1. IrvingSnodgrass - March 25, 1999 - 5:26 PM PT
On Wednesday, NATO began bombing the Serbs in order to make good previous threats over Kosovo.
Is this the answer? Is this a NATO problem, a European problem, or a Balkan problem?
There has been plenty of good discussion in the International thread over the past few days. Have a look there, and then share your opinion here.
What do you think?
2. cllrdr - March 25, 1999 - 5:27 PM PT
No, this isn't the answer.
Next question.
3. RosettaStone - March 25, 1999 - 5:35 PM PT
Irv: Right away, change the thread headline to "A Fiasco Is Born"
4. jexster - March 25, 1999 - 6:22 PM PT
Well Irv missed a rather spirited and knowledgeable debate on this subject over in the International Thread. I wish I could say that MSNBC was as well versed on East European affairs:
"THESE INTELLIGENCE conclusions[that Soviet equipment is 10 yrs obsolete] come in the wake of a report earlier this week that MiG-21( make that 50 yrs) fighters and other Russian military equipment was being transferred to Serbia via the former Soviet republic of Azerbaijan. Those reports remain unsubstantiated and were dismissed by U.S. intelligence. *Kazakhstan, another former Yugoslav republic*, ultimately claimed to be the owner of the shipment."
5. uzmakk - March 25, 1999 - 6:25 PM PT
I recall reading? hearing? when all of this started, that the first shots were fired by the KLA. Perhaps it was The New Republic that said something to the effect that this was a political gamble for the Kosovars, but that it was their first move.. My recollection is that the move was killing a few Serbs. Whether the gamble is paying off for the KLA I don't know. And what do I know but what I hear and what I remember? The above could even be wrong. Imagine that. I expect that the bombing is likely not the right thing to do.Just thought I would post cause there aint much action here. Seems our postion is rather abitrary but the bombs are falling nontheless.
6. RosettaStone - March 25, 1999 - 6:31 PM PT
The London Times reported yesterday that the KLA gets most of its money from selling heroin to European customers.
When will American media report this information?
7. AuNaturel - March 25, 1999 - 6:35 PM PT
Look guys, We need the practice. Obviously Serb air defence isn't up to Iraq's standards, that's why we sent B-2s to Serbia but not Iraq. Hate to take a chance on messing up the fancy paint job, dontchyaknow?
'Course B-1s have never been sent anywhere. I wonder who's air defence *is* safe enough for them? Rwanda? Liechtenstein? Somewhere without geese?
8. jexster - March 25, 1999 - 6:52 PM PT
That's right AU...we have to keep all that hardware and our boyz 'n girlz sharp!
God I miss the Cold War!
9. AzureNW - March 25, 1999 - 10:26 PM PT
A better question still than why are the ethnic groups being cleansed by the Serbs called Muslims, is why aren't the Serbs called Christians?
10. AzureNW - March 25, 1999 - 10:28 PM PT
It is an ethinic cleansing of Muslims by Christians, isn't it?
11. AzureNW - March 25, 1999 - 10:29 PM PT
It is an ethinic cleansing of Muslims by Christians, isn't it?
12. AzureNW - March 25, 1999 - 10:30 PM PT
ooooOOOOoooo....
13. RosettaStone - March 26, 1999 - 12:06 AM PT
Do the Christians of Serbia get Easter week off from Clinton's sky-king killing? After all, it's their Holy Week.
Or who only Moslems get that "honor" from our PC gods?
14. AzureNW - March 26, 1999 - 12:13 AM PT
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
15. AzureNW - March 26, 1999 - 12:16 AM PT
(I have a note for another thread, but I couldn't resist this.)
16. RosettaStone - March 26, 1999 - 12:18 AM PT
Or, do only Muslems get that honor from our PC gods?
(This is why I shouldn't get up in the middle of the night to get a glass of applejuice for my sick young son, turn on CSPAN and watch its recycled BBC News & Serbian TV newscasts, and post this brilliant post without wearing my eyeglasses. I'm angry at my county and now going back to bed.)
17. pellenilsson - March 26, 1999 - 12:18 AM PT
RosettaStone <MSG NUM=13<<BR><BR>Please engage brain before hitting key board.<BR><BR>The Serbs are Greek-Orthodox. Their Easter does not coincide with the Catholic one.<BR><BR>We must assume that some Muslims will be killed and hurt as well. One of their most important religious occasions, the Eid Al-Adha marking the end of the pilgrimage, started yesterday.
18. RosettaStone - March 26, 1999 - 12:18 AM PT
What thread?
19. resonance - March 26, 1999 - 12:20 AM PT
We sent the B-2s for reasons of pure political import. Two of the fucking things cost the same as a Navy fleet carrier. They have to be justified sooner or later.
