Does "stealth" mean anything in close visual range? Can you do close air support from afar? I don't think you can.

I was responding to "MANPADS", etc. Such a device will need detectors of some kind, e.g., heat, radar, and the usual approaches to stealth should help.

For close air support, maybe the US wants to use fast, stealth aircraft firing missiles to spots specified with laser designators, GPS, etc.

As I recall, at times the USAF claimed that to kill tanks an F-16 with a missile was better than the A-10: Sure, the gun on the A-10 is amazing, but the A-10 flies low and slow and should be vulnerable to, say, MANPADS. The F-16 flies higher and faster, fires a missile, and then is out'a there.

Maybe the USAF wants the F-35 to be better, still: Use stealth.

Sure, maybe soon the USAF will want its missiles to kill tanks, etc. fired from drones, maybe even stealth drones.

Not aware of any MANPADS that can use radar. AFAIK they all use heat seekers. Not much you can do other than deploy flares. Stealth doesn't help you in close visible range.

>For close air support, maybe the US wants to use fast, stealth aircraft firing missiles to spots specified with laser designators, GPS, etc.

Yeah, the Air Force always says that, and the ground troops always demand A-10's Apaches, etc.

>As I recall, at times the USAF claimed that to kill tanks an F-16 with a missile was better than the A-10: Sure, the gun on the A-10 is amazing, but the A-10 flies low and slow and should be vulnerable to, say, MANPADS. The F-16 flies higher and faster, fires a missile, and then is out'a there.

The Air Force always claims that they have a good reason to get rid of the A-10.

The fart-gun while awesome, isn't the real reason troops love it so much. The ability to loiter on station for a long time and keep enemy forces down in defensive mode is. Neither fast-movers, nor helicopters can loiter as long.

>Maybe the USAF wants the F-35 to be better, still: Use stealth.

Stealth isn't a panacea, it's a buff against the enemy's radar. And, yeah, drones/unmanned are the future.

I mentioned both radar and heat. If MANPADS are heat seekers, okay.

Some versions of stealh try to lower their heat signatures, e.g., hide the jet engine output from the ground by an extension of the part of the plane below the engine and mixing the jet exhaust with cool air. For the F-117, can get a little view of its engine output at

http://aviation-design.fr/images/jets/rc-jet-model-f-117/lar...

Looks like they tried to hide the exhaust heat.

Close in CAS means close in proximity to friendly troops. Before smart munitions this required the aircraft to also be in close proximity to hit the enemy force without hitting friendlies. Now an orbiting bomber or drone can deliver a targeted strike while flying high in the sky miles away.

I love the old warthog, but in the days of drones, I can't see much of a use anymore.

I think we'll have the Warthog until after the ground troops are confident with the drones / remotely piloted craft. That opinion is less to do with my own ideas about the potential of drones to do CAS well, and more to do with my assessment of what military decision makers will tolerate in terms of change.