jln@elaine31.stanford.edu (Jared Nedzel) (01/22/91)
From: jln@elaine31.stanford.edu (Jared Nedzel) In article <1991Jan21.033250.29291@cbnews.att.com> ccc@anomaly.SBS.COM (Cole Calistra) writes: }From: ccc@anomaly.SBS.COM (Cole Calistra) }Hello, } After listening to many (many) news reports on Desert Storm, I thought }up a few questions that only the military gurus here could answer for me. } }1. I have not heard any mention of the B-1B, or the B-2 Stealth Bomber } being over in Saudi Arabia, or any of our staging areas. Are there } in fact any of them over there? If not, why not? Wouldn't the B-2 } be even BETTER suited than the F-117 for night bombing under the Stealth } radar avoidance? The B-2 is a *prototype*. I believe we have 2 that are currently flyable. They have not been completely tested. I believe that the electronic systems are not complete in number 1 or 2. I assume that the B-2 is more stealthy than the F-117. Whether or not that would make it more suitable for the missions in Iraq is questionable. The B-2, after all, was designed to carry nukes, not Mk-82s. The B-2 is in development and is in no way ready to go to war. Loss of one of the prototypes could set the program back a year or more. Trying to be polite, I'll say that sending a B-2 prototype would be a thoroughly BAD idea. } Wouldn't the B-1B be better for carpet bombing than } the B-52 since it's faster, or are they not in service yet? The B-52s seem to be doing just fine. I assume they're staying at high altitude (the Iraqi's have few long-range SAMs). At that altitude, I doubt there is a great difference in speed between the B-52s and the B-1B (both are subsonic). I'm not sure which has the larger bomb load (which is, I think, more important to this mission than speed). Another factor is our willingness (or reluctance) to risk our latest strategic weapons in a war that it appears we can win without too much trouble. In these circumstances, risking the compromise of such strategic systems would be irresponsible, IMHO. }2. Is the SR-71 still in service in Turkey as was reported in sci.military } (or should I say rumored) bacak in July and August? I think anyone who could answer this sort of question won't. }3. Can the F-14 be used as a bomber, if necessary? Either way, are there } any other armaments besides the Sidewinder, Pheonix, Sparrow missles, and } the cannon that would work or fit on the F-14? What is the F-14's main } role in Desert Storm since the engagement of Iraqi planes has been } limited at best? Is it just CAP and escort for the bombers that are there? Because 15 Iraqi planes have been destroyed in air combat so far (according to the pentagon) and because many Iraqi planes seem to be in tact, I believe that CAP and fleet defense are still needed. Grumman has been working on clearing the F-14a+ for dropping bombs, but the F-14a is not qualified to do so. }4. Are the Canadian CF-18's able to be dual role attack and fighter planes } like the US F/A-18's are? Yes. The Canadian govt. has said that the CF-18s are now being used for CAP into Iraq. Previously, they'd been used for fleet defense. } Cole Calistra UUCP: ...rayssd!anomaly!ccc -- Jared L. Nedzel --------------------------------------------------------------------- e-mail: nedzel@cive.stanford.edu jln@portia.stanford.edu
miked%syscon@nstar.rn.com (Mike DeMetz) (01/22/91)
From: miked%syscon@nstar.rn.com (Mike DeMetz) ccc@anomaly.SBS.COM (Cole Calistra) writes: >From: ccc@anomaly.SBS.COM (Cole Calistra) >Hello, >3. Can the F-14 be used as a bomber, if necessary? Either way, are there > any other armaments besides the Sidewinder, Pheonix, Sparrow missles, and > the cannon that would work or fit on the F-14? What is the F-14's main > role in Desert Storm since the engagement of Iraqi planes has been > limited at best? Is it just CAP and escort for the bombers that are there? The F-14 was designed for one purpose and that is CAP for the fleet.Probably not setup for worth the risk of ground attack. That is the role of the F-18 and A-6s.Some Nam navy pilots question the F-18 trying to do both escort and attack. >-- >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > Cole Calistra UUCP: ...rayssd!anomaly!ccc > Omni Development Systems INTERNET: ccc@anomaly.sbs.com > "We thought it was a neat idea at the time.", Lt. Col. Oliver North
madmax@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Max Abramowitz) (01/22/91)
From: madmax@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Max Abramowitz) In <1991Jan21.033250.29291@cbnews.att.com> ccc@anomaly.SBS.COM (Cole Calistra) writes: >1. I have not heard any mention of the B-1B, or the B-2 Stealth Bomber > being over in Saudi Arabia, or any of our staging areas. Are there > in fact any of them over there? If not, why not? Wouldn't the B-2 > be even BETTER suited than the F-117 for night bombing under the Stealth > radar avoidance? Wouldn't the B-1B be better for carpet bombing than > the B-52 since it's faster, or are they not in service yet? A quick answer is that both the the B-1B and the B-2 are strategic bombers. The US gov't is not using them in the gulf, because they serve as one leg of our nuclear triad. While the B-52 was at one time a strategic bomber, as B-52's have been replace by B-1's the Air Force has increasing focused on using the B-52 as a tactical bomber. The B-1B would be better for carpet bombing not because it is faster, but because it has a larger payload and thus can drop more bombs. max abramowitz madmax@gargoyle.uchicago.edu my opinions are my own.