The problem with the B-1 is that it was obsolete before it was even prototyped. Defense analysts predicted a 60% casualty rate for a B-1 strike on Soviet Russia before the first B-1 squadron was assembled -- the problem being that Soviet radar systems got better at a much faster rate than the tree-top flying technology designed to evade it, and high-flying look-down/shoot-down air-to-air missiles would have literally blasted the B-1s out of the sky.
Carter took a lot of flak for canceling the B-1 from Reagan, who made hay in Souther California with the closing of the Palmdale plant and scored a lot of points nationwide with the 'let's git more guns' crowd. What a lot of people don't know is that Carter had been briefed on the then-still-secret F-117, which had the radar cross section of a ball bearing and was much more likely to survive the sort of deep-penetration raids the B-1 was designed for. He was bound by national security laws from even hinting why he was agreeing to shut down the Palmdale plant. President Jimmy didn't need such an albatross as it was, but this double-bind really hurt him in the polls.
20. RosettaStone - March 26, 1999 - 12:21 AM PT
pell: I learn something new here every day. I should know that. This is what I get for writing in my sleep. Thank you.
21. BobaFett - March 26, 1999 - 5:11 AM PT
"What a lot of people don't know is that Carter had been briefed on the then-still-secret F-117, which had the radar cross section of a ball bearing and was much more likely to survive the sort of deep-penetration raids the B-1 was designed for."
Yes. And Carter was probably also then briefed on the fact that the F-117 is a fighter, not a bomber (note that little "F" before number) and is not designed for "deep" penetration, but rather tactical superiority.
The B-2 and B-1 were actually BOMBERS, which means they were able to carry lots of bombs and enough fuel to go deep into enemy territory. (Note that little "B" before the numbers.)
And don't get confused by the fact that the F-117 carries bombs. Just about all fighters and attack aircraft carry bombs. That doesn't make them true "Bombers," however.
22. BobaFett - March 26, 1999 - 5:13 AM PT
PS: The F-117 has a smaller radar cross section than the B-2 largely because the f-117 is a much smaller craft. (That's that whole F/B thing again.)
And they both employ stealth technology, before you say anything about that.
23. BobaFett - March 26, 1999 - 5:15 AM PT
PS: I, for one, have no particular criticisms with Carter's defense policy. He was a hawk, almost as hawkish as Reagan.
I would like to note that the same crowd who criticized us spending so much stealth technology now apparently points to the F-117 as a "liberal" success. When in fact they opposed any such research in the first place.
24. resonance - March 26, 1999 - 5:24 AM PT
Don't be a dumbass. The F-117 is a F only in name. It is not, and never was, designed as a fighter-role aircraft. It *is* capable of deep air penetration raids.
As expected, moreover, you are ignorant of the nature of stealth technology. The shape of the aircraft, not the size of it, Boo-Boo, is what dictates radar return. If you had a Stealth craft and another one that was identical in form and twice as large in dimension, you would have radar signatures that are the same. If you don't believe me then do some reading on it.
Oh, and Boo-Boo. The B-1 bomber -- you know, that craft that's supposed to be able to carry lots and lots of bombs? It carries four. Two more than a F-117.
Now, I know that you're going to start nattering on about something or another, saying I don't know what I'm talking about when it's you who doesn't have a clue. So I'll tell you now that every technical detail I have mentioned in this and the last post is drawn from the book _Skunk Works_. The book is the memoir of Ben Rich, the man who fucking RAN the stealth program for Lockheed and initially developed ,the F-117 in addition to the Blackbird, the U-2, and the F-22. If anyone would be presumed to know what the fuck they're talking about WRT stealth, I would humbly presume it would be him, not you, Boo-Boo. But don't let that stop you from posting as if you know otherwise.
25. resonance - March 26, 1999 - 5:31 AM PT
And the problem with Stealth technology is not and has never been the F-117, which was designed for $35 million using mostly internal equipment from other aircraft, and actually was cheap enough to produce that Lockheed ended up refunding some government money. The research to produce stealth wasn't even funded by the government, and the claims of the designers were so outlandish that the government wouldn't even buy at first, much less front a lot of money. No one knowledgeable speaks of cost problems with the F-117.
The people who bitch about Stealth complain about the B-2, which costs well over two billion a plane and has been plagued by development and flight problems since it was first designed, and has proven itself less than useful (if for no other reason than the fact that the AF is loath to use them because they cost so much money in the first place, but also because they are still plagued by bugs).
26. BobaFett - March 26, 1999 - 5:34 AM PT
"It is not, and never was, designed as a fighter-role aircraft. It *is* capable of deep air penetration raids."
