prentice%triton.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (John Prentice) (04/06/91)
From: prentice%triton.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (John Prentice) Much is being made of the effectiveness of the Stealth fighters, based as far as I can tell mostly on the fact that we didn't lose any and that they accomplished their missions. But the same thing was true of every other type of aircraft in the war. I would therefore question whether this war has provided us with any really valid measure of the effectiveness of this technology, given that Iraqi air defenses proved so ineffectual against everything. I would comment that there is no denying that while the Stealth fighters flew a small percentage of the sorties, they accounted for a disproportionate amount of the destruction. However, I would suggest that these statistics alone don't tell you anything. It may simply be because they were the first in and they had the best weapons. The point is that I don't see a clear argument, given the anemic Iraqi defenses, for suggesting that the Stealth fighters performed a mission that ordinary aircraft were incapable of. That is not to say Stealth didn't work, just that this wasn't much of a test and therefore can't be used as a persuasive demonstration of the effectiveness of the technology. Are there other measures that can be applied to argue that the Stealth aircraft were better than non-Stealth aircraft in this conflict? I haven't been following the various Stealth discussions, so I apologize if this is hashing old ground. In that case, just ignore it. -- John K. Prentice john@unmfys.unm.edu (Internet) Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA Computational Physics Group, Amparo Corporation, Albuquerque, NM, USA
wb9omc@ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) (04/10/91)
From: wb9omc@ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) prentice%triton.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (John Prentice) writes: >Much is being made of the effectiveness of the Stealth fighters, >based as far as I can tell mostly on the fact that we didn't lose any >and that they accomplished their missions. But the same thing was >true of every other type of aircraft in the war. I would therefore I might take some exception to that statement in the sense that as far as the other aircraft go, we DID lose some. [a lot about why our weapons were better and were in first AND how poor the Iraqi air defenses were deleted at the request of moderator] I might say that in light of your comment that our weapons were better, perhaps then the Stealth fighter-bomber helped achieve an important goal - air superiority. It is admittedly hard to compare the F117a to the F15(any variant), if for no other reason than they are not designed the same, are not to be used for quite the same mission. (and in fact, comparisons to other aircraft as well....) The stated mission of the F117a is to strike strategically significant targets while evading enemy radar, and to do so at night. Since this mission was accomplished, according to the USAF, one could assume that the aircraft as a system does work. Now, as far as the question "could the F15 Strike Eagle (as an example) have done the same thing?" goes, I'd bet that an F15 looks pretty much like a nice big tasty target to enemy radars. That includes missile lock ons from enemy aircraft - which in this case proved to be pretty much a non-problem. The F15 has as its defense - speed. Speed that the F117a does NOT have. However, it is much more difficult to launch precision guided munitions at Mach 1.8 or whatever the F15 can run at than it is from a subsonic platform, especially at ground targets. A more interesting comparison might be to the A10 Thunderbolt II. Also a subsonic platform. Decidedly NOT stealth. :-) What is the difference? Mission, for one thing. The A10 is a tank killer first and an armored emplacement killer second. It's entire design was to allow it to get hit and keep going - at the very LEAST, to return the pilot if not to continue fighting. I dare say that the F117a can not take the abuse that an A10 can, if you plan to keep it in the air. The A10 can use laser/TV guided missiles (Pave Penney system????) and so probably can do some of the things the F117a can do. I DON'T recall the FLIR and DLIR ever being installed on an A10 - which means for the A10 to do its work at night might well be about impossible. To sum up, we have aircraft that can cover what the F117a does, but not stealthily and probably not as well at night. Why night? What could be more demoralizing, surprising and frightening than bombs falling that you can't see from an aircraft that you can't see or target? Duane
prentice%triton.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (John Prentice) (04/11/91)
