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:top secret (Score:4, Informative)
Any ideas on why they need such a secret and stealthy UAV in Afghanistan for? Obviously they weren't too worried about it if this Bill Sweetman guy was able to see it at the Kandahar International Airport.
Re:top secret (Score:5, Interesting)
Afghanistan is a testing ground for the UAV. It is a fairly safe testing ground because the Afghanis do not have anything that has a realistic chance at shooting it down. The fact that it was at an international aeroport suggests that the US does not consider it to be one of their secret planes anymore. It will be interesting to see (five or ten years from now) what the real cutting edge of military aviation is in 2009.
Re:top secret (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I believe the RQ-170--especially if it uses the same Rolls-Royce Allison AE3007H engine as the RQ-4 Global Hawk--is capable of cruising at 65,000 feet, with a radar cross section far smaller than even the B-2 Spirit bomber, since the RQ-170 is probably almost the same size as the Global Hawk. From bases in Afghanistan, the RQ-170 could easily fly into Chinese and Iranian airspace with essentially zero chance of being shot down cruising at 60,000 feet, since the plane would be undetectable from radar at its
Re:top secret (Score:5, Interesting)
It more than likely has already existed for some time [wikipedia.org]. While any comment on the technology implemented is speculation, it is more than likely that treaty negotiations between the US and USSR to stop manned surveillance flights over each others territory _dictates_ that any current technology implemented for that mission is a UAV. It is unlikely that the US military would allow a gap in mission capability.
It is more than likely that the cost over-runs of the B1 bomber program were actually the development costs of the SR-91 and that any UAV technology we see implemented now is actually a descendant of the "SR-91" program on a different airframe.
Possible Reasons Why (Score:5, Interesting)
Any ideas on why they need such a secret and stealthy UAV in Afghanistan for? Obviously they weren't too worried about it if this Bill Sweetman guy was able to see it at the Kandahar International Airport.
One, Sweetman didn't discover it in the field. He was likely first alerted to it when someone sent him the grainy photos of the bird in flight. He's probably the most prominent miltary aviation journalist in the world, so people come to him when they think they've found something secret.
As to why it's in Afghanistan, that was a puzzle to me to at first, but some very good (and intriguing) theories have come up about it. For one, some note that not everyone in the Pakistani military is reliable in the Afghan war; there's a good chance some members are feeding intel to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. It's been suggested that since we've become very dependent on sending Predators and Reapers to hunt the Taliban in the desert, perhaps we don't completely trust Pakistani radar operators anymore. Perhaps we think they're sending what they know to the very people we're hunting.
Another, even more intriguing possibility, is that China is right next door. And considering the luck we've had with conventional intel aircraft monitoring China [wikipedia.org], perhaps this is our way of keeping an eye on the growing Dragon. However, if we're actually penetrating Chinese airspace, then we're playing a very dangerous, Gary Powers-like game [wikipedia.org].
Re:Possible Reasons Why (Score:5, Informative)
There are better pictures out there, including one of it on the ground.
At least people think its the RQ-170, if its not, there are two strange planes out there.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/12/kandahars-loch-ness-mystery-pl.html [flightglobal.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I am sure that the Chinese would absolutely love for the USA to send their most technologically advanced stealth drones on missions deep into Chinese airspace.
That gives them the opportunity to learn to detect them and to shoot them down and reverse engineer them.
Re:top secret (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You need to test it somewhere. What better place than where we already have tools doing the exact same thing. You have your satellite, Predator, and ground info to compare this air craft's performance against. Plus, if it's giving good intel, why would you NOT use it? More intel is always better.
Just as beneficial, we can see if OUR forces can spot it and track it. We've got the damned military out in force, AWACS, ground radar, planes in the air, eyes on the ground looking up. What a great time to
Re:top secret (Score:4, Funny)
Any ideas on why they need such a secret and stealthy UAV in Afghanistan for?
I'm pretty sure we're looking for someone in Afghanistan. I think his name is Waldo.
Re:top secret (Score:5, Informative)
Disclosure: I am formerly an F-117 avionics technician, of what used to be the 37th Tactical Fighter Wing at Tonopah Test Range, NV (the original home of the F-117 Nighthawk). That said, I've been a civilian for nearly 20 years, but...