As I said: It is designed for tactical superiority. Which means it takes out AA and radar and such. It is not capable of deep penetration raids-- not like the B-2, which flew from North Carolina to Yugoslavia with one refill.
"As expected, moreover, you are ignorant of the nature of stealth technology. The shape of the aircraft, not the size of it, Boo-Boo, is what dictates radar return."
Incorrect, doofus. The shape of the aircraft and the RAM that coats it reduces radar return. However, the radar cross section is largely determined by the aircraft's size. See, if you're reducing a GREATER radar profile, you'll wind up with a bigger cross-section, even with stealth.
This is why the B-2 has been much more espensive than the F-117. It's much harder to make a big plane with a tiny radar profile than it is a small one.
"If you had a Stealth craft and another one that was identical in form and twice as large in dimension, you would have radar signatures that are the same. If you don't believe me then do some reading on it."
Completely wrong. Let's build stealth aircraft carriers if this true, Nimwad.
Completely, utterly, hopelessly misinformed.
Stand by for next slam.
27. FreetoChoose - March 26, 1999 - 5:40 AM PT
resonance
You mentioned that one of the reasons the F-117 was so cheap was that it could use “mostly internal equipment from other aircraft”.
At least as important was that Lockheed already had experience building a stealth aircraft (i.e. external “equipment”). There is an amusing anecdote about the fact that Lockheed wasn't ask to participate in the competition for the new fighter, because no one in the Armed Forces had any reason to think that Lockheed had the relevant experience. Lockheed's prior experience was building a plane for the CIA.
28. resonance - March 26, 1999 - 5:46 AM PT
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. The B-2 has gotten insanely expensive for three reasons:
first, the developing corporation (Northrop) submitted a design that has required a lot of rework; second, because there are several hundred different subcontractors which are employed under the government's program to9 spread out aerospace funding, and there have been several problems arising as a result of that; and third, because the government has cut its orders several times, causing the R&D and related costs to be concentrated in a smaller purchase number and raising the price per plane.
"It is not capable of deep penetration raids-- not like
the B-2, which flew from North Carolina to
Yugoslavia with one refill."
This sort of range isn't necessary for a deep penetration raid. You're forgetting something important -- SAC guidelines say that the B-2 must be based on American SAC bases, and therefore that sort of range is necessary. An F-117 can be flown out of bases much closer to the frontier, and can tank as well.
"
Incorrect, doofus. The shape of the aircraft and the
RAM that coats it reduces radar return. However,
the radar cross section is largely determined by the
aircraft's size. "
You just don't know what you're talking about. The radar cross section for a non-stealth airplane tends to grow in direct relation to size, but that's not a necessary function of size.
29. BobaFett - March 26, 1999 - 5:47 AM PT
PS, Res:
Don't you dare lecture ME about Skunkworks or the Blackbird and U-2. I've touched a Blackbird, you dope.
30. resonance - March 26, 1999 - 5:47 AM PT
Angular shapes deflect radar according to angle, not size of panel.
The original 40-foot wooden model Stealth they tested on the missile range on radar, the Have Blue prototype which was three-fifths the size of an actual F-117, and the F-117 itself all have the same radar profile -- about the size of a ball bearing.
"Completely wrong. Let's build stealth aircraft
carriers if this true, Nimwad. "
Actually, the people who developed stealth *DID* build one stealth ship and submitted plans for a stealth submarine (stealth planing works for sonar as well as radar) and a stealth aircraft carrier, which would have the radar signature of a lifeboat. Their plans were not accepted by the Navy.
31. resonance - March 26, 1999 - 5:51 AM PT
"There is an amusing
anecdote about the fact that Lockheed wasn't ask to
participate in the competition for the new fighter,
because no one in the Armed Forces had any
reason to think that Lockheed had the relevant
experience. Lockheed's prior experience was
building a plane for the CIA."
From what I understand, the original boss of the SW, Kelly Johnson, was an absolute genius. He designed the P-38 and the F-104 starfighter and was in charge of the teams that produced the Blackbird and the U-2. But I gather he was an ironclad son of a bitch to deal with, and the fighter command generals all hated him. Lockheed didn't get pitched much of anything in the way of fighter contracts, as a result.
Boo-Boo:
Ooh. You've actually *touched* a real Blackbird? That makes you an authority on Stealth?
If it did, you'd know more about it.
32. BobaFett - March 26, 1999 - 5:54 AM PT
"Incorrect, doofus. The shape of the aircraft and the
RAM that coats it reduces radar return. However,
the radar cross section is largely determined by the
aircraft's size. "
"You just don't know what you're talking about. The radar cross section for a non-stealth airplane tends to grow in direct relation to size, but that's not a necessary function of size."
