|
Because pilots and marines can't masturbate furiously to planes painted anything but gunmetal grey or SR-71-Wannabe Black.
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 14:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 10:08 |
|
Outrail posted:Why are they wasting money with this fancy 'stealth' coating that doesn't work when a camo paint job costs like fifty bucks? I mean it just has to look like sky/blue on the bottom and asphalt/grey on the top instead of trees and poo poo so it should be even cheaper. Camo paint doesn't dampen lidar/radar signals?
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
Malachite_Dragon posted:Because pilots and marines can't masturbate furiously to planes painted anything but gunmetal grey or SR-71-Wannabe Black. Lies, my brother was a marine aviator and he gets all hot and bothered for the Flying Tigers paint scheme
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
Outrail posted:Why are they wasting money with this fancy 'stealth' coating that doesn't work when a camo paint job costs like fifty bucks? I mean it just has to look like sky/blue on the bottom and asphalt/grey on the top instead of trees and poo poo so it should be even cheaper. Are you lost?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
if we didn't develop stealth coatings how else could we give supercancer to some random enlisted dudes
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Do they make stealth anti-air missiles so the plane's systems can't tell it's been fired upon?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
Roylicious posted:Camo paint doesn't dampen lidar/radar signals? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Do they make stealth anti-air missiles so the plane's systems can't tell it's been fired upon? I have zero doubt that this is in the works. Most air to air missiles have been very difficult to see on radar anyway, but that's changing with the latest radar hardware.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
I mean, missiles should cost more, right? Why the gently caress not, we're obviously made of money. Are cruise missiles stealth yet? I think they're currently only like a hundred thousand dollars each (assuming conventional warhead) so that's obviously way too cheap.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I mean, missiles should cost more, right? Why the gently caress not, we're obviously made of money. They'd look incredibly baddass when the stealth paint catches fire as they slam through the air like a guided meteor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I mean, missiles should cost more, right? Why the gently caress not, we're obviously made of money. I can assure you a TLAM is not that cheap. That said, it's still a hell of a lot cheaper than putting a refueling plane and a couple of F-18's in the air.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I have zero doubt that this is in the works. Most air to air missiles have been very difficult to see on radar anyway, but that's changing with the latest radar hardware. They were tossing around LiDAR as a possible system for Anti-Missile systems for aircraft a while back. Wonder if that gained any ground.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I mean, missiles should cost more, right? Why the gently caress not, we're obviously made of money. There was the AGM-129 (which I think is gone now?), and before that there was Senior Prom, which was basically Have Blue turned into a missile; http://www.astronautix.com/s/seniorprom.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Outrail posted:They'd look incredibly baddass when the stealth paint catches fire as they slam through the air like a guided meteor. gently caress yeah, turning into a fireball and exploding is a feature not a bug in missiles. Just retrofit the whole f-35 program into piloted missiles
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Fauxtool posted:Just retrofit the whole f-35 program into piloted missiles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistel  
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:They were tossing around LiDAR as a possible system for Anti-Missile systems for aircraft a while back. Wonder if that gained any ground. Maybe they can spin it off as a laser midair bug zapper.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I mean, missiles should cost more, right? Why the gently caress not, we're obviously made of money. If you're asking if such a thing as stealthy cruise missiles exist, the answer is yes. If the question is whether the US has them, the answer is no, because every time the issue comes up people don't want to spend the money on it. We're still using variants of the Tomahawk, originally designed in the '70s.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Godholio posted:If you're asking if such a thing as stealthy cruise missiles exist, the answer is yes. If the question is whether the US has them, the answer is no, because every time the issue comes up people don't want to spend the money on it. We're still using variants of the Tomahawk, originally designed in the '70s. There were the AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missiles that were withdrawn from service and destroyed a few years back due to the SORT treaty. They were chosen because they were considered too expensive and unreliable by nuclear weapon delivery standards. I imagine that at least part of the reason is also that having any nuclear stealth cruise missiles around makes it much more dangerous to deploy conventional stealth cruise missiles because it's not clear which is which to the country being shot at until they explode. That joint European stealth cruise missile doesn't have that problem for example.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
1337JiveTurkey posted:There were the AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missiles that were withdrawn from service and destroyed a few years back due to the SORT treaty. They were chosen because they were considered too expensive and unreliable by nuclear weapon delivery standards. I imagine that at least part of the reason is also that having any nuclear stealth cruise missiles around makes it much more dangerous to deploy conventional stealth cruise missiles because it's not clear which is which to the country being shot at until they explode. That joint European stealth cruise missile doesn't have that problem for example. I thought the JASSM was considered low observable?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