john@uunet.UU.NET (John A. Weeks III) (01/23/91)
From: newave!john@uunet.UU.NET (John A. Weeks III) >From: ccc@anomaly.SBS.COM (Cole Calistra) > 1. I have not heard any mention of the B-1B, or the B-2 Stealth Bomber > being over in Saudi Arabia, or any of our staging areas. The USA does not have any B-2 bombers. We only have two experimental B-2 bombers. Any other stealth bombers would be classified (otherwise I would know about them 8-). The B-1 is better suited to US strategic defense, and the B-52 is perfect for the air offensive in Iraq. > If not, why not? Wouldn't the B-2 be even BETTER suited than the F-117 > for night bombing under the Stealth radar avoidance? Depends upon the mission. F-117 is for pinpoint bombing of high valued targets with 2 2,000 pound laser guided smart bombs. The proposed B-2 is for delivering the nuke in highly defended areas. Delivering large quantites of dumb bombs is a proposed alternate mission for the B-2. Determine what kind of mission you have, then use the correct plane. > Wouldn't the B-1B be better for carpet bombing than the B-52 since it's > faster, or are they not in service yet? B-1B has been operational for several years. Speed makes no difference in the mission of the B-52 or the B-1B, both planes are currently configured for high sub-sonic low-level penetration. Both planes can also fly high- level missions in lightly defended areas. B-1B does have a supersonic dash, but it severly limits your range and a sonic boom will alert your enemy of your location. B-52 is the right plane for the mission because our B-1s are needed for defense of the USA. > 2. Is the SR-71 still in service in Turkey as was reported in sci.military > (or should I say rumored) bacak in July and August? The SR-71 has been retired from USAF service. Any SR-71 or CIA A-12 usage would be classified and should not be discussed. If you were speculating, it would be safe to assume that they have recon planes, but given the Iraqie defenses against high flying planes, the SR-71 is not required. > 3. Can the F-14 be used as a bomber, if necessary? There are better planes for this roll. The F-15E would be ideal, and the A-6 and F/A-18 have respective bomb loads. The Tomcat has swing wings, thus it does not have any underwing hard points. Mounting bombs on the Tomcat could only be done at the risk of removing its missiles. You do not want to risk a Tomcat by removing its claws. > What is the F-14's main role in Desert Storm since the engagement of Iraqi > planes has been limited at best? Primary roll is fleet defense for the carriers, secondary roll is escort of atacking bombers in Iraq. Normally, all of the Tomcats would be busy with the carriers, so the Navy must be confident that Iraq does not pose much of an offensive threat to the flattops. > 4. Are the Canadian CF-18's able to be dual role attack and fighter planes > like the US F/A-18's are? When delivered, the CF-18s were almost identical to the F/A-18. They could serve either roll. -john- -- =============================================================================== John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications ...uunet!rosevax!tcnet!wd0gol!newave!john ===============================================================================
dvlssd@cs.umu.se (Stefan Skoglund) (01/23/91)
From: dvlssd@cs.umu.se (Stefan Skoglund) In article <1991Jan22.013317.17132@cbnews.att.com> jln@elaine31.stanford.edu (Jared Nedzel) writes: > >}From: ccc@anomaly.SBS.COM (Cole Calistra) >}Hello, ( A lot deleted ) >}3. Can the F-14 be used as a bomber, if necessary? Either way, are there >} any other armaments besides the Sidewinder, Pheonix, Sparrow missles, and >} the cannon that would work or fit on the F-14? What is the F-14's main >} role in Desert Storm since the engagement of Iraqi planes has been >} limited at best? Is it just CAP and escort for the bombers that are there? > >Because 15 Iraqi planes have been destroyed in air combat so far (according >to the pentagon) and because many Iraqi planes seem to be in tact, >I believe that CAP and fleet defense are still needed. Grumman has been >working on clearing the F-14a+ for dropping bombs, but the F-14a is >not qualified to do so. > >From the beginning the F-14 was supposed to replace the F-4 Phantom. Including the bombing role. If you look at the wing-sweep lever you will find a BOMB-mark. The storage stations for bombs was supposed to be under the wings and maybee the nacelles. But then the NAVY got the F-18 and the A-6E so they dropped the whole idea. Stefan Skoglund, dvlssd( copyright-A )cs.umu.se ps Don't tell me about bad english. If you want to flame then write in swedish. ds
gwh%soda.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) (01/24/91)