Not a necessary function? You just said it grows in direct relation to size, goofball.
Long story short: Radar signature grows with the size of the aircraft. Stealth can reduce this, but you're always going to have to fight harder (and throw more money) to make a big aircraft sufficiently stealthy as you would a smaller aircraft.
Bozo.
33. BobaFett - March 26, 1999 - 5:57 AM PT
And Dissonance:
The Stealth fighter is classified as a "tactical" aircraft, just as I said. The Bomber is designated a "STRATEGIC bomber." And that's why they're part of SAC. You know, Strategic Air Command.
I hope I don't have to explain to you the difference between a tactical role (as the Stealth and the F-15 fulfill) and a strategic role (as the B-2, B-1B, and b-52 fullfill).
34. resonance - March 26, 1999 - 5:59 AM PT
Now yu're grasping. The radar signature for a (you paying attention, Boo-Boo?) *NON-STEALTH* aircraft tends to grow in direct relation with the airplane's size. This is because a non-stealth plane offers a higher cross-section of rounded material -- i.e. material that is likely to give a solid radar return from most angles, and the total presented area grows with size.
Stealth paneling deflects radar on a ratio determined by angle of incidence, not by size of panel or plane. Once again, you can blather all you want, but if you look it up you'll see it is true.
35. BobaFett - March 26, 1999 - 6:03 AM PT
I can't find the payload for the Stealth, but for comparison:
The B-52 can carry 24000 kg of bombs/missiles
THe B-2 can carry 22,500 kg
The f-15E "Strike Eagle" (which the stealth is smaller than, btw, and which functions in a similar fighter/bomber role) carries 10,600 kg
Now, for you to say that the B-2 is no different in strategic capacity that the F-117 because it carries *only* more than double the payload is the same as saying there's no appreciable difference between the payload/role of the B-52 and the F-15E.
After all, the B-52 *only* carries approximately double the payload of the F-15E.
36. resonance - March 26, 1999 - 6:03 AM PT
Boo-Boo:
No, you don't have to do that. Judging by how little you know about Stealth, I'd probably end up having to correct you anyway.
What you are asserting right now is idiotic -- it boils down to 'The Air Force has assigned the F-117 to TAC and that means it can't go on deep raids, because it's not in SAC'. It's much akin to arguing that 'Well, I left my hammer in my car's toolbox. Guess it won't be any good for putting this door frame up in the house, now, will it? It's in the car tools! Gotta use it on cars!'
37. resonance - March 26, 1999 - 6:10 AM PT
"Now, for you to say that the B-2 is no different in
strategic capacity that the F-117 because it carries
*only* more than double the payload is the same as
saying there's no appreciable difference between
the payload/role of the B-52 and the F-15E. "
Nice try, but no cigar, Boo-Boo. The comparison was made between the B-1, which was originally axed because it was already obsolete in the age of stealth and cruise missiles, and the F-117. That's what you came in and said all your initial nonsense about. You're trying to throw up a cloud of obscurant nonsense that any child with a book on modern military aircraft could spit out. Now that you're caught out, you want to start talking about the differences between the insanely costly B-2 and the F-117 and attempt to 'impress' us with your vast knowledge of the difference between a tactical strike designation and a strategic strike designation. Whatever, Boo-Boo.
38. BobaFett - March 26, 1999 - 6:11 AM PT
"Stealth paneling deflects radar on a ratio determined by angle of incidence, not by size of panel or plane. Once again, you can blather all you want, but if you look it up you'll see it is true."
Wrong, doofus. You're such an idiot.
RAM absorbs SOME of the incident radar. Angling reflects away SOME of the indident radar. The PROPORTION of incident radar absorbed/reflected away will NOT be determined by the size of the panel.
However, since RAM and angling ony keep SOME of the radar from going back to the source, SOME of the radar will in fact reflect back. And it's this SOME portion of the radar that will ALWAYS grow as a function of the SIZE of the aircraft in question.
Idiot.
Let's build a stealth aircraft carrier. Let's. Let's see how "stealthy" that motherfucker is.
39. resonance - March 26, 1999 - 6:13 AM PT
Boo-Boo:
Now, now, don't get all in a fuss. You're wrong. If you were right, then the model, the prototype, and the F-117 would have all had different, increasing radar signatures. Instead, they all had the same signature. Not a hard concept to work with, yes?
Do get a hold of yourself. After all, you're allowed to be wrong.
40. BobaFett - March 26, 1999 - 6:15 AM PT
Sure, Res. I'm the one "throwing smoke." You make an initial ridiculous statement, then follow that up with making a statement which is flat-out wrong, then you blather on about the irrelevant U-2 and Blackbird (impressing us all) and yet you STILL maintain there's no difference between a tactical fighter and a strategic bomber because bombers ONLY carry more than double the payload of a tac fighter.
