Can a Hardened Nuclear Missile Silo Be Disable With A conventional weapons strike?

*laughs in actual knowledge*

That says absolutely nothing, you know that. Right?

The F-117 was ultimately one of the most useless aircraft ever made. It literally had the capacity to carry two bombs. That's it, two bombs and nothing else. So quite literally, just about any aircraft made after the start of WWI could do "everything an F-117 could do".

 

Then it's a good thing you are not one of our military planners.

 

Then let me say them again.

Visual for one. They are not invisible.

And secondly, RADAR. Once again, Stealth does not mean invisible!

Yes, they actually do show up to RADAR systems. However, what they do is scatter the reflection, making it come in and out, and making it almost impossible to lock weapons onto. Not impossible, all it takes is a powerful enough RADAR system, and you could get enough of a return.

Or simply scramble every fighter available. As I said, Stealth does nothing against the Mark I Eyeball. Even without missiles, fighters do still have cannons. All the stealth in the world will not prevent you from getting shot down by a 30mm round.

 

Two man rules. Failsafes. There are a great many reasons why it will never happen. Including that one thing long speculated upon is that in the event of being shot down pilots have been instructed to arm their bomb so that when they impact it goes up.

You can really tell those who actually served from those who only know of things from movies. They have almost no grasp on the reality of such things.

 

This is not what Stealth is like.

 

I don't see why that can't be made to work with unmanned bombers.

I suppose one reason why they might not want to have nukes fly unmanned is that they could fear the possibility that, although unlikely, maybe someone could electronically gain control over an unmanned bomber and use our nukes against a target that the US does not wish to attack.

 

Good luck optically detecting a black bomber flying at 50,000 feet against the backdrop of a night sky.

It's unlikely that any radar will be powerful enough to see a stealth bomber from a great distance.

If a radar is powerful enough to detect a stealth bomber at short range then the bomber will simply dispatch some cruise missiles to take out the radar.

Good luck catching sight of a black bomber flying at 50,000 feet against the backdrop of a night sky.

A directional antenna that is aimed upwards (from an already great height) is not likely to take any notice of radio signals coming from the ground no matter how high those signals reach.

The Biden Administration plans to make 145 of them. Future Republican administrations are likely to want to expand on that.

They will be the backbone of the bomber leg of our nuclear triad.

In particular we are making a new stealth cruise missile to replace the ALCM, and equipping it with the same W80 warheads we used on the ALCMs. These new bombers will be able to carry these new nuclear cruise missiles.

If flying them unmanned becomes problematical then they will fly them manned.

You are overlooking the F-117's most significant feature: stealth.

I'm sure our military planners agree with me that destroying Chinese nukes will be top priority in any bombing campaign against China.

Good luck optically detecting a black bomber flying at 50,000 feet against the backdrop of a night sky.

It's unlikely that any radar will be powerful enough to see a stealth bomber from a great distance.

If a radar is powerful enough to detect a stealth bomber at short range then the bomber will simply dispatch some cruise missiles to take out the radar.

Good luck catching sight of a black bomber flying at 50,000 feet against the backdrop of a night sky.

I see no reason why that can't be made to work with unmanned aircraft.

But if necessary, just fly them manned.

It sounds like flying unmanned would be an advantage in that case.

 

So much juvenile word pablum...

 

Facts are facts. I can't help it if people don't like them.

 

Not all thing posted on the internet is a fact. That's a fact.

 

True. But everything that I said in my post is a fact.

 

Only in your head...

 

Nope. In reality. That's why you are incapable of pointing out anything untrue in my post.

 

Using the exact same phrase in your argument repeatedly is poor debating practice.

And the U.S. long planned to build 132 B-2 stealthy bombers. What makes you think the B-3 program won't be cut back dramatically as well?

 

Progressives always try to cripple the US military by eliminating vital defense programs. They also oppose efforts to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of terrorists and evil dictators.

The solution is to always be vigilant and to defeat progressivism at every turn. When progressives have been voted out of office they are then unable to disarm our military.

If progressives try to eliminate these new bombers or the new nuclear cruise missiles (actually they are already trying with the cruise missiles), they will need to be opposed and defeated.

If we don't defeat progressives at the ballot box, their evil dictator buddies will defeat us on the battlefield.

