18-07-2004 02:49									#1
	What good are stealth fighters? Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

What's the difference between them and Stealth bombers? Are they just cheaper less effective SB?

Also, I don't understand why SF have "attack" values when they can't perform air superiority missions. Anyone have any thoughts?

	18-07-2004 03:41									#2
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Ah, none.

	18-07-2004 04:18									#3
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

worthless .

I use jet fighters and stealth bombers.

	19-07-2004 02:40									#4
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

They are useful for recon.
Greater range then jets and won't get intercepted.
Good to scout for potential targets for your Stl. Bombers.

	19-07-2004 11:21									#5
	Get a bigger avatar today!

mod them to be able to perform air superiority.

they also have a higher defense than Stealth Bombers.

	19-07-2004 17:31									#6
	Full PM-box? Change here!

As player1 said, recon. Also, they're effective against AI units on radar towers and terrain improvements, freeing up your bombers and SBs to pound the hard targets, like MIs fortified in cities.

	22-07-2004 01:30									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Yes, they are completely useless (IMO) unless they have air superiority. I mean after all, they are supposed to be fighters.

	22-07-2004 04:41									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

yeah, they should at least change the name . It's too american anyways.

Our real life stealth fighters don't have the maneuverability to intercept enemies as far as I know. Not that we would want to. The aircraft is too expensive.

	22-07-2004 04:42									#9
	Increase the size of your Attachments

The Stealth Fighter is cheaper, yes. That's it.

	22-07-2004 04:51									#10
	Increase the size of your Attachments

in fact, I don't think they really have any place in the USAF now that I think of it. Just more goverment pork.

Get rid of that and the worthless B-1 bomber

	22-07-2004 05:18									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Dissident in fact, I don't think they really have any place in the USAF now that I think of it. Just more goverment pork. Get rid of that and the worthless B-1 bomber

Worthless? Hardly. The F-22 is set to deploy this year and the F-35 is set to begin operational deployment in the next year or two. Stealth Aircraft ARE the harbinger of the future, its sad that Firaxis has modeled them so poorly.

	22-07-2004 05:21									#12
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Mad Bomber Worthless? Hardly. The F-22 is set to deploy this year and the F-35 is set to begin operational deployment in the next year or two. Stealth Aircraft ARE the harbinger of the future, its sad that Firaxis has modeled them so poorly.

I was talking about the F-117

	22-07-2004 05:50									#13
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Dissident I was talking about the F-117

The F-117 was a good plane for its day, most people do not realize that the design of the F-117 is over 30 years old. It isn't obsolete, but it (and most of our other aircraft, like the F-15, ) likely will not be in service for much longer.

Firaxis should have modeled the Stealth Fighter after the F-22, not the F-117.

	22-07-2004 05:59									#14
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Actually that's a good idea - a Stealth Fighter that's actually a fighter.

Maybe that could be the American UU in cIV?

	22-07-2004 17:40									#15
	Support Apolyton

The F-117 flew only 2.5% of the missions in Desert Storm but accounted for something like 40% of the hits. In all, only 36 were deployed. It's big advantage is that it can fly in unescorted, whereas regular bombers and other strike aircraft need a whole flying circus of support planes. Overall the F-117 is simply a cheaper plane to fly.

But it is curious why the plane is designated a fighter when it was never intended to be used that way. It's not even supersonic.

	22-07-2004 20:55									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Well, "F" in the name is not only used for interceptors, but for tactical bomber too, as far as I know.

On the other hand "B" is used for strategic bombers only.

	22-07-2004 21:21									#17
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by gunkulator The F-117 flew only 2.5% of the missions in Desert Storm but accounted for something like 40% of the hits. In all, only 36 were deployed. It's big advantage is that it can fly in unescorted, whereas regular bombers and other strike aircraft need a whole flying circus of support planes. Overall the F-117 is simply a cheaper plane to fly. But it is curious why the plane is designated a fighter when it was never intended to be used that way. It's not even supersonic.

I take serious exception to that 40% of the hits!!

It simply does not have the bombload capacity. But one good thing it did during the war was delve deep into Iraqi territory and did account for most of the hits on the city of Bagdhad itself. So maybe that's where the 40% applies. but it doesn't apply to all of Iraq.

taken from FAS.org:

quote: Although only 36 stealth fighters were deployed in Desert Storm and accounted for 2.5 percent of the total force of 1,900 fighters and bombers, they flew more than a third of the bombing runs on the first day of the war. In all during Desert Storm, the stealth fighter conducted more than 1,250 sorties, dropped more than 2,000 tons of bombs, and flew more than 6,900 hours. More than 3,000 antiaircraft guns and 60 surface-to-air missile batteries protected the city, but despite this seemingly impenetrable shield, the Nighthawks owned the skies over the city and, for that matter, the country. The stealth fighter, which is coated with a secret, radar-absorbent material, operated over Iraq and Kuwait with impunity, and was unscathed by enemy guns.

	22-07-2004 22:35									#18
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Not all flights are bombing runs. They are numerous support aircraft that must fly to protect and refuel other strike aircraft.

Also, the F-117s were all equipped with smart bombs, while the B-52s were not. I'll confess I don't remember the exact % of hits or how the % is even calculated but I do remember it being greatly out of proportion to the % of missions flown.

Anyways the case for the Stealth Fighter is that it is cheaper and easier to operate than other low altitude bombers while being far more accurate than carpet bombing from high altitude B52s. It most certainly is not gov't pork. There's plenty of other places to find that.

	22-07-2004 23:00									#19
	Increase the size of your Attachments

B-52's use precision munitions too nowadays.

	23-07-2004 00:41									#20
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by player1 Well, "F" in the name is not only used for interceptors, but for tactical bomber too, as far as I know. On the other hand "B" is used for strategic bombers only.

The F-117 was not designated correctly, it should have been designated as an attack aircraft. It was probably an attempt at misdirection to keep the true capabilities of the aircraft hidden.

	23-07-2004 15:22									#21
	Suffering from ads?

back to the original question...

Stealth bombers bite the big one and should never be built unless you change their specs and make them improved jet fighters.

	24-07-2004 17:00									#22
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Mad Bomber The F-117 was not designated correctly, it should have been designated as an attack aircraft. It was probably an attempt at misdirection to keep the true capabilities of the aircraft hidden.

It was an attempt at misdirection, in the same way as the first photographs of the aircraft concealed its true shape. Usually an aircraft has F for fighter (F-15), A for attack (A-10), F/A for both (F/A-18 or as it is now the F/A-22).

Stealth is the way forward, the F/A-22 can "gaurentee" (on paper) shooting down any other aircraft in existance every time. It would certainly be a far better UU than the F-15 for America. The increased cost of stealth aircraft in reality is balanced off by the fact that they dont need huge support wings.

	25-07-2004 15:27									#23
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Well, there are already around various radar systems that can locate and lock on the F-117. It's far from certain that stealth tech will be able to keep ahead of detection tech.

Back to Civ, the Stealth Fighter basically sucks.

	27-07-2004 00:20									#24
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I love the stealth bombers myself. I actually mod them so they have a much farther range (I play on huge maps) have a very strong bombard rate, can conduct recon (its so cool to see an entire foreign country when youve got 40 or so of them) and make them very expensive. Oh, sometimes I allow them on aircraft carriers for the heck of it.