By the way:
The B-1B carries 29,000 kg of payload. WHich means the B-1B, if you're going to be bitchy, carries nearly TRIPLE the the payload of the stealth fighter.
Which means, Lunkhead, it's even MORE obviously better-suited for a strategic bombing role than the Stealth FIGHTER.
41. Adrianne - March 26, 1999 - 6:16 AM PT
SAC was deactivated in 1992.
42. coralreef - March 26, 1999 - 6:21 AM PT
Message #35 "I can't find the payload for the Stealth"
The Stealth F-117? Two 2,000 lb bombs.
43. resonance - March 26, 1999 - 6:22 AM PT
Poor Boo-Boo. The B-1B is 'even more suited' because it carries two more weapons than the Stealth platform. Even though you can see it coming a long ways away and it has a nasty habit of not working correctly. By this analogy a gigantic blimp would be best suited to strategic bombing.
Let me reiterate -- the Defense deparment calculated that a B-1 strikeforce would, in the even that they would have to attack the Soviet Union, take over 60 % casualties, and many of those downed planes wouldn't even have gotten to the targets in the first place.
No, your beloved Reagan started it back up again because it was political capital, not because it was more useful than the alternative.
It's been enchanting, really, Boo-Boo. But I really must be running along. I suggest you take the next few hours of your off-time and acquaint yourself with what you're trying to talk about. The Rich memoir would be a reasonably intelligent place to start, for the layman, you know.
44. Adrianne - March 26, 1999 - 6:29 AM PT
And of course, TAC was, too.
Fighter/Bombers are part of ACC now (Air Combat Command).
45. BobaFett - March 26, 1999 - 6:36 AM PT
Thank you Adrienne. I didn't know SAC had been deactivated. Or maybe I knew but forgot.
46. Adrianne - March 26, 1999 - 7:33 AM PT
Now that all the screaming has died down, a couple of things:
Stealth (low observable, or LO aircraft) depends on many factors. Radar signature - this is where angling comes into play - terrain-hugging capability or conversely high-altitude performance, RAM, and size.
But not size because of SIZE!
Size because a smaller aircraft it requires less power from the Electronic Countermeasures jammer, which greatly reduces the RCS.
So you're both right.
Kiss and makeup.
47. BobaFett - March 26, 1999 - 7:38 AM PT
Adrienne:
Sorry, but I won't take your word for it. RAM and angling succeed in scattering/absorbing a certain amount of incident radar *per square inch.* Obviously, a larger aircraft will be hit by more radar, because of the greater surface area. And, therefore, being hit by more radar, and only succeeding in scattering/absorbing a certain percent of incident radar per inch of surface area, it will inelocutably reflect back more radar to the source than a smaller craft.
48. Adrianne - March 26, 1999 - 7:44 AM PT
It's not obvious at all, Bobafett, unless you're talking about hypothetical aircraft that are exactly alike except for physical size.
The effect of physical size on radar signature is negligible, as odd as that seems.
49. BobaFett - March 26, 1999 - 7:48 AM PT
Adrienne:
Obviously there will not be two hypothetical aircraft, alike in every way except for size. Nevertheless, as your craft gets bigger, the same Stealth efforts will not succeed in hiding you as well as they would on a smaller craft.
50. uzmakk - March 26, 1999 - 7:51 AM PT
Milosevic is a Serbian poet of great renown is he not? Or, was that some other high Serbian official?
51. BobaFett - March 26, 1999 - 7:53 AM PT
You're thinking of Vaclev Havel of the Czech republic.
52. Adrianne - March 26, 1999 - 7:54 AM PT
I understand that common sense would indicate that you are correct, btw. Modern aircraft defies common sense, though.
There are only two operational stealth aircraft types, the B-2 and F-117. The designers of neither took physical size into consideration as a concern in re it's stealthy qualities. So, although hypothetically you can make an argument that "size matters" - up to this point it hasn't.
53. BobaFett - March 26, 1999 - 7:56 AM PT
Adrienne:
You notice that the Fighter has a very high pyramid shaped body, whereas the Bomber is just a nearly flat uni-wing? Why do you suppose the Fighter could get away with its peaked center and the Bomber couldn't?
54. uzmakk - March 26, 1999 - 7:57 AM PT
No No No, Boba, I am not.
55. Adrianne - March 26, 1999 - 8:02 AM PT
Boba
I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.
56. BobaFett - March 26, 1999 - 8:06 AM PT
Adrienne:
Very well. I'm a security risk anyway. What with the crystal meth and all.
