Originally Posted by Moloch

Man...guys like this Lt. Col. Krumm are the ones that make me feel uncomfortable, to be honest. You can read from every darn word that he's almost praying for war only because he wants to see his new toys in action. Freaking cowboy...Don't the US realize that this is what many people around the world think about them anyway? Making war for war's sake, because you always won and you know you will win the next one, too...

I beg to differ, was a long time ago the US got a decisive win in a war.
And with decisive I mean that they didn´t have to go back and revisit.

Grenada was.
DS1 could have been but wasn´t.

Then again, they did kick some/save some european asses during WWII..

Maybe they didn't achieve an overall victory in the last few attempts, but the results were all good enough to sell the thing as a victory. And I kind of got a feeling that the US need to get their asses kicked badly in order to get rid of that 'war is the solution'-bull that seems to be floating around many heads over there.
Not that I hope it happens (b/c it's very likely that whatever kicks the crap out of the US does the same to the rest of the western world...), but maybe that would get some minds right about what war really means. Except for the War of Independence and the Civil War, the US never had to fight on their own territory with their own civilians on the line. I think that's one of the biggest issues leading to this whole attitude towards war that is displayed by a big part of the people over there...

I really don't mean to offend anybody and if my post reads like some heavy generalization, I'm sorry; my opinion is based on my personal experiences made when taking part in a student's exchange program.

Originally Posted by Moloch

Maybe they didn't achieve an overall victory in the last few attempts, but the results were all good enough to sell the thing as a victory. And I kind of got a feeling that the US need to get their asses kicked badly in order to get rid of that 'war is the solution'-bull that seems to be floating around many heads over there.
Not that I hope it happens (b/c it's very likely that whatever kicks the crap out of the US does the same to the rest of the western world...), but maybe that would get some minds right about what war really means. Except for the War of Independence and the Civil War, the US never had to fight on their own territory with their own civilians on the line. I think that's one of the biggest issues leading to this whole attitude towards war that is displayed by a big part of the people over there...

I really don't mean to offend anybody and if my post reads like some heavy generalization, I'm sorry; my opinion is based on my personal experiences made when taking part in a student's exchange program.

I think that I will have to disagree with you my friend.

Firstly the bulk of Americans do not want to be involved in overseas wars, call it a throw back to the Monroe Doctrine, or quite simply that they have intevened in so many different conflicts, which do not seem to realise any real benefits for Americans on the street.

Secondly you are using a sweeping generalisation, which could be applied to any nation, it has pride in its history, identity and achievements.

Whilst the USA is not without flaws it is genuinely trying to do good, it is the decision making process which hampers it, but that is also true of us in Europe.

I'm not a die hard American fan, but they have similar faults to my mother country, GB, but have the capability to deliver on their threats, and try to do so!!

If we want scapegoats then we need look no further than the politicians, changing tack at a whim - after all they are the military masters!!

Yes.
Americans in general don't want to be involved in any of the wars abroad. They don't ask "will this ever end?" because they're crazy about sending folks overseas to fight. Can't comment on the said General, but I do not believe that is what Americans want.

As I already pointed out, what I wrote is only based on people I met, got to know and talked to when being to the states myself. That's a few years ago now and I think that especially the (lacking) progress of the war in Afghanistan changed some minds. But back then most of the people I got to know definitely were pro-war..

As always, when a war stretches on for a long time with no end in sight and with few of it's goals accomplished, the people start to lose their will to wage war. That is unless they are threatened (or are made to believe they are threatened with propaganda) by total annhialation.

The loss of support for the War on Terror is simply because the wars have dragged on for so long, and in the case of Afghanistahn, has yet to accomplish many of it's goals and has stretched on for nine years and has cost more than a trillion dollars and thousands of lives. Todays people are far too squeamish for my liking, we lost hundreds of thousands in the world wars against foes who had no realistic chance to destroy America (though it is entirely possible the central powers might have won if we hadn't stepped in, the Axis powers would have lost to the British Empire sooner or later, neither could do much more than sink trade ships or harass coastal cities.)

Sure, now days, War is extrodinarily expensive, (if we tried to mobilize as many troops, ships, vehicles, guns, aircraft and men as we did in WW2, our economy would most likely collapse under the strain), but the cost of life is nowhere near as high on average as it once was.