TCD posted:I thought the JASSM was considered low observable? That one has been in development so long I honestly thought that it eventually got cancelled in favor of the JSOW. Procurement development times are just getting way out of hand these days.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
Godholio posted:If you're asking if such a thing as stealthy cruise missiles exist, the answer is yes. If the question is whether the US has them, the answer is no, because every time the issue comes up people don't want to spend the money on it. We're still using variants of the Tomahawk, originally designed in the '70s. Is there a reason to think that the Tomahawk is obsolete against any possible adversary?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Is there a reason to think that the Tomahawk is obsolete against any possible adversary? Well, it can be shot down. And should we really wait until something (ie a cornerstone of our entire national military doctrine) is completely obsolete before replacing it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Stealth cruise missiles incentivize first strikes. My hunch is that their development was greenlit with the hope that down the road they could be traded in treaty for someone else's destabilizing thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
1337JiveTurkey posted:That one has been in development so long I honestly thought that it eventually got cancelled in favor of the JSOW. Procurement development times are just getting way out of hand these days. Well they are making the ER model and the LRASM out of it. I think the base model is being exported.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
OMGVBFLOL posted:Stealth cruise missiles incentivize first strikes. My hunch is that their development was greenlit with the hope that down the road they could be traded in treaty for someone else's destabilizing thing. Not every cruise missile is nuclear. But yes, they have been widely used as first strike weapons in our major conflicts since the 80s.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Not every cruise missile is nuclear. But yes, they have been widely used as first strike weapons in our major conflicts since the 80s. oh i thought every cruise missile was nuclear
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 09:27
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Well, it can be shot down. And should we really wait until something (ie a cornerstone of our entire national military doctrine) is completely obsolete before replacing it? Well that depends if we'll be building an F35-alike to replace it 
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 09:56
|
|
|
A missile that can launch from three different platforms but has advanced stealth coating that sometimes spontaneously combusts and makes it smell like wet farts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 09:59
|
|
|
Philip Rivers posted:A missile that can launch from three different platforms but has advanced stealth coating that sometimes spontaneously combusts and makes it smell like wet farts. But enough about your posting
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
Booblord Zagats posted:But enough about your posting An oldie but a classic
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
its curtains for Kevin posted:An oldie but a classic I never seem to get a chance to use it anymore, I don't even know that dude but I just kinda saw the opportunity and heard the theme from Rocky in my head
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
It's overused to death, but the timing was excellent.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
OMGVBFLOL posted:oh i thought every cruise missile was nuclear Conventional cruise missiles are very useful for wrecking enemy defenses before you send in the manned aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Conventional cruise missiles are very useful for wrecking enemy defenses before you send in the manned aircraft. wow thanks i didnt know that
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Conventional cruise missiles are very useful for wrecking enemy defenses before you send in the manned aircraft. By convention every f-35 is a cruise missile I just dunno if the end of the runway counts as an enemy defense
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
ethanol posted:By convention every f-35 is a cruise missile I just dunno if the end of the runway counts as an enemy defense It is if there are lockmart contractors at the end of it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
OMGVBFLOL posted:wow thanks i didnt know that It helps to minimize friendly casualties.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
Someone might correct me, but if you listen to the broadcast of the "Shock and Awe" bombing of Baghdad, every time you hear what sounds like a jet passing overhead it's actually a Tomahawk, as that's what most of these explosions are. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R30cbnkMG3s
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
let's be honest if Lockmart contractors aren't spending those millions of dollars making a way to paint shark teeth in stealth paint then they should have their heads' examined
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 10:08 |
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:let's be honest if Lockmart contractors aren't spending those millions of dollars making a way to paint shark teeth in stealth paint then they should have their heads' examined Yeah, like no one's going to be suspicious of the giant roaring shark tearing through the sky. Paint it up like a small tornado and noone will think twice. Am I the only one with a functioning brain around here?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:27
|
|