57. Adrianne - March 26, 1999 - 8:11 AM PT
And size matter in EVERYTHING ELSE!!!
58. RosettaStone - March 26, 1999 - 8:15 AM PT
If airstrikes do not force Serbs to accept the Kosovo peace plan, what will be the next U.S. move?
What would happen if the Serbs attack NATO forces in Bosnia? Could he?
Obviously, yes. But would his planes be shot down before they got there? Maybe.
If he attacks with land forces would they arrive at their targets without being eliminated by A-10 aircraft. What would NATO citizens say once their own troops start taking casulities.
Tar-baby time.
59. msivorytower - March 26, 1999 - 8:34 AM PT
So far I've not read anything here which lays out why we should or should not be engaged in this conflict.
I'm supportive of the attempt to rein in Milosevic but am less than optimistic that he will change his position as a result of our efforts. I caught the News Hour last night, and commentary there suggested that Milosevic will only gain strength within Serbia as a result of NATO actions within his own country. On the other hand, reports of renewed killings of Albanians in Kosovo lead me to believe we cannot just stand idly by and let this man continue to act at will.
Furthermore, this is one of those situations where diplomacy seems to have been a massive failure because the goals and objectives of the two sides (NATO versus Milosevic) are completely incompatable.
60. FreetoChoose - March 26, 1999 - 8:36 AM PT
Adrianne -
“There are only two operational stealth aircraft types, the B-2 and F-117.”
I believe the SR-71 is both operational and stealth.
61. Adrianne - March 26, 1999 - 8:42 AM PT
FTC
The blackbird was retired last year, and although extremely fast and high-flying, not traditionally considered stealthy.
62. RosettaStone - March 26, 1999 - 8:44 AM PT
And so is "the plane" that replaced the SR-71, code-named "Aurora." I saw a picture of it on the History Channel.
63. RosettaStone - March 26, 1999 - 8:46 AM PT
Ad: How come you know so much about this subject? I've been impressed with you since Monday.
64. vonKreedon - March 26, 1999 - 8:47 AM PT
Stone - You saw an *actual* picture of Aurora!?!
65. BobaFett - March 26, 1999 - 8:55 AM PT
Stone:
You couldn't have seen a picture of an Aurora, I don't think. The thing is still supposedly non-existant.
66. Adrianne - March 26, 1999 - 8:56 AM PT
Rosetta
I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.
Any new designs will of necessity and common sense make use of stealth technology. The blackbird was an early '60s design.
67. RosettaStone - March 26, 1999 - 8:57 AM PT
No, more like a drawing. But they had video of an unusual shaped-aircraft shot from the desert looking up at the sky.
68. BobaFett - March 26, 1999 - 8:58 AM PT
I didn't think the Blackbird was "stealthy" at all. I thought it just flew as high and fast as a motherfucker. Maybe it had some radar-absorbent paint, but that's about it.
And Adrienne:
The Blackbird has been retired several times now. Then they unretire it when they need it again. I bet we still haven't seen the last of the Blackbird-- and I'd wager there's one over Kosovo right now.
69. BobaFett - March 26, 1999 - 9:01 AM PT
On the Aurora:
Is this a reconaissance plane or a high tech stealth fighter?
70. BobaFett - March 26, 1999 - 9:03 AM PT
...because I've read about the "Aurora fighter," I think.
71. Adrianne - March 26, 1999 - 9:04 AM PT
Fett
Yes, this is the second retirement. But since the only flying blackbirds are testbeds used by NASA, they probably aren't in Kosovo. I'm not ruling out their return, but they aren't currently operational. And they aren't stealthy.
72. BobaFett - March 26, 1999 - 9:07 AM PT
Come on, Adrienne. You think they wouldn't keep just a couple of them ready to fly? Or be able to convert the Nasa "testbeds" (I don't know what that means) back to miliary use in just a week?
73. BobaFett - March 26, 1999 - 9:07 AM PT
(And I say this because the Blackbird is my favorite plane and I don't want to let go.)
74. coralreef - March 26, 1999 - 9:11 AM PT
Yes, we know, Fett. You've touched one after all.
75. BobaFett - March 26, 1999 - 9:11 AM PT
I touched it with my penis.
76. Adrianne - March 26, 1999 - 9:12 AM PT
I mispoke. Lockheed still uses them for X-33 research as well.
I dunno, Fett. Maybe.
77. BobaFett - March 26, 1999 - 9:15 AM PT
What's the X-33?
78. BobaFett - March 26, 1999 - 9:15 AM PT
And how do you know all this? Maybe I was wrong to think you were an idiot.
