many people could have been fed with all of the money wasted on that crap?

Let me guess, you're a French Canadian? Stay north of our border, don't worry the US will protect you. God knows your country can't.

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: charrison

From what I understand, it can absorb/deflect enough on the long range stuff to be invisible. Only as it gets closer does it appear on radar. This greatly reduces the early warning time.

It is physically impossible to absorb the wavelengths of those longer range radar signals.

 

[Murphyrulez]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: SaltBoy
Stealth Bomber
Stealth Fighter

Both taken from the Air Force Website

Regardless of your feelings on the war, you still have to be awed by the sheer awesomeness of our military vehicles...

Actually they make me sick. How many people could have been fed with all of the money wasted on that crap?

Hahaha. You need to sell your computer, and give the money to a homeless person. Sell your car, and invite a homeless person to live in your garage. No more eating out for you, you need to save your cash to give to the unemployed.


oh, you are Canadian. nm, it all makes sense now.

 

[ABErickson]

And let's not forget ....







Spooky

 

[Emos]

You want huge? When I was in Middle School, I went out to Wright-Patterson AFB and they had a B-52 there. That thing was absolutely massive

Wright-Patt is one of my favorite museums ever! Other highlights include the XB-70 Valkyrie prototype bomber and the AC-130 Spectre gunship.

 

[Marshallj]

I went there, I loved it.

I think the most impressive displays were the XB-70 and the B-36.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Emos

You want huge? When I was in Middle School, I went out to Wright-Patterson AFB and they had a B-52 there. That thing was absolutely massive

Wright-Patt is one of my favorite museums ever! Other highlights include the XB-70 Valkyrie prototype bomber and the AC-130 Spectre gunship.

Maximum speed: 2,056 mph. (Mach 3.1) at 73,000 ft.
Cruising speed: 2,000 mph. (Mach 3.0) at 72,000 ft.

 

[Marshallj]

Yeah, it pretty much cruises at its max speed. I've seen it in person at the museum and it's a very impressive aircraft.

 

[Superdoopercooper]

Hey... I wonder how fast a riced-out SR-71 or XB-70 can go? Surely if someone put a "Type R" sticker on one of those, they'd double the thrust and be able to hit Mach 4 no problem.

 

[Tom]

Most awesome thing we got are carbon-based and wearing muddy boots.

 

[Superdoopercooper]

Good point... b/c if not for the military's bravest... these hi-tech machines would be hi-tech monoliths sitting on runways, in hangars, etc. collecting dust

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
Most awesome thing we got are carbon-based and wearing muddy boots.

 

[steell]

Originally posted by: Superdoopercooper
Good point... b/c if not for the military's bravest... these hi-tech machines would be hi-tech monoliths sitting on runways, in hangars, etc. collecting dust

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
Most awesome thing we got are carbon-based and wearing muddy boots.

So true!