The USAF 'fessed up to the existence of the F-117 in 1988 (and included a fuzzy-at-best photograph). That was what they were "really" working on at the time. Better stuff (cf. the B-2) came out later, and from other projects. Before 1988, we were considered to be working on an A-7 avionics upgrade program - my old orders still reflect that (while my old training records had a ton of phrases reading "see classified master"). After 1988, the A-7s were quietly sent back to the Arizona boneyard they came out of, and we were officially working on the Stealth Fighter from that point on. There was no "really working on" bit to it - that's what we were doing.
Now it may or may not be true that they are/were/will-be working on something else. Those may come out in due time, or they may be quietly buried or shelved if they don't work out. Fact is, there may well be more than one project in motion, but the confirmation or denial of those projects simply will not happen unless/until the USAF says something about 'em individually and in particular. Even during my 'tenure', we only knew about our baby - we didn't talk to others about our doings, and they didn't talk to us about theirs.
Sorry, but that's just the way it is *shrug*. It's weird, it's secretive, and you just got along in spite of it. If I were a betting man, I'd say that the odds were excellent of other projects going on... but you and I won't know about them until the gov't is good and ready to say something about 'em.
Heh. (Score:5, Funny)
They have no idea what they're in for.
Old news to me (Score:4, Interesting)
This craft is also capable of bombing missions, according to the Military Channel's own documentaries on experimental craft. It DOES have a bomb bay and missile mounts.
The same documentary also said that this craft is capable of completely autonomous aircraft carrier landings, and can even do so in the dark. (a milestone feat in itself, due many factors)
It's also capable of 24+ hour flight, which is awesome for scouting missions waiting for a mobile target, and is capable of mid-air refueling. (this is a living pilot no-no, and potentially keeps the craft up as long as it needs to be).
Eventually, this will be flying more than our own pilots will be, due to the fact that pilots cannot be mass-produced. Eventually, we WILL be putting arms on them, even if only because there might not be a good enough alternative.
Also, rumors about similar tanks are in the works... that are so overengineered that they tried to break it and couldn't (experimental model).
Dinochrome Brigade (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? We've been doing mid-air refuel for decades.
Re: (Score:2)
I was referring to the 24+ hour flight.
I should have clarified, thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe not 24 hr, but crews did a few 18 hour round trips from Barksdale-Iraq-Barksdale.
Re: (Score:2)
These types of missions are done with reliable and suitable equipment, good training an choice medication.
The rest is expendable luxury.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
24+ hour flight is expensive, but not prohibitive for "living pilots" if their bomber can carry extra aircrew.
B-52s have flown up to 35 hour missions.
Pilots can be mass-produced. We have a surplus of military aviators. Piloted AIRFRAMES are the limiting factor.
UAVs are useful because supporting pilots is expensive, and sending CSAR teams to rescue them is extremely expensive when they get shot down. Downed aircrew are a huge political liability when the public expect no casualties and Hollywood outcomes. Pi
Re: (Score:2)
Aircraft that Drops Bombs = Bomber
A Stuka wasn't much bigger than the fighters of its day, which weren't as big as the fighters of our day. You're confusing "bomber," the generic term, with "strategic bomber," the term for monsters like the B-52.
Re: (Score:2)
Pure fighters are ancient history, and with the development of nice things like the Small Diameter Bomb it makes no sense to design any large UAV without the ability to kill enemy it locates.
Re: (Score:2)
i'm actually more interested in the paint on the aircraf, FTA:
Many questions remain about the aircraft’s use. If it is a high-altitude aircraft it is painted an unusual color – medium grey overall, like Predator or Reaper, rather then the dark gray or overall black that provides the best concealment at very high altitudes.
i know theyve developed asome sort of "radar absorbant" type materials and coatings in the past and i wonder what special coating this thing has. my assumption is that this will probably see lots of service over places like North Korea and possibly China, where these countries spend a good bundle on defense technology. why sacrifice the visual camouflage?
Re: (Score:2)
That's roughly as reliable as The Onion or the Weekly World News [weeklyworldnews.com].
