TANGO 1 said:
You know what, i keep saying the same thing. We are not doing any major dog fights anynore for christ sake, why waste money on all this stuff. There is still a man on the ground that has to go and clean-up after you guys have blown the sh!t out of everything and that is where they need to start putting focus. Presently there is no country that has air superiority like the U.S and they all know it. Why do you want a "stealth fighter". If it is going to every come in contact with potential threat then it is no longer stealth because the enemy discovered its prescence. The whole purpose of stealth technology is so that you go unoticed, so why would you build an aircraft intended for dogfight and then make it stealth. What is it going to be dogfighting? - (the atmosphere) at least it has to dogfight something.
"But you know why they will not do otherwise, because it makes sense". That is why people like us are not running the show.
Being a plane captain of a strike fighter I thought you may know why...
Most air to air victories (in the past) were won by the guy who got sight of (either visually or electronically) and was able to pounce on their target, rather than have to dog fight them.
If they cannot pick it up using some means that enables a weapons system to be targeted, then they cannot fire on it. IE more survivable. Same goes with the strike missions. They are going to know it was there, simply by the fact that it is going to make something go boom, and make some noise as it passes over, but again if they cannot find it, they can't shoot it.
Seeing as how we are not making strickly fighter aircraft so much these days, it makes sense to make an aircraft that has the means to defend itsefl enrounte to a target that is stealth. Other nation's continue to enhance their technology (maybe not on the level of ours, but they are getting better), the only way one can maintain superiority is to plan for the next generation, not the current one.