Why do you think that new aircraft are released in times of war?.

Ive noticed this for a while now... every time we engage in wars the military always brings up some kind of a new drone or vehicle or even a weapon

why? why cant they just show us now

You are joking? Please...are you serious?

Because if they showed us...John Q Public...they show everybody, including the enemy.

Any body that has ever played cards or traded horses or yard saled or whatever..knows that you NEVER show what you have until it is the right time....thus the cliche'..."Play your cards right."

Originally posted by GreasyApples
Ive noticed this for a while now... every time we engage in wars the military always brings up some kind of a new drone or vehicle or even a weapon

why? why cant they just show us now

Does this have anything to do with this?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Oh,the other reason is that your military bugets tend to go up, and so now you can actively build and produce what was on the drawing board and prototyped....

We may not like it, but war has created some pretty nifty things that we now use everyday... like Peanut Butter and Jelly sandwiches...PBJ....

They have no other choice.
That's what happens with a perpetual state of war.

OP is banned, 404 incoming.

Do you have a couple of examples as to what you mean?

Just to add that in times of conflict developmnets are usually more easily fielded due to operational requirements. Nothing drives sceinec and technology than a war - just look at WW2 as an example.

Regards

reply to post by GreasyApples


The big guns won't be pulled out until a global war.

The top military powers on the planet have been making secret tech for years. Eventually they pull a few things out and make them standard in their fleets however what you see is far behind what they actually have.

Oh and we are in a constant state of war now so expect to see new military tech all the time.

When the big war starts though is when you will see tech of epic proportions.

Basicallly, what you ask is obvious and explained to you in half a dozen different ways.

The perfect example is the mysterious black triangles that have been appearing (mostly in US skies) for twenty years and not a hint from any governmental or military source that we already have such exotic craft. A whole slew of aircraft were operational decades before they were revealed, the U-2, the SR-21, the F-117A and a bunch that came and went that you never heard about. --Do you really believe that they don't have SOMETHING that handily replaces the retired shuttle!?

Actually, that is the way governments work. We are seeing it in Japan at this moment, and about every major bill from the US Congress or Executive Order from the President is slipped to us this way. Basically, it is the way that control structures work. Get used to it. That style is getting real popular.

Originally posted by Aliensun
--Do you really believe that they don't have SOMETHING that handily replaces the retired shuttle!?

I find it near impossible that we retired the SR-71 and the Shuttle both without having operational ready replacement craft. Both of those platforms were late 50's (SR) and Mid 70's (Shuttle) technology.

You seriously want me to believe in our massive military black budgets we don't have things that are upgrades from that technology??

You can't afford to maintain a fleet of 50 hypersonic bombers for example every year. Daily upkeep is expensive.

So their main structures will be assembled and thrown into storage. Should their use be needed a Team of contractors will run in and and dust them off and throw on the newest electronics/weapons/systems in a couple days and they are battle ready.

That's why you don't see the latest stuff until it's needed. Costs to maintain/upkeep.


We don't really have much of an Air Force right now. It's managed so poorly with so many high up peoples in an upside down pyramid scheme....they just can't afford planes and low end people to maintain them.

If we want to keep Air Superiority...the Air Force has to go...and the Air Wings need to go back under the US Army as it was in 1947. What they're trying to do now is not sustainable...nor wise.

Originally posted by Pervius
You can't afford to maintain a fleet of 50 hypersonic bombers for example every year. Daily upkeep is expensive.

So their main structures will be assembled and thrown into storage. Should their use be needed a Team of contractors will run in and and dust them off and throw on the newest electronics/weapons/systems in a couple days and they are battle ready.

That's why you don't see the latest stuff until it's needed. Costs to maintain/upkeep.


We don't really have much of an Air Force right now. It's managed so poorly with so many high up peoples in an upside down pyramid scheme....they just can't afford planes and low end people to maintain them.

If we want to keep Air Superiority...the Air Force has to go...and the Air Wings need to go back under the US Army as it was in 1947. What they're trying to do now is not sustainable...nor wise.

Good Point!! I never thought of that scenario...It totally makes sense they would mass produce weapons of war and store them away until needed. You're right the upkeep alone would be a huge problem. I have seen Stealth subs/destroyers and a few different kinds over the years up at Pon d' Orielle long long before anybody ever thought they had funding for them. So they build em secretly and store them until needed, all the while telling the public we need funding to attempt building what we have secretly built..Brilliant scheme on their part

reply to post by Pervius

We don't really have much of an Air Force right now. It's managed so poorly with so many high up peoples in an upside down pyramid scheme....they just can't afford planes and low end people to maintain them.

I'm just wondering what you have based this information on? I'm a retired air force avionics engineer, and my time in service never gave me that impression.

As far as your comment about the obsolescence of the air force, its just so funny. Currently, I would imagine that their role is largely that of logistics and supply, or at least in the major campaign regions. The enemy has no air force to fight, and there are hardly any places left to bomb. Although, I am sure that they conduct extensive surveillance and provide the intel to other branches.

Originally posted by pavil
I find it near impossible that we retired the SR-71 and the Shuttle both without having operational ready replacement craft. Both of those platforms were late 50's (SR) and Mid 70's (Shuttle) technology.

I think that it is entirely plausible that the space shuttle was scrapped due to its massive cost and the fact that it’s cheaper to user rockets to put satellites in orbit and resupply the ISS. A secret replacement for the space shuttle would be fantastically difficult to keep quite, what with all the smoke and noise! Besides, the commercialisation of space shows better ways to do things – had Virgin Galactic been a NASA programme it would have already cost quadrillions, employ thousands and be behind schedule by years.

The SR-71 was also vastly expensive to maintain with attrition taking a toll and designed for a different world. The job of the SR-71 is better done by satellites and UAVs although rumours of Aurora persist.

I do believe that the military have quite a few tricks up their sleeves and if the *hit hit the fan I imagine many would be revealed, but only if necessary. Besides, over the last decade of conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan many new technologies have reached maturity as part of normal evolution.

Regards

Originally posted by Pervius
If we want to keep Air Superiority...the Air Force has to go...and the Air Wings need to go back under the US Army as it was in 1947. What they're trying to do now is not sustainable...nor wise.

Because why?

2nd