Missile launch! Hit the deck!

Status
Not open for further replies.
redwold is, however, correct about the cell phone networks. Apparantly one can modify a network to detect stealth aircraft...

TC
 
while i am at it the b-2 is pretty much a waste of money anyways. Radar may not be able to detect one but if some lowely pilot in his mig-21 is flying cap over a target and he happens to visually spot that b-2 well splash one b-2. at least an f-117 has some chance to mauevre away. All the b-2 crew can do is scream for some f-15's to come and save them while russian cannon fire is chewing them up and spitting them out. Cruise missiles can get a very similiar job done and anything they can't take out f-117s can hit and they pose a much smaller target and cost a lot less
 
Raven: I think they were detected by static elctricity interference or something. Me forgot what that thing said.

Russian Cannon Fire? The Cold War is over man!
 
yeah but the cannons that most third world countries are gonna be using will have been manufactured in russia. besides that the units that shot down the stealth were probobly just blindfiring aaa and shoulder launched missiles cause they heard the plane and got lucky. What really pissed me off was the news pictures of people dancing all over the wreck of the plane. I think it woulda been really funny to see some napalm get dropped on those pieces of shit
 
I'm no expert on military equipment, but I had the impression that stealth bombers fly at very high altitudes. Can 'regular' fighters go as high as them?

How did the B-2 get shot down? By a 'lucky' shot? I think for something to be shooting, there would have to be a threat in the first place. No point in shooting if there's no threat, and even more stupid to shoot if it gave away your position.
 
it wasnt a b-2 it was an f-117 that got shot down. and no they don't fly at very high altitudes because that makes them easier to detect f-117s especially will head tword the target at a very low altitude because even though they are stealth if they get hit with enough radar signals then they will generate some kind of return. also really high altitude flight leave a contrail which is easily visually detected. Did you ever see desert storm footage of bagdad being bombed????? All those tracers were the iraqi ground crews blind firing into the night sky because number one they had their radars turned off so they couldn't be hit by harm missiles and also because they could hear the aircraft overhead. An f-117 is a precision weapon and isn't gonna waste its one or two bombs on an anti-aircraft gun it is gonna go for a command and control bunker or osmething liek that. Even if the bombers did fly at very high altitudes the russians have developed the mig-25 and the even newer mig-31 as high altitude high speed interceptors. even countries like iraq field a few mig-25s and one of them was lucky enough to have possibly got an air to air kill during the war although it isn't known if it was a mig-25 or a sam for sure. If anyone wants a good idea of what modern warfare will be like check out tom clancy's red storm rising. Although this is a primarily late 80's war most of it holds very true and even though the f-117 hadn't been introduced to the public yet clancy's sources were very accurate as to what the plane would perform like geez this is really gettin off the wing commander topic
 
Oh, okay then.

One piece of advice. Use punctuation and paragraphs, please. It makes people more inclined to read long posts. :)
 
The B-2 is not a waste of money. That bomber can penetrate deeper into enemy territory than any cruise missile or bomber. Also the probability of a B-2 being visually identified is also extremely low. They're painted black and fly at night so they're kind of hard to spot.

Secondly if an F-117 was visually identified by a fighter jock his probability of getting away would be about the same as a B-2. They're both subsonic and their maneuverability does not compare to a fighter's favourably.
 
Originally posted by pendell

I believe the reason many European countries could
afford the goodies instead of arms is because of the
existence of NATO, which deterred aggressors. The
principal mainstay of NATO's deterrence was the US
nuclear umbrella. Thus, in a sense, the B-2 made it
possible for there to be *more* social spending, since
the money that was used to build the nuclear deterrent
would have otherwise been spent on maintaining a large
conventional army in Europe.

Respectfully,

Brian P.
Click to expand...

Note that most countries in Europe put 1-3% of their
GDP to army funding. That´s the similar precentace
that in US, but beacuse of huge diffrences between
GDP, amount of money is smaller. Still you are partially
right, during cold war NATO was good ally to many
European countries, but it still didn´t mean that all
western contries have social services.
There is also many diffrences between Scandinavia-style
social service and Germany style. In scandinavia
style society offers pension and social services to
all, even those who are poor and haven´t been able to
work.
In Germany style society relys to saving, family help
and pension organizations, so it´s closer to US style.

Still those social services and miltary funding are
based on high taxes around here and both are done
with minimal funding, so we don´t have much fancy
weapons and many contries such as Finland rely to
compulsory military service and large reservs.
I´am myself student of social services, so i
could chat about these things endlessly ;)

Cold war and USSR:s changes to take over whole Europe
is probably debaded to death around here so i dont
push it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top