Re: (Score:2)
This craft is also capable of bombing missions, according to the Military Channel's own documentaries on experimental craft. It DOES have a bomb bay and missile mounts. The same documentary also said that this craft is capable of completely autonomous aircraft carrier landings, and can even do so in the dark. (a milestone feat in itself, due many factors)
Are you sure you're thinking of the RQ-170 and not the X-47B? The two appear to be vastly different aircraft, even if they do look similar.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This is, as far as I know, somewhat misleading. You can build an aircraft to withstand many more Gs than a human pilot can, but even today with human pilots the limiting factor isn't the human so much as the hardpoints. The F-16, at least, turns down the control sensitivity and limits maneuvering when carrying pretty much anything besides air to air missiles--air-ground stores and the hardpoints that hold them aren't rated for much more than 6.5g, well within the range of a human pilot.
IANAP, though, so I c
Re: (Score:2)
Some interesting reading: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1986/articles/july_86/deep_stalls/index.html [codeonemagazine.com]
One thing it can never achieve. (Score:3, Informative)
Looking as cool as an SR-71.
X-45 outgrowth? (Score:3, Interesting)
More like Northrop's plane (Score:3, Interesting)
From the crappy pic at AviationLeak, it looks like it may be an outgrowth of the X-45 [globalaircraft.org] development bird [globalaircraft.org].
It looks more like the Navy's X-47B [northropgrumman.com], which is also a tailless flying wing. The Navy and NG have been very open about the program, so perhaps that's another reason why USAF felt they didn't have to hide the Sentinel anymore.
Makes sense. (Score:4, Informative)
Makes sense. A stealthed recon aircraft should be small. Recon is mostly flying preprogrammed flight paths, so the pilot doesn't make many decisions. Hence a moderate-sized UAV.
The Air Force guys hate it, but UAVs are getting the job done. The Army is going for more automation; they use autoland on their Predators, and have far fewer crashes than the USAF stick jocks who land the things manually.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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 advant
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Just a nitpick, the role you describe (taking out a truck) is not close air support. I'm guessing you mean like the videos from the Gulf War where they showed a fighter firing a missile to take out a truck in a convoy. Generally those were hits on high value targets, and as you state, unmanned vehicles are perfect for that role. For general convo
Stealth aircraft vs. the Taliban?? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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...
Hmmm...someone needs to update the AI in FreeCiv. The bots routinely refuse to upgrade caravels even when they have much higher tech.
Re: (Score:2)
They should be commended for their green initiative!
The US is not so much worried about Pakistan (Score:5, Interesting)
The current conflict is a lot more dangerous then a lot of people in the west presume. They see a couple of towelheads shooting an AK-47 in the air or guarding someone with an RPG (really, what are you going to do Einstein, shoot your prisoner with an explosive grenade from 2 meters away?) and think "what danger could they be". Not much. Except in very large numbers to a country where the ordinary soldier is not all that motivated in the first place. And that is what Pakistan faces and the price is a nuclear arsenal that very few people in the world would tolerate even the risk of the Taliban getting their hands on it.
This ain't a message against the goverment of Pakistan, it is preperation for what goverment there might be in control tomorrow.
Re: (Score:2)
But on the other hand, deploy enough unmanned vehicles (make them cute like wall-e so as to not scare the l
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt that the "Put a guy on a hill and have him look up line of defense" would work. This thing is 1/3 the size of a 747. Those are painted white most of the time, with shiny aluminum parts. This thing is small, non-reflective and dark colored. Unlike the Soviet helicopters, it can operate far higher up, and won't be trying to land or engage ground targets with lead. The predator UAV, a decade and change in development less mature, operates above 20,000 feet.
we're going to look just as bad as the Russians
That, at least, I can agree with. I wonder wh
Photo (Score:5, Funny)
Here's a picture [wikimedia.org] of five of them in action.
Sonic booms out west... (Score:2)
http://farshores.org/n06boom6.htm [farshores.org]
or more recent ones:
http://boingboing.net/2009/03/06/mystery-sonic-boom-i.html [boingboing.net]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sonic booms out west... (Score:5, Interesting)
Simple rule for supersonic aircraft maximum speeds is to think of a right triangle, one point at the nose, one at the wingtip and the right angle on the center line near the back (in line with the nose and the wingtip).
