Pardon me for posting, but this question has been on my mind for a while…
Why is it that only the U.S. has developed Stealh aircraft? Or Stealth ANYTHING, for that matter, as I recall. I mean, even if Russia can’t, why couldn’t countries like the U.K. or Israel build their own?
Well, thanks for your time,
Nick Gaston
In some mideast countries their theory would probably go like this:[list[list][list]
Those Americans are just plain sneaky!
[list][list][list]
Part of it may be the ridiculous cost associated with developing and maintaining such aircraft. A B-2 Spirit costs approximately half of a what a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier does, and requires specialized maintenance for its radar-reflective skin. This means a large group of specialized personnel and highly trained pilots, all focused fully on a two billion dollar aircraft. It just costs too much to develop and maintain.
Pretty much boils down to money, need and technology (and the ability of the military to convince lawmakers that there is a need for the thing).
Some might argue that it’s a technology still looking to justify its cost in the modern era. I’m still trying to work out why they flew B2’s from Missouri when there seemed perfectly good alternatives on the Carriers.
Perhaps they felt stealth was important to avoid the Afghan early warning systems i.e. two blokes on a hillside waving a flag – maybe someone knows more than do I ?
Maybe other countries stealth things are so good no one knows about them yet.
I heard that they used B-2’s not because they are stealthy, but because they have the most modern targeting systems of any available aircraft, and the U.S. is taking great pains to be REALLY accurate when they bomb areas near civilians.
Stealth is completely irrelevant in this conflict, because the Afghans don’t have any anti-aircraft weapons that can reach the altitudes that any of the aircraft are flying at. The U.S. aircraft could do circles over Kabul going, “Nyah Nyah!” in complete safety, as long as they are above about 20,000 ft.
quite simply Stealth aircraft are far too expensive for UK to consider making on it’s own. we dont need them anyway cos you guys have them!
also at a UK airshow a couple years back a US Stealth Fighter flew and the RAF managed to lock onto it (they cunningly used the aircraft’s appearance to try out some new detection system) so it’s not quite a stealthy as you might think.
America has been the only country to develop stealth technology because in a few hundred years time there will be a schism between humans, half will leave and colonize a faraway planet and name it Romulus. They will use stealth and cloaking technology. Those who remain will embrace logic and become Vulcans.
I can’t help but think that’s a big part of it. Most of the countries that have the cash and military to build stealth technology, even if they wanted it, are already U.S. allies, so why bother? As soon as Israel gets invaded or Egypt suddenly invades… erm… France or something, Israel and France already have stealth technology via the U.S. military.
I’m not military expert, but isn’t it quite likely that some nations have the technology in theory, they just haven’t had the drive to implement it given its cost? Perhaps if the U.S. suddenly broke off from NATO and started threatening the EU you’d see more countries quickly developing stealth fighters/bombers.
I think part of it is a big budget looking for justification. The U.S. spends approximately 275 billion dollars per year on defense whereas the next closet, China, spends about 75 billion or so. Same reason the Pentagon paid out the ass for screwdrivers back in the '80s
nowadays Russia does not have the money to attempt expensive projects like that.
I think the answer certainly lies in the cost.
Countries like the UK and many other western european nations cut back on defence heavily after the end of the cold war (eg the Options For Change document). I think UK defence spending has dropped from something like 10% of government spending to about 6% (I could be way wide of the mark with these figures). What cannot be disputed is that the armed forces as well as being significantly smaller than before, are continually forced to cut corners (although maybe that’s apparently true of any big spending department). What other army still has to make use of a low tech radio system such as the Clansmann? I was using it as an army cadet 15 years ago! If you see a pic of any SAS guys, check out what weapons they’re carrying, they’re almost certainly M16s.
My point: cost is the overriding consideration for todays UK forces, where assumed potential missions are based on current capabilities, rather than meeting the cost of future likely forays. Arguably the UK could no longer unilaterally mount a Falklands type campaign
One example would be the Swedish YS2000-class corvette, which is a stealth ship. The first (and currently only) one was launched on June 8 2000 and is named Visby.
[ul]
[li]Information from the Swedish navy (in Swedish) - http://www.marinen.mil.se/article.php?id=2596[/li][li]A good article in English - http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/jan01/features/stealth/stealth.html[/li][/ul]
/Johan
D*mn, but the Swedes build 'em pretty! Very sweet-looking vessel. She looks like she’ll be plenty fast, but might be a little stiff in a heavy sea. Not that that’s a bad thing, mind you, but it’ll make for an… interesting… ride in a storm.
She looks kinda weird, with no visible systems hanging off of her. Almost like an artist’s concept or a kid’s model. Still, a sweet-looking vessel. I bet competition to be on her crew is fierce!
The Russians made the Su-47 (formerly S-37) Burkut which is a stealth aircraft using a different principle to the radar absorbant / deflection technology , so they do exist
also , Stealth was developed in the US to counter SAMs as SAMs are dirt cheap compared to combat aircraft and poor nations can get tonnes of them, the development of the russian S-300 which no anti radar missile in the west other than maybe cruise missiles can defeat (similar to late model patriot missile systems) which is a prime arguement for the F-22 stealth airplane ,
also the British and Americans are partners in making the JSF a single seat single engine strike airplane
I also understand that to be the explanation. What I’m not sure about is the distinction between a ‘delivery system’ i.e. the plane and the bombs themselves. Without knowing very much, I’ve assumed the targeting of the bomb is not done on the B2 but rather by the pre-programmed software onboard the bomb. Thus my confusion over the need to fly B2’s from Missouri.
Maybe the type of bomb providing the best level of accuracy only fits with the B2 ?
There was nothing cunning about it. If you know where the aircraft is, your “close” to it and use a powerful enough radar, you’ll “see” it. That has never been disputed.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ranchoth *
…
Why is it that only the U.S. has developed Stealh aircraft? Or Stealth ANYTHING, for that matter, as I recall. I mean, even if Russia can’t, why couldn’t countries like the U.K. or Israel build their own?
Well firstly if we wanted them it would be cheaper to buy them off the US than develop them ourselves. Britain is in a unique position here, as the US shares its technology with us before other nations (eg cruise missiles).
We(The UK) have had some on trial over the years. RAF pilots have been trained to fly them. However it is felt that they are not cost effective and that managing a few squadrons of F117as and B2s would be a disporoptionate use of resources.
Also as a previous poster pointed out we also know that the emperor is naked and our radar systems can see them!
However we do develop “stealthy” aircraft eg the Eurofighter which incorporates elements of stealth technology.
All sorts of techical stuff here: