Slashdot Mirror


US Air Force Confirms New Stealth Aircraft

DesScorp writes "Aviation Week reports that the USAF has confirmed the existence of a new, formerly secret stealth aircraft, designated RQ-170 Sentinel, developed at Lockheed's legendary Skunk Works. Rumors of a secret new jet have been flying since 2007, with longtime aviation journalist Bill Sweetman dubbing the possible aircraft 'The Beast of Kandahar' because of the urban legend-like reports from Afghanistan. The aircraft is a UAV, a pilot-less drone that appears to have some kind of reconnaissance-only mission for the time being. It's a tailless flying wing that resembles a fighter-sized B-2 bomber."

8 of 287 comments (clear)

  1. top secret by sentientbeing · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Theyre just telling us its a secret new invisible jet because they dont want to tell us what theyre really working on

    --

    ------
    beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
    1. Re:top secret by mrsquid0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The fact that this aircraft has been publicly acknowledged suggests that they have something far more advanced that they are not telling us about at the Skunk Works.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    2. Re:top secret by Goffee71 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Afghanistan is near to Iran, Pakistan and China, far more useful testing grounds.

      --
      If he's the Walrus then can I be a penguin please?
  2. Re:Is it really that necessary? by rhsanborn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    American soldiers haven't had to fear death from the skies for 50 years because of America's complete superiority in the air. Similarly, America's ability to maintain that superiority into the future depends on continued funding and development of new technologies. It's foolish to stop development because we're good enough now. Halting the development of these technologies creates an environment in which no one has worked on advanced fighter aircraft for 30 years because "we were good enough back then" and we can't get back up to speed.

    The other problem is deciding when the time is that we need to start development back up again? Is it when we think possible enemies catch up? Is it when we are devastated by previously unknown technology from somewhere?

    I know we are fighting different kinds of wars now (counter-insurgency, gorilla warfare, etc), but I think it's unreasonable to pretend that we'll never need to worry about fighting large scale wars because we aren't fighting them now. The truth is, the threat of wars from foreign lands is not non-existent, and given that, the US military machine should work to be as prepared as possible for that eventuality.

  3. Re:Is it really that necessary? by maeka · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No armor has ever saved as many lives as good, fresh, intel on enemy positions and movements.

  4. Re:Is it really that necessary? by DesScorp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I follow defense technology closely, and while I'm a critic of many new defense programs... I think the F-35 is becoming an overpriced boondoggle, for instance... I'm a firm believer that the US has to maintain a level of technology superior to its adversaries. You never want to go into an even fight. You want to be better in every way to the guy opposing you on the battlefield. That requires constant research. If you sit still, others pass you up.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  5. Re:Stealth aircraft vs. the Taliban?? by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One comment on tfa raised an obvious question: Why deploy an advanced and experimental stealth aircraft in Kandahar against an enemy that doesn't have radar (nor any capability to threaten aircraft)?

    For the same reason we use Aegis destroyers against pirates off of Somalia - we use what we have. We don't keep any 18th century sloops around in case we need to go against fishing boats, nor any biplane drones for use in Afghanistan.
     

    The next question, about why this story was leaked

    This isn't a leak - it's an official USAF confirmation.

  6. Re:Is it really that necessary? by furball · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Some people serve their country, not their morality. They step up to service because their country needs their service, not because their morality agreed with the current course of action. It's a fairly simple statement of "I'm willing to set aside my beliefs to do what my country believes is the better course of action for it." These people form the basis of the career military service. They don't volunteer for a war. They volunteer for whatever their country requires of them. They'll be there before the war starts and they'll be there after it's done. Only fools volunteers for a war, but it is a patriot who signs up for service.

    Morality is simply a justification for war. It allows those who believe in morality to support war without their conscience gnawing at them. It lets them ignore the wounded, the dead, and the human suffering that will follow. It does not avoid any of that.