Remember…
The activities of ZRX61 do not necessarily represent those of most Americans or the government of the United States. 🙂

To hell with the government, the pics represent me though……Bring on the firepower…. the more the merrier.

But obviously not so unreliable as not to be viable. I’d think that the navies of WW2 would tend to disagree that steam power wasn’t reliable.

Compared to what? WIND and SAILS? Or maybe coal fired…or even oars, hell I bet those oars on those old boats rarely broke.

Row row row your boat…

Err whats the purpose of the “Buy American” legislation 😉

Not to get off topic, but many of us on this side of the pond think that provision is the second most idiotic thing to come out of this “porkulus” (stimulus) package, the package itself being the most idiotic thing to come down the pike in a long time.

Not to worry ladies and gentlemen, this is just a trial run for a new experimental, supplemental cooling package for the engine.

Well, lets say an aircraft is considered VLO in front aspect,
but can have a hundred times larger RCS, or equal to a conventional aircraft from a slightly different aspect. Should it then be classified as VLO, LO, reduced, or conventional ?

It depends on who is defining the definition……

Lets be serious here. Not to wave a flag or anything, but the US holds, at least as far as most of us know, a steady lead on “stealthy” designs. Therefore, a major US manufacturer says a certain plane it is developing/building is of a certain “observability” and that is held as stone, for lack of a better term.

What other county will counter that claim with credible info? I have heard of none…yes, there are many that say we can detect “stealth” aircraft, but from what range, and what signal enhancing devices were on that plane to begin with?

The fact of the matter is, when dealing with low observable designs, we as laymen, can they to deduce a logical factor when it comes to observability…..
But only the ones in the know realize the truth, everything we may debate is quite frankly futile.

No to change the subject, but I remember my father saying that he read somewhere that for the Russians to “kill” an Iowa class BB it would have to use a nuclear weapon, or hopefully get a large amount of conventional weapons through the “screen” in order to destroy it.

He didnt just make this up, he read/heard it from somewhere, but as he said the main armor belt on the Iowa BBs was thick as a brick (Jethro tull fans) and all but a nuclear warhead would penetrate…..this hold any credence?

(Mission kill is a completely different thing mind you, I am talking about sinking)

I was just wondering as I read this thread, this whole CVN group is held hostage is BS if you ask me, short of un-convential weapons of course.

I recall Dozer being so excited about the F-22’s AESA radar and how it was far superior in performance and capabilities compared to the system he had flying in F-15Cs. By necessity he couldn’t get into specifics but he really was sold on AESA. I think the testimonial of someone with Dozer’s credentials should count for something.

Whats he know? He is just an overpaid Lockheed shrill :p

PS: I was only being sarcastic, but I’m sure more than a few people think along those lines somewhat.