 

All true. But none of that is going to ensure that the U.S. builds 145 B-3 bombers.

 

The only threat to the program is that progressive politicians will cancel it.

Voting progressives out of office prevents them from canceling weapons programs.

 

I will just start here.

You are aware that aircraft flying are hotter than the background air, right? And that by night vision (both amplification and IR) such stand out like a spotlight is on them, right? The background because of refracted light looks like a light green, while any object in it will show up black. Especially one that is designed to absorb any light. Like say a black aircraft.

And one of the oldest ways to detect aircraft is actually by sound. The Soviets had set up all over their country back in the 1950's thousands of unmanned audio detectors to try and find any aircraft entering their airspace. And added even more in the 1980's, when the US started deploying The B-1 as a low level penetration bomber as well as when the B-2 was still just a rumor and not yet confirmed.

No, the problem is that over and over you ignore anything you do not like or does not agree with you, and try to spin it in your favor.

And to show exactly how ignorant you are, I just have to quote the following.

OK, now just to even start to agree with you that a bomber on a penetration mission to drop nukes on an enemy would actually have cruise missiles for attacking other land targets on board (which is stupid in the extreme), then you have the issue of actually launching one.

From a stealth aircraft. Where the moment it opens its bay doors to launch such a weapon, all stealth it had instantly vanishes and it put a huge spotlight on itself.

You know, when we had out only combat loss of an F-117 in combat, that is exactly how they were able to get it. They put out a target on purpose that they knew could not be ignored, and sat back and waited. And the moment the aircraft flew over and opened it's bay, they let fly at it with every missile they had.

I am constantly amazed at how you know almost nothing about stealth, and how air defense systems operate. That somehow being a "black plane" makes it invisible.



That is what a "black airplane" looks like through light amplification at night. So tracking such an aircraft is literally child's play. In fact, software already exists to detect something occluding the background at night. Because so much is detected visually, you simply have an optical scope hooked up to a computer, and have it give a notice any time something flies in front of a set number of background light sources (like stars). Say 4 or more separate stars are occluded in a set space of time, then an alarm goes off saying that there is something there.

And once again, stealth does not mean invisible. You seem to think for some reason it is, but it is anything but. We have been able to track our own stealth aircraft for decades, and we know the Iraqis and Soviets-Russians did as well. Even forces of the fractured Yugoslavia were tracking them, and managed to shoot one down over 22 years ago. Yet you somehow think they are untouchable for some reason.

 

Stealth bombers are designed to reduce their infrared signature.

Stealth bombers are designed to reduce their acoustic signature.

Not that I expect that much sound will reach the ground from 50,000 feet.

I am not ignoring anything. I am addressing every point. If I missed one of your points it was by accident.

The fact that I am informed about the fact that the Air Force plans to launch cruise missiles from stealth bombers makes me the opposite of ignorant.

Hardly stupid. Cruise missiles allow bombers to pick off targets that are so well defended that they cannot be approached even by stealth.

Not all stealth is lost. They design them for reduced radar signature even when the bomb bay doors are open.

That's not what happened. F-117s and F-35s don't have much stealth from the side. And our guys were lazy and flew the same route over and over. Serbia merely positioned a mobile SAM where it could catch F-117s from the side as they flew their daily route.

I seem to know enough to correct your untrue statements about the matter, although I am sure there are some things on the subject that I am unaware of.

Try tracking that plane when it is going 600 mph at 50,000 feet.

No one has managed to track our stealth bombers.

Stealth fighters can be tracked in theory. But they are not particularly vulnerable as a matter of practical reality.

 

No, they are not. That is impossible.

They are designed to reduce their RADAR profile. And also to reduce the heat from their exhaust via ducting. But they can not eliminate heat, and nothing was or could be done about the heat buildup on the surface, that is simply impossible.

And even so, :reduce" does not mean "eliminate".

Once again, reduce does not mean eliminate. And have you ever heard a B-2? I have, they are not exactly quiet. Somewhere around the sound of a Boeing 737, as opposed to say a B-1 which can wake the dead.

There you go again. Reduce does not mean eliminate! And yes, it is almost gone because there is nothing "stealthy" when those are open.

Bullshit, because I have done it.