From: gwh%soda.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) In article <1991Jan21.033250.29291@cbnews.att.com> ccc@anomaly.SBS.COM (Cole Calistra) writes: >1. I have not heard any mention of the B-1B, or the B-2 Stealth Bomber > being over in Saudi Arabia, or any of our staging areas. Are there > in fact any of them over there? If not, why not? Wouldn't the B-2 > be even BETTER suited than the F-117 for night bombing under the Stealth > radar avoidance? Wouldn't the B-1B be better for carpet bombing than > the B-52 since it's faster, or are they not in service yet? There's not a whole lot of point to it; the Stealth bomber is designed to penetrate a high-lethality Integrated Air Defence System with minimal nuclear strike missions. It doesn't have a lot of payload, nor is Iraq that lethal an air defense environment (due mostly to Iron Hand and Wild Weasel strikes of unusual effectiveness). >2. Is the SR-71 still in service in Turkey as was reported in sci.military > (or should I say rumored) bacak in July and August? Maybe. Stay tuned for details when/if declassified...? >3. Can the F-14 be used as a bomber, if necessary? Either way, are there > any other armaments besides the Sidewinder, Pheonix, Sparrow missles, and > the cannon that would work or fit on the F-14? What is the F-14's main > role in Desert Storm since the engagement of Iraqi planes has been > limited at best? Is it just CAP and escort for the bombers that are there? The F-14 is not currently cleared with any air-to-ground weapons. It was tested with them once, but there were some problems and it was decided never to solve them (for both budget and mission reasons). F-14's have been flying some CAP roles, with not a whole lot of information available about details. >4. Are the Canadian CF-18's able to be dual role attack and fighter planes > like the US F/A-18's are? Yes. They're F-18A/B's, fully functional, with some minor detail changes in radio equipment and secondary equipment. == George William Herbert == * UNIX ate my last .sig, Waiting for Plan 9! * == JOAT for Hire: Anything, == ######### I do Naval Architecture, ########## ===+++ Anywhere, my price +++=== # Spacecraft Design, UNIX Systems Consulting # == gwh@soda.berkeley.edu == # RPG writing/development, and lots of other # == gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu == ## random stuff, of course. I'm a JOAT 8-) ##
arthur@Eng.Sun.COM (Arthur Leung) (01/24/91)
From: arthur@Eng.Sun.COM (Arthur Leung) dvlssd@cs.umu.se (Stefan Skoglund) writes: >>From the beginning the F-14 was supposed to replace the F-4 Phantom. >Including the bombing role. >If you look at the wing-sweep lever you will find a BOMB-mark. >The storage stations for bombs was supposed to be under the wings >and maybee the nacelles. > >But then the NAVY got the F-18 and the A-6E so they dropped the whole idea. reading in various issues of the Naval Institute Proceedings: part of the problems with the F-14A carrying air to mud ordanance was at weapons separation. ordinance was intended to be carried in the tunnel between the two engines (pancake) which provides lift for the airframe. when ordinance was released, bombs had a tendancy to hang there and occasionally strike the aircraft. this was considered unacceptable. part of the F-14A+ and F-14D qualification is with air to surface weapons. in addition to HARM (which comes off of the pylons under the non-swinging part of the wing), smart and dumb bombs are included. to solve the separation problem, the Navy intends to use a higher energy release system to push the ordinance off the tunnel racks. -- arthur
hychejw@infonode.ingr.com (Jeff W. Hyche) (01/24/91)
From: hychejw@infonode.ingr.com (Jeff W. Hyche) In article <1991Jan22.013657.17708@cbnews.att.com> miked%syscon@nstar.rn.com (Mike DeMetz) writes: > >>From: ccc@anomaly.SBS.COM (Cole Calistra) >>Hello, > >>3. Can the F-14 be used as a bomber, if necessary? Either way, are there >> any other armaments besides the Sidewinder, Pheonix, Sparrow missles, and >> the cannon that would work or fit on the F-14? What is the F-14's main >> role in Desert Storm since the engagement of Iraqi planes has been >> limited at best? Is it just CAP and escort for the bombers that are there? > >The F-14 was designed for one purpose and that is CAP for the fleet.Probably >not setup for worth the risk of ground attack. That is the role of the F-18 >and A-6s.Some Nam navy pilots question the F-18 trying to do both escort >and attack. Althought the F-14 is designed to protect the fleet, I would not rule them out as a ground attack aircraft. I remember hearing about Mustangs in WWII, who's job it was to protect Allied bombers on the way to a bomb run, causing considable havok with