From: prentice%triton.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (John Prentice) In article <1991Apr11.033856.5300@amd.com> wb9omc@ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) writes: >I might take some exception to that statement in the sense >that as far as the other aircraft go, we DID lose some. I phrased my question incorrectly and I am sorry for the confusion. I am well aware that there were losses of other aircraft. What I meant to convey was that the loses were very, very low, certainly not what one expects in a war (these loses were more on par with a training exercise). >I might say that in light of your comment that our weapons >were better, perhaps then the Stealth fighter-bomber helped achieve >an important goal - air superiority. But this is precisely the point. Perhaps. I am not trying to criticize the Stealth fighter or the technology. But there continue to be many scientists both in and outside the defense establishment that question how effective Stealth really is. My question is really very simple. One would have hoped that the use of this technology in a war would settle the question for good. However, the statistics from this war would appear to not tell us anything, simply because the losses of Stealth versus non-Stealth are statistically insignificant. All I am asking is whether anyone knows of other measures that can be used to quantify how well Stealth worked in this war. > The stated mission of the F117a is to strike strategically >significant targets while evading enemy radar, and to do so at night. >Since this mission was accomplished, according to the USAF, one could >assume that the aircraft as a system does work. > [deletions...] > To sum up, we have aircraft that can cover what the F117a does, >but not stealthily and probably not as well at night. Why night? >What could be more demoralizing, surprising and frightening than >bombs falling that you can't see from an aircraft that you can't see or >target? None of this addresses the question however. I am not arguing with the mission of the F117, I am asking for some decent data that supports the fact that it can accomplish this mission. Nobody can really question that fact that this was a bit of a non-war. The Iraqi air defenses either ran away or proved ineffective. The Iraqi ground troops were easily routed. Total allied loses in this conflict were about the same as when that battleship gun turret blew up a few years ago in a training exercise. This is not a criticism in any way of our performance there, far from it. But it does cast in doubt many lessons one would hope to draw from this war and use to determine how well things would go against a more sophisticated or determined enemy. So my question is not meant to be rhetorical or provocative. It is meant to get past all the hype and attempts to dress up our systems which inevitably occurs in the wake of an easy victory and ask a question which is rather important in preparing for the next war. If in fact Stealth technology worked well and paved the way for our air victory, then all I am asking for is a discussion of what evidence there is to say that this was the only technology that could have done this job. Just saying that it accomplished its mission isn't enough in this case since Stealth does not clearly stand out from the crowd in survivability. It is possible that Stealth also showed up on the Iraqi radar (it has been suggested that it is less valuable against less sophisticated radar. There are some basic physical principals for example that say it shouldn't work that well against longer wavelength radar. None of those sleek shapes and abrupt corners matter much against long wavelength radar.) and there were other reasons that the Iraqi's were unable to knock these aircraft out. I would hope and at least suspect that there are reasons to discount this argument and all I am asking is to hear them if in fact this is something anyone on the Net is in a position to know about. John -- John K. Prentice john@unmfys.unm.edu (Internet) Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA Computational Physics Group, Amparo Corporation, Albuquerque, NM, USA
swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) (04/12/91)
From: swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) > All I am asking is whether anyone knows of other measures that can > be used to quantify how well Stealth worked in this war .... I am > asking for some decent data that supports the fact that it can accomplish > this mission. Military speaking, you need to deliver the "knock-out punch" to start the war, using the element of surprise. Japan achieved the element of surprise in their Pearl Harbor attack, resulting in maximum damage to our bases and ships with minimum loss to its attacking planes. The Steath fighters did exactly the same thing. They slipped inside the Iraqi defense undetected and delivered the knock-out punch to their military communication center which seriously impaired Iraq's ability to