On the topic, I have little faith in stealth technology, low pulse radar has already proven itself as capable of defeating the F-117 nighthawk, and with that secret out, it is only a matter of time before our current stealth technology is completely worthless.

Originally Posted by Czin

On the topic, I have little faith in stealth technology, low pulse radar has already proven itself as capable of defeating the F-117 nighthawk, and with that secret out, it is only a matter of time before our current stealth technology is completely worthless.

The radar only caught the F-117 because they were flying in the same area at the same times everyday. They were ready for it and some people say that it was a blind-shot they did and got lucky. Shooting down the F-117 was so focused on so it can be used for propaganda. Only ONE was shot down, and it made hundreds of sorties... Not enough to make a dent in stealth aircraft reputation if you ask me.

I am under the impression the F-35 would be better at stealth than the F-117 anyways.


Stealth fighters really do have no equal imo. It is the fact it can go through radar coverage and it is hard to lock onto even when it is found. As much as maneuverability is important, I barely hear of anyone dodging a missile. The F-22 is made to have first strike capabilities. To kill the opponent long before it can get into dog-fighting range or at least have them dodging a missile, making them too busy to even try engaging the F-22.

I think too many people have the idea, that they are going to shoot through the radar coverage and go dog-fighting or something. Going behind radar coverage gives them the ability to find SAMs and send some Cruise missiles. The more SAMs you knock out, the less the coverage. That is actually how they did it in Desert Storm 2 invasion. They knocked the SAMs out just moments before sending planes to do air-strikes.

they may have no equal now but they will soon be passed

Originally Posted by RayManKiller3

The radar only caught the F-117 because they were flying in the same area at the same times everyday. They were ready for it and some people say that it was a blind-shot they did and got lucky. Shooting down the F-117 was so focused on so it can be used for propaganda. Only ONE was shot down, and it made hundreds of sorties... Not enough to make a dent in stealth aircraft reputation if you ask me.

I am under the impression the F-35 would be better at stealth than the F-117 anyways.


Stealth fighters really do have no equal imo. It is the fact it can go through radar coverage and it is hard to lock onto even when it is found. As much as maneuverability is important, I barely hear of anyone dodging a missile. The F-22 is made to have first strike capabilities. To kill the opponent long before it can get into dog-fighting range or at least have them dodging a missile, making them too busy to even try engaging the F-22.

I think too many people have the idea, that they are going to shoot through the radar coverage and go dog-fighting or something. Going behind radar coverage gives them the ability to find SAMs and send some Cruise missiles. The more SAMs you knock out, the less the coverage. That is actually how they did it in Desert Storm 2 invasion. They knocked the SAMs out just moments before sending planes to do air-strikes.

The F-117 has the smallest radar cross-section of any stealth plane, it was designed for stealth at the expense of all other features. Though it's black paint job makes it blindingly obvious at day time while flying at low altitude.

The F-35 and F-22 are much more visible to thermal detectors than the F-117 was, so an Infrared missile could deal with them. Or better yet, a high powered AA missile (far off in the future yes, but still a possibility, but of course by then, we could get the metamaterials ready for military usage, which could provide a good deal of protection against light based weapons.)

Originally Posted by Czin

The F-117 has the smallest radar cross-section of any stealth plane, it was designed for stealth at the expense of all other features. Though it's black paint job makes it blindingly obvious at day time while flying at low altitude.

The F-35 and F-22 are much more visible to thermal detectors than the F-117 was, so an Infrared missile could deal with them. Or better yet, a high powered AA missile (far off in the future yes, but still a possibility, but of course by then, we could get the metamaterials ready for military usage, which could provide a good deal of protection against light based weapons.)

Yes, and the shoot-down of that F-117 was as close to lucky as a person shooting a mouse with a pistol at 100 yards away. That is what I am saying. They pretty much blind-shot it, which shouldn't be enough to hamper stealth aircraft's reputation.

More visible to thermal detectors? The question is, how much more visible? Stealth is to decrease the chances of being detected dramatically, not make them impossible to be spotted. There will always be chances of being spotted.


As far as we know, no heavily stealth aircraft have been shot down except that one F-117. The F-22 and F-35 have electronic warfare capabilities, I am sure they have some counter to the major threats that SAMs pose.


It all depends on how it will be used; smartly or stupidly. Any active SAM have the chances of being detected and destroyed by anti-SAM equipment (like Desert Storm 2) the mobility only make it hard to find.