It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Again you're shifting this to Lockheed. Why? I clearly told you it is the PENTAGON I'm Piss with.
Give Lockheed a break, will you?
If you ignore trends, how did you get to the conclusion that stealth will be a part of future warfare?
To reach that conclusion without making a blind guess, you needed to study patterns in war to see the effects of stealth. Stop playing the hypocrite card and stay with one argument. The expansion of the jet engine is another example.
Jet engines are Universal in aviation, the civilian 747 is jet powered. Stealth on the other hand is a Specialized military application meant for use in highly specific missions! You will Never see a stealth replacement for the 747.
Don't lecture me on science, I've spent 10 years studying stealth and its effects!
For the Record, Low Observability (LO)or Stealth is the military science of designing weapons and platform to be very hard to detect with Radar, IR, and other forms of electronic tracking. Theses systems are NOT invisible(contrary to popular belief)! While the science has come a long way since it's beginnings in the 1940's and 50's, It still involves compromises in design!
What you're promoting is the equivalent of training Every soldier in the US Army to be in Delta Force! Now are you getting the point about why the F-35 is a bad idea?
Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
Hmm, I agreed with you. I did not shift it to Lockheed so why are you assuming I did so?
I don't think that trends exist! Tell me about these trends instead of using fancy words. What is a trend why is it a trend how are trends born? I know that stealth will be apart of the future! I am not studying silly trends but I am simply noticing the fact that it reduces the chance of getting shot down. That's all I need to know. You don't have to study "trends" for 10 years to know this
Patterns? What patterns, don't use fancy words if you can't prove they actually exist.
I don't wanna see a stealthy 747, there's no point having one. But having many stealthy warplanes is a totally different question, don't you agree. Let's not mix up civil with military aviation.
You keep telling me this but where are the hard facts. Just because you have read about this for years doesn't mean that you know better than Pentagon. I want hard facts not your resume. Besides it's a totally different thing to study things during spare time than to actually work with it every day. So you know better than staff in Pentagon?
Tell me something I don't already know. I am not 5-years old. I know these things. Don't mix me up with those people who think that stealth is unbeatable, I know it's not! But I also know it reduces the chance of getting shot down. That makes it safer to fly in hostile areas.
Would an army of Delta Soldiers not beat an army of regular soldiers? The F-35 is build to reduce the losses by the use of stealth. It's not only there to "help the fighters infiltrate an area" but also to protect the plane from enemies which could see them thus shooting the plane down.
Finally, tell me about your own designs. You oviously know better than the spoiled kids in Pentagon? Why is your design so good, and how did you come up with it. Studying trends or using science?
[edit on 5-7-2007 by Figher Master FIN]
I started off complaining about a Pentagon project, and you keep falling back to the tired old line: "The engineers that design and built the plane are the best in the world at what they do"
If you don't believe me, reread your last few posts! What am I supposed to think?
Look at the last few wars and see what is going on: Somalia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq 2! You see a pattern if you really look.
The more you expose it to the enemy, the greater the chance that it could be lost (like the F-117). I believe in using less of stealth airplanes to decrease the number exposed to the enemy. It the same as why they don't use F-117 in daylight. Obviously the night doesn't make them invincible, but it increases the odds in their favor.
Yes, but the point is Delta is highly specialized. Would you call a SWAT Team to write a speeding ticket, after all they are Police?
I'm not a scientist, I'm a Special Ed Teacher for children.
I think this is going too far. My argument is that I believe the F-35/JSF is a waste of money. The closest I've ever seen the F-35 was at Andrews AFB, on Armed Forces Day!
Ok, give it a rest, you're taking my opinion of the Joint Strike Fighter way too far. If you don't think my beliefs are contributing a point of perspective to this topic, you don't have to reply to them.
Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
Yes the couple few times, but not the last post! I am starting to agree with you.
Pentagon bad Lockheed good.
Can you give some examples? Not just tell me that patterns exist.
Yes USA will lose more stealth aircraft if there were more of them. But less than if non were stealthy.
good one. But think of it like this. You have just discovered the war helmet. It's great in fights and protects the soldier alot. It's an insuranse policy just like stealth is for fighters. Now you won't just give it to those in the frontline because they will meet the bullets first right?
Agreed! I learned some good things from this debate too!
I am not an engineer nor a scientist but that was my whole point. I did not question or call the real engineers dumb. Whereas you gave me the impression that you knew more than them. I have to defend them because I think they are right. They have studied this, and therefore know more. Plain and simple. I don't know more than you Tim, but I do think that the engineers know more than you and I ever combined
[edit on 6-7-2007 by Figher Master FIN]
Originally posted by thebozeian
Finn, I am glad to see that you finally got your point across. To be honest if you had stated a lot of what you said at the begining I (and probably Tim?) wouldn't have jumped all over you as harshly as I did.
Tim, don't ever change . You are without doubt one of the most dogmatic debaters on ATS. I don't always agree with you but you have NEVER left me wondering as to what your philosophy and technical beliefs are.