defend itself. This was the Steath fighter's most valuable contribution in the Gulf War. > The Iraqi air defenses either ran away or proved ineffective. The Iraqi air defenses didn't run away. Because of the loss of Iraq's military communication center, everything was in chaos for the Iraqi defenders. Hence, the Iraqi defense was ineffective. > The Iraqi ground troops were easily routed. For the same reason. Because Iraq lost the military communication center, Iraq never utilized its ground troops effectively. > If in fact Stealth technology worked well and paved the way for our > air victory, then all I am asking for is a discussion of what evidence > there is to say that this was the only technology that could have done > this job. Knocking out Iraq's military communication center was probably the most critical thing that the allied forces had to do. Other types of planes (non-steath planes) might have done the job, but the cost certainly would have been much higher (in number of planes lost) and it would have taken longer to do it (in number of attempted attacks), involving more attack planes just for one target. The Steath fighter's knocking out the military communication center using the "smart" bomb "guaranteed" the collapse of the entire Iraqi defense. If another type of plane was used for this attack, the Iraqi air defenders would have been alerted, and the attack possibly would fail. > ... Stealth does not clearly stand out from the crowd in survivability. Most likely true. > It is possible that Stealth also showed up on the Iraqi radar ... Who knows? If so, then why didn't Iraq react? Beside, Iraq was in a dilemma. Leaving the radars on will subject the Iraqi radar stations to anti-radar missile attacks. Leaving the radar off will leave the Iraqi defenders blind. Consequently, the Iraqi defenders risked switching their radars on whenever they suspected that enemy planes were coming in and leaving them off other times (which was most of the time). Really, a hopeless situation for the Iraqi air defenders. The loss of the communication center didn't help (the communication center might have gotten info from other units that enemy planes were on their way to Baghdad, for example). > ... and there were other reasons that the Iraqi's were unable to knock > these aircraft out. What other reasons? With the radars turned off most of the time, it was a piece of cake for the Steath fighters operating in nights. [Remember everyone, sci.military's charter is *technical*, lets not drift into general discussions; those should go to alt.desert-storm. This article is pushing it. --CDR]
brian@uunet.UU.NET (brian douglass) (04/12/91)
From: edat!brian@uunet.UU.NET (brian douglass) A couple of facts on F-117a performance. When the bombing started on Baghdad, the F-117s were already over the target at the designated hour. Iragi air defenses around Baghdad were on full tilt (Good French & Soviet radar), and they saw nothing. Baghdad still had its lights on after the first wave was leaving. You don't need to be fast (F-15), or survivable (A-10) when you can't be heard, seen, or detected. As a FIRST STRIKE delivery system, stealth technology is a knockout punch. Surprise is the best tactic to win in war and stealth gives the airplane surprise once more. (On the question of First Strike, obviously the Iraqiis knew we were coming as Congress had authorized force. This was not a sneak attack like their invasion of Kuwait. Also, the U.S. still reserves the right for first use of nuclear weapons and F-117s can deliver such munitions through any air-defense.) In the later stages of the air campaign, when targets were being chosen very selectively in Baghdad, it was decided that only the F-117 would be allowed back over Baghdad. Accuracy was the reason. Too many targets were too closely located to civilian centers and pinpoint accuracy was needed. In the famous Bunker Bombing that so many civilians were killed, two bombs were dropped in a staggered release. The first cut through the roof and detonated on the top floor. The second bomb went through the hole created by the first and then went down into the lower reaches of the bunker and detonated, wiping out the military staff. Interesting isn't it how so quickly afterwards Saddam tried to worm out a peace arrangement. Bottom line, the F-117 fulfilled every role it was designed for, did so with flying colors, and brought its crews home. No other weapon in the Coalition inventory could have performed the role the F-117 could. Of course, I wouldn't expect the Nighthawk to take out tanks, or provide CAS. There are better, cheaper systems that are optimized for such roles. Afterall, it is a team affair and everybody has their job to do. -- Brian Douglass brian@edat.uucp
euming@mrcnext.uiuc.edu (Lee Eu-Ming) (04/13/91)