Here, a little FYI. For many years my job in the Army was PATRIOT missile defense systems. We have tracked F-117, F-22, and B-2 bombers with our systems. We even saw "unusual objects" we could not identify over White Sands, which we were told to just file a report on and forget we ever saw anything.

But do not confuse "track" with "getting enough of a RADAR return to engage". We saw them on our scopes, we tracked them, but could not fire because there was not enough of a return to get a positive lock (something required before firing). We knew there was a stealth aircraft out there, but could not do much about it. But that is also the PATRIOT system, which is impossible to override. But a great many Soviet era systems could fire at a non-lockable target. Even a ghost of a target could be fired on with their systems. And fire enough missiles, you will eventually get a hit.

This is the problem, I am actually talking from personal first-hand knowledge, because that was actually my job for many years. You know nothing, and just keep making it up as you go along.

And our stealth aircraft are very vulnerable, especially against more primitive technologies. Such as what I had mentioned about acoustic or visual tracking. Because all the stealth in the world does not make an aircraft silent, or invisible. And I know we are working on such systems, because I have talked to some of the big brain guys at White Sands that were working on it for Raytheon. Do you really think the Russians and Chinese are not doing the same thing?

Look, you should just stop trying to bullshit everybody. Because you are doing a laughable job at it.

http://www.indiandefencereview.com/...hnology-the-race-to-see-through-invisibility/

Trust me, this is something we have talked about in my field for years. I bet you can not even name the various air defense systems and missiles we use, or how any of them work. You know almost nothing, and just make it up as you go along.

 

Dude, why are you wasting your freaking time?

He doesn't even know how radar works.

I was gonna suggest that maybe you could explain the Co-efficent of Friction to him, but I think it would be a lost cause.

Man, you ain't kidding. I think it was '85-'86 or so the Air Force was running some kind of annual exercise and B-1s were flying in and out of Ramstein AB and Hahn AB. I was living in Schoenenberg-Kubleberg and they woke me up in the middle of the night.

Yes, they can. I was with a news crew from Channel 4 in Serbia and Kosovo-Metohija during the bombing. We found some Serbs on an SA-2 firing section not too far from a mech battalion dug into a hillside. I talked with the sub-lieutenant. He said they could see them but wasn't aware of any units that had actually fired on them.

A few years later, a kid in the class I was teaching had been in Kuwait with a Patriot battalion and said something about the Russians using multiple radars to track stealth aircraft. I don't know if he meant a phased radar array or multiple radars linked together. A typical SAM battalion would either have either 3 Long Track radars and 6 Pat Hand radars, or 6 Straight Flush radars, but I was never really clear on how they actually used them. I think a lot of it depended on the terrain and who was calling the shots at the FDC.

No doubt. Camera technology would be one way. If you could mount an optical camera on warhead and then figure out how to control the missile in-flight, you could direct it right to the target.

 

There's no need for pinpoint accuracy. The missile as just to be close enough that it's charge and shrapnel can damage the plane. Any damage will insure the next missile will lock on.

 

Sure I do.

But you have no idea how nuclear weapons work:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...any-times-over.529147/page-27#post-1073092702

 

Reducing a signature to the point where the aircraft can not be attacked, protects that aircraft from attack.

Firing barrages of unguided missiles is not likely to pose much of a threat to stealth bombers.

Funny how you are the one who keeps making untrue statements.

No they aren't.

And again, any site that does pose a threat to a stealth bomber will merely result in the bomber picking it off from afar with cruise missiles.

Again, you are the one who keeps making untrue statements.

VHF radars have a good chance of detecting stealth fighters. That doesn't give them any ability to detect stealth bombers.

VHF radars cannot pinpoint stealth fighters with enough accuracy to target them. That may change in the future, but the US will likely be the first to develop this ability.

VHF radars are very easy to jam or spoof. Any attempt to track our planes using such radar will likely result in chasing after fake signals generated by our electronic warfare people.

You'd be wrong about that too, although there are limits to my knowledge of their workings because I haven't bothered to learn much about them.

Yet you are the one who is making the untrue statements.

 

That's the understatement of the year. About a thimbleful actually.

I love how I could carefully deconstruct each of your arguments and say exactly why they will not work, and you just wave it all away, saying you are right.

Even when you were proved to be wrong, you insist you are right.

But that's OK, I am done. To the same place with you as I sent RuPaul.