The aircrafts maximum speed (in Mach) is the ratio of fuselage length to wing length (minus a little bit).
The wing tip has to be behind the shock wave generated by the nose.
This plane is not even fast subsonic by the looks of things.
This doesn't work for the space shuttle as it's very nose high when at maximum speed but holds for anything up to an X-15 or SR-71.
BWB (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A number of Criticism came out on the BWB as a passenger hauling aircraft:
Re:Is it really that necessary? (Score:5, Funny)
Looks like U.S. military is already at least 1, if not 2 generations ahead of its allies. Besides, its enemies still have WWII-level technologies.
Does it really need to spend so much billions on finding -yet- more advanced stealth technology?
Are you volunteering to fly missions?
Yes, the military complex creates jobs, but there are jobs in OTHER SECTORS as well, which imho are more beneficial to the overall well being of human civilization.
There is nothing as beneficial to mankind as Pax Americana.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the point is that our military is overkill compared with just about any military force on the planet. Anything beyond what we need to adequately defend ourselves is excessive.
Not with the degree of interventionism we've seen over the last decade it isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the point is that our military is overkill compared with just about any military force on the planet.
And while there are valid questions about the cost of our forces... an issue I raise a lot... that's just the way we like it.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that you won't know what is needed to adequately defend yourselves until somebody attacks you.
We can get into the morality and ethics of extending military power into countries that don't necessarily want you there if you like, but it's beside the point. We can quote platitudes like "the best defense is a good
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There is nothing as beneficial to mankind as Pax Americana
Do you really believe that or are you being um, ironic or sarcastic or something?
I need to know because I'll mark you friend or for accordingly.
Personally, I find the prospect of a world ruled from America horrifying.
I want to be able to see breasts on television sometimes.
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, Funny)
I'd like to see some pictures of gorilla warfare. Are these mechanized or trained Gorillas?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Is it really that necessary? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is it really that necessary? (Score:5, Informative)
Who had an Air Force?
Korea=yes, for the duration
Viet Nam= yes, for the duration
Cold War = yes, the USSR and USA often flew matching flights.
Iraq I = yes (for about 20 minutes)
Al Qaeda = yes (4 planes for about 90 minutes)
Iraq II = yes (for about 3 minutes)
For the Future:
Iran=yes (F-14s, thank you Jimmy Carter), MiG 29
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Serbia - Yea for a couple of the nights, the MiG-29s they had did alright in light of the odds they faced.
Bosnia, we knocked down some of their planes while their SAMs took out one of our F-16s.
Re:Is it really that necessary? (Score:4, Interesting)
About Iran's birds :
F-14s take a ton of maintenance and spare parts to keep them flying. I think it's somewhere on the order of 50 man hours in maintenance for every hour in the air, and those 50 man hours are generally fixing or replacing hardware. Given that Iran hasn't got a constant feed of spare parts to keep the Tomcat's in the air, I am going to bet they scavenged some planes to keep others flying, recursively, until none were still air-worthy.
The MiG 29s? They can probably buy spare parts for those, no problems.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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: (Score:2, Funny)
A very good reason to fly Tupolev.
Scud anyone? (Score:2)
The Iraqi scuds were a serious threat at least in 1991.
One did hit a barracks in saudi arabia and kill 28 american troops. The ground war in 1991 was delayed
a week so that the US could hunt down the scud bases.
Re:Is it really that necessary? (Score:4, Interesting)
>American soldiers haven't had to fear death from the skies for 50 years because of America's complete superiority in the air
Except from "blue on blue" aka "friendly fire".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire [wikipedia.org]
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
But how does a Taliban guy look different than a regular Afghani?
Re:Is it really that necessary? (Score:4, Informative)
He's carrying a gun, mortar, and/or RPG. And he's in a group of several other guys like him. And he's moving toward a military checkpoint or installation. And he keeps ducking behind cover, thinking it will hide him.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Whereas UAV pilots cower in bunkers on another continent - so very brave.
Re:Is it really that necessary? (Score:4, Funny)
Whereas UAV pilots cower in bunkers on another continent - so very brave.
Thank you. Personally, I only go to battle wearing a bright red jacket and blue pants carrying a balloon above me for higher visibility. It's the only honorable thing to do.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If he runs, he's Taliban.
