wmartin@STL-06SIMA.ARMY.MIL (Will Martin) (02/26/91)
From: Will Martin <wmartin@STL-06SIMA.ARMY.MIL> Haven't seen any mailed sci.mil Digests since 64a; hope things are still up and running! >From: larmo@pro-odyssey.cts.com (System Administrator) >A quote from the February 91 issue of Airman magazine: >"In terms of accuracy and payload, a single F-15E (Strike Eagle) can >accomplish what it took 100 B-17s to do in World War II." Does this comparison rely on the F-15 carrying nuclear weapons? If so, of course it is true. Or does it mean that the inherent limitations of the B-17's WWII technology meant that it took a 100-plane bombing raid to get a high probability of destroying a single target in the middle of the strike zone, and that the F-15 can hit that isolated target with one or two bombs to get that same high probability of destruction? But, in that latter case, the collateral effects of a 100-plane mass raid with a wide area of random hits are certainly different from the collateral effect of the single-plane precision attack. It would all depend on what effect is desired by the attacker. Whether what is desired is the right way to win the war then becomes a different question. We now have the luxury of using the technology of pinpoint attacks to avoid the kind of civilian casualties that were unavoidable in WWII bombing raids. But are we expecting to achieve the same sort of effect in the enemy country that was achieved in WWII *with* massive civilian casualties, while not inflicting them? Is that realistic? Or are we deluding ourselves? ************ >From: "VIRGO::GUNTER"@FENNEL.CC.UWA.OZ.AU (Gunter Ahrendt) >The Stealth Fighter cannot drop nuclear weapons, as a fighter it does have the >capacity to drop bombs (2,000lb'ers), whereas the Stealth Bomber, as a bomber >carries solely nuclear weapons, either MK83 Nuclear bombs or SRAM 2's, i >believe 8 on a rotary launcher. It is geared for nuclear war, whereas the >Stealth fighter is not. I'm somewhat taken aback by the statement that the F-117 *cannot* drop nukes. After all, there is a nuke tactical munition in a backpack, and in relatively small artillery shells. Surely there is *some* nuclear bomb that will physically fit in an F-117 and will interface with or be adaptable to the bomb-arming and -release mechanisms. Or is the poster referring to the capability of the F-117 dropping a nuke and surviving the getaway? Again, given the near-infinite possibilities of bomb yield, altitude and attitude at release, etc., an F-117 could let off a nuke and get far enough away before detonation. Now, whether it is a *good idea* to use the F-117 as a nuke platform is a completely different question. As the in the previous long discussion of how an F-117 would be a lousy Wild Weasel platform, the unique characteristics of the F-117 make it better for some missions than others. It may be a waste to use an F-117 to deliver a nuke, or it may be the proper method in certain circumstances. (I'm sure some will view it as never "proper" to drop a nuke in any case... :-) ************ Speaking of the Wild Weasels, I hope the list members saw the CBS (I think) segment on the F-4 Wild Weasels and the CO of the unit in the Persian Gulf; they are the oldest combat aircraft in the theatre. That CO flies the exact same F-4 he flew decades ago in VietNam! It was a most affectionate look at these craft. Their upcoming replacement was mentioned, but there was a distinct aura of regret at seeing them go. Interesting when one considers the F-4 comments seen so long on this list, regarding how "they are proof that, if you put big enough engines on it, even a brick will fly." :-) I ran across an article in an Armed Forces Journal late last year which discussed German and NATO pressure supporting the idea of usiing the Tornado as the next successor Wild Weasel platform. Maybe, with all the positive exposure Tornadoes are now getting, this movement will gather more momentum. ************ Regards, Will wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil