But you corrected me by being wrong. They engaged 2 F117, one crashed and one was taken out of service. You said only one.

Only one was shot down. A second one may have been damaged, but reports are not clear on this and it certainly wasn’t shot down.

Ok. Give me a definition with an RCS-span that is acceptable. LO/RO usually implies an RCS <1m², something that the MQ1 lived up to in the simulation.

IN THE SIMULATION

What would you think if I told you I had found a simulation on the internet that proved that an ordinary family sedan could drive 350km/h ? The simulation is obviously wrong, end of story.

In actual practice I can tell you that Predators are not stealthy aircraft.

I suppose they aren’t the least stealthy aircraft on earth, but to describe one as LO or to claim that the fact that a few have been shot down over the years calls into question stealth is just silly.

Here is an interesting little footnote in history, the first ever attempt by an unmanned aircraft to engage in air to air combat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWUR3sgKUV8

See the attachement for a size comparison with the other targets.

Compared to a loaded F16 that is fairly small the RQ1 is a very very small target.

You know, it is ok to just admit you are wrong sometimes. It isn’t the end of the world.

The Predator likely provides a smaller return than a fully loaded F-16… but it is most certainly neither a “very very small” aircraft, nor a “very very small” target.

If the data I have is wrong then its a different story. But all i hear from you is insults. Its easy to critizise without bringing anything of your own to the table. Have fun with that.

Actually I feel I have been fairly generous given your persistence in this ridiculous line of argument.

What is it about the internet that makes it impossible for people to just accept facts and move on?

Nice trolling. 2 F117 got engaged, one crashed, one got damaged. + 2 Predators.

First off, correcting you is not trolling.

Second off, the F-117 shootdown was one mission enabled by flawed mission planning on the part of the USAF.

If the Serbs had actually found some way to effectively engage F-117s, or for that matter any other NATO aircraft, they would have gotten more than one.

It is hilarious how people try to spin Kosovo as anything other than a massive success for NATO air power.

If you can’t read whats in front of you thats your problem, not mine. I gave the source and I stated what information was in it. If accurate than the MQ1 can be called a LO platform. If not accurate then its just a small and slow target.

Oh I read what you wrote alright, but perhaps it is time that someone clued you in to the fact that not everything on the internet is true…

The Predator is absolutely not in any way a LO aircraft. In defended airspace they are in fact just slow targets.

As you see it has been shaped pretty well except for the propeller, and it is very very small.

If you look at that shape and see LO then you have no idea what you are looking for.

The prop alone rules out any possibility of LO, but if that weren’t enough…

Round sensor turret: bad.

90 degree angles where wings and stabilizers meet the body: bad.

Complete lack of RCS reducing coatings/RAM: bad.

Honestly, what about the Predator looks stealthy to you? At a minimum it would be amusing to hear…

and it is very very small.

Have you ever actually seen a Predator in person? They are light weight, but they certainly aren’t “very very small” aircraft.

With a 15m wingspan and 8.25m length they take up a similar amount of space as an F-16. (turned sideways)

Too bad the Serbs didn’t know the ole SA-3 wasn’t a threat,
in spite of not being double digit and all that.

:rolleyes:

After countless missions in defended airspace destroying numerous high value targets, one single plane gets shot down due primarily to flawed mission planning.

This naturally proves that stealth doesn’t work and/or that the SA-3 is an effective counter.

I wasn’t talking about that… of course an EW system flying in combat 20+ years ago is behind the current state of the art.

I was referring to his need to take yet another cheap shot at the Typhoon.

Obligatory got me thinking when he referred to the six missile dodging F-16 as it was a classic medium altitude SAM vs aircraft engagement. It’s also the very type of engagement many of us assume the F-35 will have to go through when dealing with the superb double didgit SAM systems that are out there.

What I don’t ever see discussed on various forums is how the F-35 could perhaps adapt to avoid the above type of engagement by employing the same sort of tactics more often employed, or perviously employed, by some of the classics such as the Rafale, Jaguar, GR-1, F-111 and F-15E. Low level penetration is of course what i’m referring to.

How would the F-35 be suited?
Are terrain following modes available?
Could EODAS help in such a role?
Are plans in place to use the F-35 in this role?
Will its (seemingly) excellent stealth properties give it a big advantage?

Anyone like to throw in their thoughts..?

(The Package Q vid is up on youtube btw and well worth a watch but I i’m not sure if it’s good forum etiquette or not to link to combat footage)

Yes, the F-35 will be capable of low level operation, but this generally isn’t the preferred approach.

The idea behind its stealth airframe is that it will allow the F-35 to operate at higher altitudes where MANPADs and AAA are less of an issue.

In the end this would work poorly here for the simple reason that most here aren’t really seeking an “answer.” They want to believe what they want to believe.

Just look how people react to the various interviews/statements made by pilots from around the world. They pick and choose who they believe, or which parts of which interview they choose to believe.

When an expert does step forward and try to field questions the whole thing tends to quickly degenerate as nationalistic kids armed with every fact google can supply argue with him until he gives up and leaves.

Fortunately I’m spared most of hopsalot‘s drivel but yes, ‘anti-American’ has always been a fairly absurd criticism. It’s an accusation usually leveled at someone who is making far too much sense, as in “hey guys, have you considered the merits of not invading Afghanistan?” In this case what we are discussing is retiring — as opposed to upgrading at significant expense — ageing platforms that’re entirely unnecessary to the national security of the United States, thereby freeing up funds to be used on programs that are important, or on health/education/etc. or even on paying down the national debt. And this is apparently ‘anti-American’.

No, what you are doing is your usual “whatever the US is doing must be wrong” BS.

If the US decided to shrink its defense budget to dump more money into the bottomless pit of social programs then you would complain about that. If they fund a next generation aircraft… well you have been complaining about that for years, etc etc.

The US USAF has mismanaged its fighter fleet, but those aircraft that are presently in the inventory are absolutely capable of performing their missions and are not “absolutely unnecessary to the national security of the US.”