wb9omc@ea.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) (08/08/90)
From: wb9omc@ea.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) In keeping with Bill's request to keep this a BIT more technical, I submit the following: The idea of sending in B52's to blast targets in Iraq will work only after first knocking the H*** out of the SAM sites. B52's are a sitting duck for SAM's due to factors like a sizeable Radar Cross Section and goodly amount of heat for any IR seekers. I would think it would be prudent to perform a night strike with the F117a and some Anti Radiation Missiles, which could home in on the radar pulses emitted by the SAM radar and blast it, rendering the whole thing useless. We spent mega-bucks for these little guys (the Nighthawks, that is) and I think it is about time we get some of our investment returned by demostrating what they can REALLY do. Aside from that, I would suspect that the F117a would also be a great system to use for night oil-installation strikes, again, because of its minimal radar returns. Some of the "smart" laser and TV guided bombs/missiles could be quite useful for surgically striking said installations and inflicting minimum civilian casualties. The F117a can be air-refueled by KC135's and KC10's based nearby (I'd bet there are said critters in Saudi Arabia, Incirclik Turkey if that's spelled right, and possibly in Israel) and could fly from Israel, as the Israelis do a pretty good job at security for their military. BTW, it would not surprise me to find that the F117a can be recovered on an aircraft carrier, but possibly not launched. In the material I am looking at these days I keep seeing references to a "tail hook" that is ostensibly for runway cable arrests. However, it would not surprise me to find out that the same "tail hook" could also allow the F117A to make a carrier landing - I would say though, it doesn't look like the gear are carrier-optimized, so rough seas would probably rule that out. Deck landing capability would be extremely convienient in any operations around the Persian gulf - and note that several carriers are either in the area or are headed there. Where are the F117a's? Your guess is as good as mine...... Duane
smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) (08/14/90)
From: smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) In article <1990Aug8.030420.25701@cbnews.att.com>, wb9omc@ea.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) writes: > The F117a can be air-refueled by KC135's and KC10's based nearby > (I'd bet there are said critters in Saudi Arabia, Incirclik Turkey > if that's spelled right, and possibly in Israel) and could fly > from Israel, as the Israelis do a pretty good job at security for > their military. We may be straying a bit far afield from sci.military on this one (call it strategy rather than the usual focus here on hardware and tactics), but it's extremely unlikely that the Israelis will be involved except on a very covert level (i.e., intelligence support). Apart from the obvious -- the Saudis would *not* co-operate on any joint action involving Israel -- Saddam Hussein's entire strategy is based on linking the U.S. and Saudi efforts to Israel. In particular, he's trying to portray the whole opposition as a ``Zionist-American''plot, and is couching his speeches to the Arab world accordingly, and with some success. Arafat and the PLO, and most of the ``radical'' wing of the Arab world (except for Syria, which has been feuding with Iraq for a long time), have already lined up behind Saddam Hussein. It is possible, of course, that Iraq will make offensive moves that Israel can't ignore, precisely to shift the world's focus. I would imagine that there are a lot of people losing sleep over that possibility in Jerusalem, Washington, and even Riyadh.
rmiller@i88.isc.com (Richard J. Miller) (08/14/90)
From: rmiller@i88.isc.com (Richard J. Miller) In article <1990Aug8.030420.25701@cbnews.att.com> wb9omc@ea.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) writes: > > >From: wb9omc@ea.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) ... >I would think it would be prudent to perform a night strike with the >F117a and some Anti Radiation Missiles, which could home in on the >radar pulses emitted by the SAM radar and blast it, rendering the >whole thing useless. We spent mega-bucks for these little guys >(the Nighthawks, that is) and I think it is about time we get some >of our investment returned by demostrating what they can REALLY do. a friend of mine saw a news report on 8/8 that said 117s were in place in Saudi after being airlifted by C-5s (3 or 4 117s to a 5) ... >BTW, it would not surprise me to find that the F117a can be recovered >on an aircraft carrier, but possibly not launched. In the material >I am looking at these days I keep seeing references to a "tail hook" >that is ostensibly for runway cable arrests. However, it would not >surprise me to find out that the same "tail hook" could also allow the >F117A to make a carrier landing - I would say though, it doesn't look >like the gear are carrier-optimized, so rough seas would probably rule >that out. ... >Duane i would be VERY surprised if you could land a 117 on a carrier. i saw the one on static at Osh Kosh, and it certainly did NOT have a 25G landing gear on it like the Tomcat across the display area did. and secondly, the 117 used a chute to slow down on landing. the only other aircraft in the US inventory that does that routinely is the B-52 (please recall that the SR-71 is retired, and a friend of mine who used to drive 52s says that the B-1 does not have a chute). requiring a chute likely means that the 117 would have a VERY hard time hitting a carrier at ANY convenient speed, and certainly not the 140 knots that the Navy likes to see. remember that a tail hook doesn't mean carrier capable, just that it has a hook (check out some Navy training bases and you may find arrestor cables in the overrun areas of a couple of the runways, Springfield, Illinois used to have some, they had a Guard squadron). the F-117a is a very interesting aircraft, but designing carrier capability is asking a bit much for a first generation stealth aircraft. it's low speed (for landing) handling is probably real touchy. Rich Miller rmiller@i88.isc.com {sun, amdahl, att (maybe)}!laidbak!rmiller
anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee) (08/23/90)
From: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee) Now that Iraq is going to put Westerners next to major installations, do we have any accurate weapons that will destory the installations and avoid harming the hostages at the same time ? -- Anthony Lee (Michaelangelo teenage mutant ninja turtle) (Time Lord Doctor) ACSnet: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz TEL:+(61)-7-371-2651 Internet: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au +(61)-7-377-4139 (w) SNAIL: Dept Comp. Science, University of Qld, St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia
cdr@brahms.AMD.COM (Carl Rigney) (08/28/90)
From: cdr@brahms.AMD.COM (Carl Rigney) >From: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee) >Now that Iraq is going to put Westerners next to major installations, >do we have any accurate weapons that will destory the installations >and avoid harming the hostages at the same time ? A meaningless question. If necessary for Propaganda do you really doubt Hussein would dump hostage bodies near the installations even if they hadn't been killed by the attack, then claim they had been? Child's play for someone who doesn't mind gassing civilian villages. -- Carl Rigney cdr@amdcad.AMD.COM {ames decwrl pyramid sun uunet}!amdcad!cdr