just the machine guns on the return trips. I figure the the 20mm cannon on a Tomcat could make life for ground troops a little more intresting. What ever happened to the good old strafing run anyway? But said pilot had better watch his ass for a F-14 does make a good target for a hand held anti-aircraft missile. Also the F-14 is a multirole fighter, designed with fleet support in mind. I know the F-14 carrys one of the largest assortment of armaments for an aircraft. I would tend to think that that would include air to surface missiles for use against ships. So shouln't you beable to use a air to surface missile against a land based target? Whats k kA -- // Jeff Hyche \\ // Usenet: hychejw@infonode.ingr.com \X/ GEnie: J.HYCHE
pt@dciem (Paul Tomblin) (01/25/91)
From: cognos!geovision!pt@dciem (Paul Tomblin) miked%syscon@nstar.rn.com (Mike DeMetz) writes: >>From: ccc@anomaly.SBS.COM (Cole Calistra) >>3. Can the F-14 be used as a bomber, if necessary? Either way, are there >The F-14 was designed for one purpose and that is CAP for the fleet.Probably >not setup for worth the risk of ground attack. That is the role of the F-18 >and A-6s.Some Nam navy pilots question the F-18 trying to do both escort >and attack. One of the more recent Av-leaks has a cover story showing the new F-14D (at least I think it's a D). Inside is a picture of this beautiful plane being wasted as an Iron Bomb Delivery System. What a WASTE! Would you want to risk the most expensive fighter plane in the world to do the job of an A-6? Surely not! And yet, the manufacturer is testing the configuration, so I guess the Navy asked them to. Wierd. Leave the bombing to the cruise missiles. (And then the Iraqis can count each cruise hitting the target as a Coalition plane downed.) -- Paul Tomblin, Department of Redundancy Department. ! My employer does The Romanian Orphans Support Group needs your help, ! not stand by my Ask me for details. ! opinions.... pt@geovision.gvc.com or {cognos,uunet}!geovision!pt ! Me neither.
jkubicky@tybalt.caltech.edu (Joseph J. Kubicky) (01/27/91)
From: jkubicky@tybalt.caltech.edu (Joseph J. Kubicky) jln@elaine31.stanford.edu (Jared Nedzel) writes: >The B-2 is a *prototype*. I believe we have 2 that are currently flyable. >They have not been completely tested. I believe that the electronic >systems are not complete in number 1 or 2. I assume that the B-2 is >more stealthy than the F-117. Whether or not that would make it more >suitable for the missions in Iraq is questionable. The B-2, after all, >was designed to carry nukes, not Mk-82s. Outside of its stealthiness, the B-2 is nothing real special. Most of the avionics and innards are 10-15 years old becuase when the project was started it was decided that it would be built with off-the-shelf components. Northrop has begun a real big program to update the internals, especially that cockpit, which I believe they are doing by themselves (most of the other stuff farmed out). Jay Kubicky `
jtchew@csa2.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW) (01/27/91)
From: jtchew@csa2.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW) In article <1991Jan24.040034.22536@cbnews.att.com>, hychejw@infonode. ingr.com (Jeff W. Hyche) writes... > Althought the F-14 is designed to protect the fleet, I would not >rule them out as a ground attack aircraft. I remember hearing about >Mustangs in WWII, who's job it was to protect Allied bombers on the way >to a bomb run, causing considable havok with just the machine guns on >the return trips. I figure the the 20mm cannon on a Tomcat could make >life for ground troops a little more intresting. What ever happened to >the good old strafing run anyway? But said pilot had better watch his >ass for a F-14 does make a good target for a hand held anti-aircraft >missile. What probably happened to the "good old strafing run" is that it turned out to have a lousy risk:benefit ratio. As shown in Vietnam, all those 7.62-mm FOD generators are hell on complex modern aircraft. (For that matter, the Mustang was pretty vulnerable; one round in the Prestone cooler underneath and it was adios Allison.) It doesn't make sense to lose a jet fighter and its crew just to deliver a few 20-mm cannon shells. At least if you're carrying bombs or standoff missiles or something, you have a chance of "turning a profit," i.e., costing the enemy more, in terms of lost firepower, than you sacrifice in the attempt. Keep in mind also that several Navy aircraft can bomb and strafe but only the F-14 is optimized for the outer air battle. I doubt they would commit the Tomcats wholeheartedly to ground attack as long as there is any realistic enemy air threat to the fleet. --Joe "Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"