79. AzureNW - March 26, 1999 - 9:17 AM PT
msivorytower -
Re: Message #59
"So far I've not read anything here which lays out why we should or should not be engaged in this conflict."
Could the US resonably avoid involvement in such an important NATO action without destroying NATO's unity and authority?
80. AzureNW - March 26, 1999 - 9:21 AM PT
I agree, your knowledge of weapons systems is impressive, Adrianne. I must have missed you discussing the subject before in political threads I usually avoid.
81. AzureNW - March 26, 1999 - 9:23 AM PT
I really miss PE's input right now.
82. Adrianne - March 26, 1999 - 9:24 AM PT
X-33 is a reusable launch vehicle, "VentureStar".
Fett
Always trust your first instincts.
Azure
Thank you, but I'm a piker, really.
83. AzureNW - March 26, 1999 - 9:42 AM PT
Compared to the terse lack of debate over the one-sided US assault on Iraq, the amount of discussion and debate surrounding the NATO action against the Serbs seems enourmous. A lot of information is available from within the strike zones in the case of Yugoslavia, as well.
84. AzureNW - March 26, 1999 - 9:45 AM PT
(It's still called Yugoslavia, isn't it? Yugoslavia = Serbia + one of the M places. Need a map.)
85. Seguine - March 26, 1999 - 9:46 AM PT
Ad,
Isn't just about everything designed at least with with some electronic anti-radar capabilities nowadays?
I guess nobody is flying V-22s into Yugoslavia at the moment--they're probably not best used as bombers anyway, because they're not that fast--but one thing they can do, aside from VTOL of course, is fly under radar. (At least, that was the plan: they were supposed to be able to hug rough terrain as well as or better than helicopters.) If it comes to reconnaissance, troop transport, medevac, I wonder if they'll be put in the air.
86. RosettaStone - March 26, 1999 - 10:14 AM PT
First, we bomb. Then we use American taxpayers' hard-earned money to rebuild our "enemies."
It's like the tides.
87. LiberalNut - March 26, 1999 - 11:19 AM PT
Rosetta Stone
Message #58
"What would happen if the Serbs attack NATO forces in Bosnia? Could he?
Obviously, yes. But would his planes be shot down before they got there? Maybe."
Let me be the first to congratulate you on your prophetic abilities. Brussels has just confirmed that two Mig-29's were shot down in Bosnian airspace.
88. justlooking - March 26, 1999 - 11:26 AM PT
Message #59
Msivorytower
You are right. All the hardware discussions seem to be primarily about the opportunity to display one's esoteric knowledge or challenge someone else's. I don't think they're central to the issue of whether or not we ought to be doing this. It's hard to create a positive arguement for the pollicy because, I think, it was cobbled together out of a lot of political constraints. It's to Clinton's credit, and that of the American government generally, that we do want to stop genocide. No one can deny that we have not intervened in lots of other murderous situations, but that doesn't invalidate the need to intervene where we can see a national interest in doing so. (Is that enough negatives?) I hear lots of questions about the effectiveness of a bombing campaign, but I don't know what other politically acceptable alternatives there are.
89. jexster - March 26, 1999 - 11:40 AM PT
Washingtonpost.com Staff
Compiled From News Services
Friday, March 26, 1999; 1:52 p.m. EST
Two Yugoslav MiG-29 fighter planes were
downed in Bosnia today after they apparently
tried to attack allied NATO peacekeeping
forces there. No troops were injured and the
pilots were captured, NATO spokesman Jamie
Shea said in Brussels.
Cute Slav Boyz are rallying in Red Square. Let 'em become Mig-29 pilots....I'll volunteer for Col. Klink's position at the POW camp.
Boba...You can be Sgt. Schultz!
90. jexster - March 26, 1999 - 11:43 AM PT
CNN reports that NATO is using a "top secret" weapon that makes AA computer screens go blank.
What's up with that???
PS - Boba, I've been a blackbird fan since B4 you were a gleam in daddy's eye
91. AzureNW - March 26, 1999 - 1:05 PM PT
At least its springtime over there right now.
92. ChristiPeters - March 26, 1999 - 1:09 PM PT
So...
1. We will be effective in stopping atrocities and forcing Milosevich (sp?) to behave.
2. We will spend a lot of $$ in weapons, etc, and maybe in American lives as well as Serbian lives. Then we'll pull out and everything will go back to the way it was as if we had done nothing.
3. This will spread and be the start of WWIII.
4. Something else, other than 1, 2, 3, will happen?
Do I know what will happen? No.
Is there anything I, personally, can do to affect what will happen? No.
Well, that ends *my* participation in this discussion.