If he doesn't run, he's well disciplined Taliban.
Re: (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)
Victor
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: (Score:2)
"Looks like U.S. military is already at least 1, if not 2 generations ahead of its allies.
Besides, its enemies still have WWII-level technologies."
Really? The latest Russian SAMS and fighters seem to be well in advance of The ME-262 and FLAK 88.
Maybe you don't know it but Drones tend to be pretty cheap for what they do so they are super expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
The most important task of the US military today is to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of someone who would use one. Scoff if you will, but Iraq probably would've had them if not for a few well placed bombs back in 1981. North Korea and Pakistan already have them, Iran will soon. I doubt any of the leaders of those governments are crazy enough to actually use one, but there's always the chance of one being "stolen".
A system like this, which can go anywhere in the world and hit a target with perfect pr
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, especially considering how much cold hard cash the Taliban are throwing at advanced weapons research.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm pretty sure that the F-35 is overpriced, but it is not a boondoggle. Our next fight will at some point involve an adversary who has the ability to knock out our satellite links to UAVs. At that point, you need planes with a pilot inside - and that will have to be advanced fighters of the F-35/F-22 type. We don't want to have to develop a brand new fighter at the beginning of a classical war.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't follow defense technology at all and I do question the value of a number of the programs. But from what I've seen so far, the RQ-170 makes a lot of sense.
The best battle is the one you never have to fight because your enemy realizes he cannot possibly win by any method of scoring. Systems like the RQ-170 are major components of this best practices strategy.
This also suggests the primary reason for beginning to publicize the RQ-170 at this time, and for its deployment in Afghanistan. The USA is s
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Also remember that these days it takes about 20 years to go from idea to deployed combat ready aircraft. If we cancel the F-35 now we get to start over and hope our enemies don't surprise us in the next 20 years. Not a risk I want to take.
And what advanced aircraft program of the last 20 years *didn't* go over time and budget? Why wouldn't the next one become an overpriced boondoggle also? It seems to be the nature of the beast and if we canceled every program that became such we wouldn't have any aircraft
Re: (Score:2)
The pursuit of scientific endeavors is the only future for mankind. Universal healthcare and public transit are good economic investments in infrastructure, but they contribute very little to the betterment of humanity in the manner that scientific advancement through military research has.
It is painfully short-sighted to invest too heavily in social services before investing in technologies that could someday make those services obsolete.
Re: (Score:2)
so, essentially what youre saying is, "why invest in healthcare when you can make a bomb that will kill everyone so that there is no need for heatlhcare ever?" sounds like a plan!
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. If you like straw men.
Or you could realize that military research into communications (where do you think this newfangled internet came from?), materials, and medicine (especially trauma treatment) has benefited the general public quite a bit in the last fifty years.
Re:Is it really that necessary? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's also worth pointing out that many of the medical advancements we would take for granted today came from military research/endeavours... :) Not all of the money being poured into the military is being spent on building bigger and better guns.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1) Looks like U.S. military is already at least 1, if not 2 generations ahead of its allies.
Besides, its enemies still have WWII-level technologies.
2) Does it really need to spend so much billions on finding -yet- more advanced stealth technology?
Isn't the U.S. already technology superior to everyone anyway?
#1 is the effect. #2 is the cause. #3 (below) is the reason.
Just because they are allies today doesn't mean they always will be.
Also remember that a F117 was shot down in Bosnia. Yeah, we have a ways to go in stealth tech.
Re: (Score:2)
"Isn't the U.S. already technology superior to everyone anyway?"
I'm sure that's what the enemies of the U.S. want everybody to believe. Oh..that's right, the U.S. does not HAVE any enemies anymore, just "misunderstood" countries that Dubya and Darth Cheney made in to Evil straw men...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The purpose of the economy is to produce what is needed not to guarantee the buggy whip manufacturer a job.
Re: (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: (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 th
Re: (Score:2)
what part of "Invisible Stealth Plane" dont you get?
here try this:
http://images.google.com/images?client=opera&rls=en&q=wonder+woman+plane&sourceid=opera&oe=utf-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=abQaS92xKo7clAeKucHyCQ&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQsAQwAA [google.com]
Here you go (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (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.