From: euming@mrcnext.uiuc.edu (Lee Eu-Ming) prentice%triton.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (John Prentice) writes: >If in fact Stealth technology worked well and paved the way for our >air victory, then all I am asking for is a discussion of what evidence >there is to say that this was the only technology that could have done >this job. I think you are discussing two different things. I'm quite sure that the Allies could have won the war without the F117; there would have been more losses and the war would have lasted longer. However, the F117 outperforms other aircraft in terms of first strike capabilities because it is stealthy. Since the goal of US forces is to accomplish what the president commands as quickly as possible, the F117 is needed as it helps the US to accomplish its goals quicker. Now, here is the real stickler as I see it. 'Quick' is not the only thing considered when choosing a method of attack. 'Loss of life', 'International effects', and yes even 'Cost' often come into play when choosing what our force structure will be. I personally think the US should build more high tech weapons--I never met a weapons system I didn't like. (Kinda hawkish, eh? :) ) Unfortunately, I am not a member of our government, and, like everyone else, can only voice my opinions on what should be considered when developing a new weapon. Now, to top it all off, think of who DOES make decisions about the validity of weapons developments. That's right, the senate armed forces comittee, and they're cleared for all of that sensitive information that is withheld from the public. Since they base their judgements on the best data available, and they decided to deploy the F117, I have to conclude that there are good reasons for deploying it. I know this is somewhat of an idealistic view of the government, but I wasn't paying much attention to politics during some of the large DoD scams after WW2/Vietnam, and I remain very optimistic of them.
greg@sif.claremont.edu (Tigger) (04/13/91)
From: Tigger <greg@sif.claremont.edu> In article <1991Apr12.055301.14403@amd.com>, prentice%triton.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (John Prentice) writes: > It is possible that Stealth also showed up on the Iraqi > radar (it has been suggested that it is less valuable against less > sophisticated radar. There are some basic physical principals for example > that say it shouldn't work that well against longer wavelength radar. > None of those sleek shapes and abrupt corners matter much against long > wavelength radar.) and there were other reasons that the Iraqi's were > unable to knock these aircraft out. It is my understanding (though I am far from being an expert) that long wavelength radar (such as weather radar) is indeed capable of detecting a stealth aircraft. However, long wavelength radar is not capable of pinpointing an aircraft (stealth or otherwise) well enough to guide a weapon (such as a SAM) to the target. Knowing that an F-117A is somewhere in a region the size of a respectable cloud just doesn't seem useful unless you're shooting nukes, especially when the target is moving at near-supersonic speed... -- Greg Orman greg@pomona.claremont.edu
stevenp@decwrl.pa.dec.com (Steven Philipson) (04/17/91)
From: stevenp@decwrl.pa.dec.com (Steven Philipson) prentice%triton.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (John Prentice) writes; > [...] However, the statistics from this war would > appear to not tell us anything, simply because the losses of Stealth > versus non-Stealth are statistically insignificant. The loss rates of all aircraft were low, but I haven't seen any official statement that the *difference* in loss rates between were statistically insignificant. A large number of sorties and flight hours were recorded. Reported losses as I've seen them seem to indicate that the rates *are* significantly different. Could you please tell us why you conclude that they are not? -- Steve stevenp@decwrl.dec.com
prentice%triton.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (John Prentice) (04/18/91)
From: prentice%triton.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (John Prentice) stevenp@decwrl.pa.dec.com (Steven Philipson) writes: > The loss rates of all aircraft were low, but I haven't seen any >official statement that the *difference* in loss rates between were >statistically insignificant. A large number of sorties and flight >hours were recorded. Reported losses as I've seen them seem to indicate >that the rates *are* significantly different. Could you please tell us >why you conclude that they are not? Look at the standard deviation for the number of combat sorties flown. In simple terms, if N were flown, a one sigma deviation is the square root of N. There were far fewer planes lost that this, so the loss rate for Stealth was within a one sigma deviation of the loss rate for everything else. You should be careful to take out mechanical failures in this analysis also, though it won't change the results any. -- John K. Prentice john@unmfys.unm.edu (Internet) Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA Computational Physics Group, Amparo Corporation, Albuquerque, NM, USA