93. resonance - March 26, 1999 - 1:24 PM PT
The Blackbird does incorporate some stealth technology; it is painted with ferrites and the side baffles (the angular fuselage that gives the plane its 'cobra' shape) were added only to lower the cross-section. There was a very large argument over the Blackbird when it was being developed -- whether to focus on raw, monstrous speed and a high cruising altitude, or stealth (they didn't call it that, then), as a means of defense against missile attacks,when they made it. I guess they ended up with both. The fucking plane is awesome.
The reason they keep mothballing it is it's horrendously expensive to maintain. The SR-71 (originally designated the RS-71, but Johnson screwed up in a speech and the government, rather than make him look bad, had thousands of dollars of paperwork changed to transpose the two letters in the designation) was at one time going to be the main battle craft of SAC -- there were going to be Blackbird bombers as well as the Blackbird interceptor, the Blackbird recon bird, and even a variant of Blackbird *fighter*. This decision was made once the US got evidence of the hypersonic Backfire long-range Sov bomber. However, some people managed to convince the Air Force that the Backfire wasn't real, and the program was scratched due to the projected costs.
94. resonance - March 26, 1999 - 1:25 PM PT
A note on the earlier conversation: The commentary on the B-1 Lancer was relevant to its projected role in the Carter administration, which was that of deep penetration nuclear bomber, like the B-58 Hustler. That configuration did only carry four weapons and the argument was made that the tradeoff of smaller payload (perhaps one or two tactical nukes) vs the high survivability, and much higher chance of actually reaching the target, made a modified Stealth craft much more attractive for the role of surprise nuclear bomber. The B-1B, naturally, has been worked to be able to carry a wide assortment of munitions -- there isn't a whole lot of use in the multi-role AF today for a single-use nuclear bomber -- and though it still suffers in any comparison with Stealth craft in terms of survivability, it does carry a much bigger conventional payload.
95. resonance - March 26, 1999 - 1:25 PM PT
A note on the earlier conversation: The commentary on the B-1 Lancer was relevant to its projected role in the Carter administration, which was that of deep penetration nuclear bomber, like the B-58 Hustler. That configuration did only carry four weapons and the argument was made that the tradeoff of smaller payload (perhaps one or two tactical nukes) vs the high survivability, and much higher chance of actually reaching the target, made a modified Stealth craft much more attractive for the role of surprise nuclear bomber. The B-1B, naturally, has been worked to be able to carry a wide assortment of munitions -- there isn't a whole lot of use in the multi-role AF today for a single-use nuclear bomber -- and though it still suffers in any comparison with Stealth craft in terms of survivability, it does carry a much bigger conventional payload.
96. BobaFett - March 26, 1999 - 1:28 PM PT
Well. glad to see we have so many Blackbird fans. Maybe we should have our own thread.
Another Blackbird fun fact: It gets so hot during flight that it's titanium body expands and the plane can grow longer by a full foot.
Due to this expansion, the fuel tanks are built with seams so that it can safely expand them closed in flight (like a ship's hull expands once it's in water). So Blackbirds take off with big seams in their fuel tanks, spilling fuel.
97. resonance - March 26, 1999 - 1:32 PM PT
BTW -- The reason the 'flying wing' design was adopted for the B-2 over the 'hopeless diamond' shape of the F-117 has nothing to do with the cross-section -- that is, the diamond shape would have been, in terms of stealth, as if not more stealthy than the wing.
The wing was adopted because it gave the B-2 a very nice lift-over-drag ratio, which of course increases range of the craft per unit of weight and allows the craft to be based further away from the enemy and requires fewer tankings.
98. Seguine - March 26, 1999 - 1:33 PM PT
"No one can deny that we have not intervened in lots of other murderous situations, but that doesn't invalidate the need to intervene where we can see a national interest in doing so."
It isn't at all clear to me that we have a national interest in intervening here--none that doesn't run a serious risk of being compromised by the intervention itself. But at the moment, all options look lousy.
Don't know about anyone else, but I'm having a damned hard time forming a strong opinion, despite all the pontification on the part of US officials, various partisan observers, journalists, and the people who have posted in these threads as though they know what the fuck they're talking about.
The more I hear and read, the more I think the discussion of whether Serbs are *capable* of living peaceably among other people at this point (is more negotiation needed now? are the factions really that full of ethnic hatred or is the main problem that demon Milosevic? is militarily enforced partition the only solution?) revolves around a nearly unanswerable set of questions.
99. resonance - March 26, 1999 - 1:33 PM PT
Yes, the titanium skin of the Blackbirds still around are actually stronger today than they were when made, because every time you fly one you temper the titanium again.
I believe the plane only grows about five or so inches maximum, though.
100. BobaFett - March 26, 1999 - 1:35 PM PT
My source says a foot.
Let's not argue about it, though.