US Air Force Confirms New Stealth Aircraft 287
DesScorp writes "Aviation Week reports that the USAF has confirmed the existence of a new, formerly secret stealth aircraft, designated RQ-170 Sentinel, developed at Lockheed's legendary Skunk Works. Rumors of a secret new jet have been flying since 2007, with longtime aviation journalist Bill Sweetman dubbing the possible aircraft 'The Beast of Kandahar' because of the urban legend-like reports from Afghanistan. The aircraft is a UAV, a pilot-less drone that appears to have some kind of reconnaissance-only mission for the time being. It's a tailless flying wing that resembles a fighter-sized B-2 bomber."
top secret (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:top secret (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact that this aircraft has been publicly acknowledged suggests that they have something far more advanced that they are not telling us about at the Skunk Works.
Re:Is it really that necessary? (Score:5, Insightful)
The other problem is deciding when the time is that we need to start development back up again? Is it when we think possible enemies catch up? Is it when we are devastated by previously unknown technology from somewhere?
I know we are fighting different kinds of wars now (counter-insurgency, gorilla warfare, etc), but I think it's unreasonable to pretend that we'll never need to worry about fighting large scale wars because we aren't fighting them now. The truth is, the threat of wars from foreign lands is not non-existent, and given that, the US military machine should work to be as prepared as possible for that eventuality.
Re:Is it really that necessary? (Score:5, Insightful)
No armor has ever saved as many lives as good, fresh, intel on enemy positions and movements.
Re:Is it really that necessary? (Score:5, Insightful)
I follow defense technology closely, and while I'm a critic of many new defense programs... I think the F-35 is becoming an overpriced boondoggle, for instance... I'm a firm believer that the US has to maintain a level of technology superior to its adversaries. You never want to go into an even fight. You want to be better in every way to the guy opposing you on the battlefield. That requires constant research. If you sit still, others pass you up.
Re:Is it really that necessary? (Score:2, Insightful)
If the war was as morally important as something like World War II, YES I would volunteer.
What made WWII morally important?
From America's view, it was just Europe going at it again like they'd always been doing. We didn't really know much about what was happening inside Germany until we invaded Germany.
We weren't really brought into the war until directly attacked by the Japanese. The war in Afghanistan is arguably built on comparable merits.
I'd also rather wish that money was spent on my fellow soldiers for better armor, not for my fancy gadget.
You would rather have bullet resistant armor than something which could keep you away from where the bullets would be flying in the first place?
If the war is as pointless (it won't make a difference in the long term) and hopeless (there is no real "victory" possible, as I've yet to hear someone clearly define it)
Victory is leaving behind a stable local government. (specifically a non-hostile one, if you want to be pedantic)
NO I would NOT volunteer because I would not want ANYONE to volunteer or to go there in the 1st place.
Whether you want people to volunteer to go there is irrelevant. The war and the people there are both givens. The question as it has been posed to you is whether your opposition to funding this technology means you are willing to sit in and do the job that it is designed to do. Or does your opposition to America fighting this war also extend to opposition to its have a low rate of causalities?
Re:Is it really that necessary? (Score:3, Insightful)
How many conflicts has the US fought in the last 50 years where the opposing military even had an air force?
Vietnam War, Libya (multiple 80's incidents), Iran (multiple 80's incidents), Iraq (gulf war, gulf war 2). Those are the ones I know of off the top of my head. Also, aircraft have multiple uses besides pure air superiority. Reconnaissance is the main use of UAVs right now (being able to see over the next hill can be useful in avoiding ambushes). Bombing is another use, especially when you need some extra support in a fire fight.
Re:Stealth aircraft vs. the Taliban?? (Score:5, Insightful)
For the same reason we use Aegis destroyers against pirates off of Somalia - we use what we have. We don't keep any 18th century sloops around in case we need to go against fishing boats, nor any biplane drones for use in Afghanistan.
This isn't a leak - it's an official USAF confirmation.
Re:Is it really that necessary? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, especially considering how much cold hard cash the Taliban are throwing at advanced weapons research.
Re:Is it really that necessary? (Score:3, Insightful)
But how does a Taliban guy look different than a regular Afghani?
Re:Is it really that necessary? (Score:4, Insightful)
Some people serve their country, not their morality. They step up to service because their country needs their service, not because their morality agreed with the current course of action. It's a fairly simple statement of "I'm willing to set aside my beliefs to do what my country believes is the better course of action for it." These people form the basis of the career military service. They don't volunteer for a war. They volunteer for whatever their country requires of them. They'll be there before the war starts and they'll be there after it's done. Only fools volunteers for a war, but it is a patriot who signs up for service.
Morality is simply a justification for war. It allows those who believe in morality to support war without their conscience gnawing at them. It lets them ignore the wounded, the dead, and the human suffering that will follow. It does not avoid any of that.
Re:Sonic booms out west... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is it really that necessary? (Score:3, Insightful)
Those weapons don't create anything. Building more of them diverts resources from productive projects inevitably having a significant long term negative impact on the economy as a whole. The broken window fallacy applies to much more than the hypothetical broken windows themselves and in fact describes the result of intentionally over-producing any economically worthless goods.
Re:Makes sense. (Score:3, Insightful)
There's still a role for air superiority fighters. Even if they're not used much in that role, if you don't have them, the other side has air superiority, which is Not Fun. The USAF likes to say that American troops have not had to fight under a hostile sky since WWII, and this did not happen by accident. They have a point.
Recon and close air support, though, is going to go UAV. Using an F-16 to take out a truck is not only overkill, you don't have enough fighters to do it very often. The big advantage of UAVs is that the US can afford lots of them, and can keep them airborne so that there's one in the neighborhood when needed. The US has plenty of heavy weapon systems that can take out an visible enemy concentration. As a result, the surviving enemies of the US hide and don't bunch up. Air support is more of a retail operation now than a wholesale one.
Re:Is it really that necessary? (Score:1, Insightful)
> Iran=yes (F-14s, thank you Jimmy Carter), MiG 29
I'm sorry, I think you mean Reagan and Bush (Iran-Contra, Arms for Hostage) for selling replacement parts.
Re:Is it really that necessary? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:top secret (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Is it really that necessary? (Score:3, Insightful)
"Those weapons don't create anything."
Aside from well paying jobs. In the US.
"Building more of them diverts resources from productive projects inevitably having a significant long term negative impact on the economy as a whole."
I find it hard to believe that spending money on weapons is more wasteful than spending money on any other shiny new trinket. Which probably isn't made in the US.
I don't deny that the outcome of using the weapons is questionable at best. But don't assume that if we didn't spend the money on weapons we would spend it on something "useful" or "better". That would be a VERY dubious assumption based on our history.
Re:B2 jr.? (Score:3, Insightful)
"LOL at the useless cockpit bulge."
Probably houses sensors. Given the extreme importance of loiter time it would be absurd to have a fake cockpit and additional drag.
Re:BWB (Score:3, Insightful)
A number of Criticism came out on the BWB as a passenger hauling aircraft:
That last one is the only one with bite. The old 707 was a fairly stiff wing and lead to the hull being bounced a lot. Airlines feel that passengers will object to this aircraft due to the bounce. My argument (and many others), is that those who object will fly wing/tubes for a time, OR will fly the center seats. OTH, those who enjoy even moderate amusement park rides, will have no issues with flying the outer edges. Given the fuel economy of this design (30-50%) of which fuel now accounts for more than 50% of the costs, I think that this aircraft will take off quickly. Of course, it would be better if used by the military, followed by cargo haulers next (who will also be extremely happy with the craft's fuel savings).
Re:Is it really that necessary? (Score:3, Insightful)