eachus@aries.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) (04/18/91)
From: eachus@aries.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) stevenp@decwrl.pa.dec.com (Steven Philipson) writes: >prentice%triton.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (John Prentice) writes; >> [...] However, the statistics from this war would >> appear to not tell us anything, simply because the losses of Stealth >> versus non-Stealth are statistically insignificant. > >The loss rates of all aircraft were low, but I haven't seen any >official statement that the *difference* in loss rates between were >statistically insignificant. A large number of sorties and flight >hours were recorded. Reported losses as I've seen them seem to indicate >that the rates *are* significantly different. Could you please tell us >why you conclude that they are not?... There are some significant differences in loss rates, and actually the most important significant difference (the loss rate for Tornado GCR aircraft) was apparently due to a tactical problem. When the tactics were changed the losses changed. All that said, the loss rate (and effectiveness) of the F-117A were very significant, and made the air war look easy. If you have a plane you can send on missions where ANY OTHER aircraft will have an unacceptably high loss rate, and they all come home, that tells you a lot. (I had nothing to do with the air war planning, but I've played a lot of war games--err strategic simulations?--with some of those that did...) Some of the targets that the F117A hit in the opening salvos of the air war, were the type of strategic target where if intell tells you: "Expect to lose 40% of the attacking aircraft, and you have about a 10% chance of mission success per sortie...", you figure out whether to allocate one squadron or two. I would guess that "opening night" there were on the order of twenty strategic targets where getting them all would make everything else a (relative) cakewalk. Some were allocated to F117As, some to Tomahawks, and the rest is history. A similar thing applies to the ground war. It has been widely reported that there were no M1A1s lost. True, (actually, I think a couple were banged up bad enough to require depot maintenance, but anyway...) but this doesn't mean that the M1A1s weren't hit. I'd be surprised if there was a single M1A1 that saw action and didn't have some scratches. (And don't say, yeah but most of it was from rifles and machine guns. As a former TC, I can tell you just how much of me was usually sticking out of a tank. The fact that my crew would probably do a very good job on any sniper that hit me would be VERY cold cumfort.) It's just that the crews were trained well enough, and the weapons were accurate enough and capable enough to do the job beyond the effective range of the Iraqi weapons. (And the Iraqis were dumb enough to light those oil fires.) Tell a TC who has say five tanks kills at an average range of two miles, and dents from T-72 sabot rounds in his front slope, that he had it easy. He probably won't take your head off and put it back on the right way round, but I assure you that he and his crew know just how "easy" the war was. -- Robert I. Eachus
phil@brahms.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) (04/19/91)
From: phil@brahms.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) eachus@aries.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes: >Some were allocated to F117As, some to Tomahawks, and the rest is history. My impression from launching Tomahawks at Russian ships in the IBM-PC game Harpoon is that they are relatively easy to shoot down. An Iowa class battleship carries about 32 of them and that's not enough to take care of more than one or two Russian ships, at least in the game. Anyone know how many Tomahawks got through in the Gulf War? -- The best way to preserve your RKBA is to vote Libertarian.
stevenp@decwrl.pa.dec.com (Steven Philipson) (05/09/91)
From: stevenp@decwrl.pa.dec.com (Steven Philipson) wb9omc@ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) writes; > I DON'T recall > the FLIR and DLIR ever being installed on an A10 - which means for the > A10 to do its work at night might well be about impossible. The A-10 did operate at night in the Gulf. The April 22 issue of Aviation Week reports that A-10's used imaging infrared Maverick missiles and thus were able to indentify and destroy tanks at night. (page 46). There have been proposals to install FLIR systems on A-10's, but they have not reached production. An installed FLIR would likely make the A-10 more effective at night as the proposed systems are more sensitive, have a wider field of view, and have higher resolution than the Maverick seekers. Steve stevenp@decwrl.dec.com