- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: How do air fuel tankers not signal where a stealth plane is?
Posted on 6/21/25 at 7:58 pm to dstone12
Posted on 6/21/25 at 7:58 pm to dstone12
quote:
Respectfully id like to ask you this: Chinese and Russian capability to track a KC 135 over pacific isn’t impossible. And I am certain that the range of a b2 is 6k. It’s 5k to moscow and 7k to Beijing. A b2 has to refuel twice to Beijing. China has better tracking than Iran. And who knows what their offense is for planes over the Arctic circle or pacific. Just wondering if refuelers can give a general idea of where stealths are over two or three fill ups.
You severely overestimate the ability of radar.
1
Posted on 6/21/25 at 8:00 pm to dstone12
quote:
How do you make the Stealth refuel without being g detected near the tankers
The US’s secret Syrian airfield is how.
Posted on 6/21/25 at 8:05 pm to Bigbens42
quote:
dogfighting is an antiquated tactic
Where have we heard this before?
Oh yes. The British Defense White Paper of the late 50's that influenced our decision to abandon built-in guns, good climb and turn radius, and dogfighting skills.
Principles of combat do not change. Ever.
Posted on 6/21/25 at 8:13 pm to DesScorp
quote:
Where have we heard this before? Oh yes. The British Defense White Paper of the late 50's that influenced our decision to abandon built-in guns, good climb and turn radius, and dogfighting skills. Principles of combat do not change. Ever.
Everything is about situational awareness and see and be seen now. Dogfighting is not how battles are won. Everything is BVR now.
This post was edited on 6/21/25 at 8:15 pm
Posted on 6/21/25 at 8:18 pm to Bigbens42
Posted on 6/21/25 at 8:20 pm to OU Guy
Turning off your transponder only makes you unidentifiable to civilian air authority. If an Iranian S400 picked them up they’d be an obvious target.
They’ll never be within range of the AA batteries though.
They’ll never be within range of the AA batteries though.
Posted on 6/21/25 at 8:26 pm to dstone12
Amazed Erdogan didn't inform Tehran. They couldn't have done anything about it anyway. Technology is off the charts
Posted on 6/21/25 at 8:39 pm to DesScorp
quote:
The British Defense White Paper of the late 50's
Still laughing at this a bit.
Holy shite your evidence is a paper from before the idea of “FOX2” was a thing.
Posted on 6/22/25 at 1:46 am to Bigbens42
quote:
Holy shite your evidence is a paper from before the idea of “FOX2” was a thing.
The Navy was developing Sparrow missiles in 1948. One of the prime reasons for adopting a BVR- centric approach in 1958 (when the Sparrow went into frontline service) was because of White Paper thinking… that future wars would be completely push-button BVR affairs with no need for air combat skills. The initial follow-up to the F-4 was supposed to be a straight-wing, subsonic, BVR missile only bird called the F6D Missileer. Look it up.
Vietnam came along. Pilots found out differently the hard way. Oh look, MiG-17’s shooting down Mach 2 F-4’s and F-105’s.
Top Gun and Red Flag came about because we realized “Well shite, air to air fundamentals matter after all”. So when Lockheed says that dogfighting is obsolete, well, I’ve seen how that movie ends.
Posted on 6/22/25 at 5:51 am to DesScorp
quote:
The Chinese are also developing pulse-millimeter wave radar sets that are better at detecting shaped + RAM absorbent aircraft. They're also developing some passive measures designed to work hand in hand for long range detection. Bottom line, the "just fuel them 500 miles away" strategy is going to be obsolete soon.
But you also have Chinese military running that equipment, and well….we’ve seen how that works.
You also have tomahawk cruise missiles from subs to take some of that stuff out first.
But wars a bitch. We don’t want to mess with China and they don’t want to mess with us. It would be ugly
Posted on 6/22/25 at 6:02 am to DesScorp
Just curious...Do the Marines still issue bayonets?
Posted on 6/22/25 at 6:08 am to DesScorp
quote:
Oh yes. The British Defense White Paper of the late 50's that influenced our decision to abandon built-in guns, good climb and turn radius, and dogfighting skills.
Send Putin your resume and I bet you would get hired
*ETA: we just made an upgraded F15 for that ancient battle style, and we would use F22s if absolutely necessary. Only Russia is a dumb enough to think their 5th gen needs to be built for dog fighting.
This post was edited on 6/22/25 at 6:10 am
Posted on 6/22/25 at 6:14 am to OU Guy
They are also going to put more in the air than needed. If they need 8 they probably had 12-14 in the air so that any enemy doesn’t know exactly which ones are doing the refueling.
Posted on 6/22/25 at 6:16 am to dstone12
They don’t refuel over contested airspace. They stay in the air and refuel everything.
Posted on 6/22/25 at 7:16 am to DesScorp
Boelke is still relevant
Posted on 6/22/25 at 7:28 am to DesScorp
quote:
Vietnam came along. Pilots found out differently the hard way. Oh look, MiG-17’s shooting down Mach 2 F-4’s and F-105’s.
Top Gun and Red Flag came about because we realized “Well shite, air to air fundamentals matter after all”. So when Lockheed says that dogfighting is obsolete, well, I’ve seen how that movie ends.
Exactly
Will a!ways need dogfighting skills. Fighters can only hold so many missiles and once they are gone.you have to fight your way back to safety somehow
Posted on 6/22/25 at 7:36 am to lsufan1971
quote:
They are also going to put more in the air than needed. If they need 8 they probably had 12-14 in the air so that any enemy doesn’t know exactly which ones are doing the refueling.
My thought also. There have to be decoys in the sky. Flood the zone, as it were.
Posted on 6/22/25 at 9:25 am to SlowFlowPro
Shitty lawyer is also a defense expert. Who knew?
This post was edited on 6/22/25 at 9:26 am
Posted on 6/22/25 at 9:59 am to dstone12
Ok so in your hypothetical the enemy knows something bad is about to happen because they see some tankers.
What good does this do if the B-2s are still invisible? Actually adds a psychological element to the attack if you ask me.
What good does this do if the B-2s are still invisible? Actually adds a psychological element to the attack if you ask me.
Posted on 6/22/25 at 10:01 am to dstone12
The stealth aura covers the fuel tankers when they’re refueling.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News