mmm@apple.com (07/17/89)
From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@apple.com With the imminent first flight (crash?) of the B-2 and the equally challenging flight through Congress, I wonder whether the full procurement of stealth bombers makes strategic sense. Wouldn't most of the goals of stealth be achieved by simply completing perhaps 5 or 10 such planes? Scenario #1: Soviet Union spends billions building an air defense radar system capable of dealing with stealth. By only building 5 or 10 planes, we achieve the effect of the entire procurement. Scenario #2: Soviet Union chooses to ignore the stealth threat, due to the small number of aircraft. This seems like a big win (for us, U.S.) because we then have absolute stealth. In a combative engagement, we have 5 or 10 planes to use as a "wild card" for ultra-critical missions, such as seeding biological weapons in the SU, dropping spies or spy supplies, assassinating political and military leaders, etc etc. Some of these missions might occur prior to war, or against nations other than SU. What must be avoided is scenario #3: Soviet Union builds a super air defense system to deal with stealth while we build an entire fleet of these things. Then, we end up stuck with a bomber fleet severly performance- limited by design constraints which no longer deliver powerful advantage.
stevew@wyse.wyse.com (Steve Wilson xttemp dept303) (07/20/89)
From: stevew@wyse.wyse.com (Steve Wilson xttemp dept303) In article <8413@cbnews.ATT.COM> sun!Central!uokmax!jkmedcal@uunet.UU.NET (Jeff K Medcalf) writes: > > >From: Jeff K Medcalf <sun!Central!uokmax!jkmedcal@uunet.UU.NET> > stuff deleted > >Except the Soviets are way ahead of us in IR technology (in fact, most if not >all of thier newer fighters have infrared sensors on them, enabling an elec- >tronically silent approach and kill), and may very well opt to up this lead, >put large airborne infrared sensors in service in conjunction with satellites, >and thus spend much less money developing a counter. This would not be good >enough to stop a fleet, but it could stop 5-10. I'm not sure I buy this at all. We aren't exactly incapable of dealing with IR ourselves. We have a multitude of VERY capable weapons systems using IR technology, i.e. Sidewinder, nite vision systems, etc. Secondly, it is my understanding that one of the design parameters of the stealth hardware is to muffle the IR signatures of the planes. Note I've got no special access to any info other than Aviation Weekly, but I seem to recall that this was included in the plane's design. Steve Wilson
aws@vax3.iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) (07/20/89)
From: aws@vax3.iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) In article <8413@cbnews.ATT.COM> sun!Central!uokmax!jkmedcal@uunet.UU.NET (Jeff K Medcalf) writes: >Except the Soviets are way ahead of us in IR technology (in fact, most if not >all of thier newer fighters have infrared sensors on them, enabling an elec- >tronically silent approach and kill), and may very well opt to up this lead, >put large airborne infrared sensors in service in conjunction with satellites, >and thus spend much less money developing a counter. This would not be good >enough to stop a fleet, but it could stop 5-10. Stealth technology deals with everything. That includes being quiet not only to radar but to IR and sound as well. The device you refer to is called Infa-Red Search and Track (IRST) and the soviets were not the first to use them. We used them a long time ago (F-106) but found they weren't useful and dropped them. The problem is that the pilots are just too busy and don't have time to monitor another sensor. As to them being way ahead in IR technology, why do you say this? We had all aspect IR guided missiles long before they did. There is even reason to think they copied their all aspect missile from us. I have however, been told by an F-15 pilot that AIM-9L's are sometimes used as an IRST. He said that after an engagement a pilot sometimes uncages the seeker and does a quick turn. If he hears the buzz he knows there is something in that direction. >Spies and their supplies, I would assume, have routes in and out >which give them some cover and legitimacy There is already a version of the C-130 used for this (covert landing of spies or saboteures. >I also notice that a 747 costs about $174 million. Even if the B-2's run at >around $500 million each, I question whether that is too high of a cost >differential. Does anybody know the costs of a B-17 and a DC-3? Or a B-52 and >a 707? Try comparing in those terms, and I am willing to bet that B-2 is not >much, if any, above the ratio of cost of previous bombers and transports. The Sec. of Defense was on McNeil-Lehrer recently. He said that all recent bombers (B-52, B-1, and B-2) all cost about 1.5% of the DOD budget. Allen ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Allen Sherzer | PEACE | | aws@iti.org | through superior firepower | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
fiddler@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (07/20/89)
From: fiddler@Sun.COM (Steve Hix)
In article <8413@cbnews.ATT.COM>, sun!Central!uokmax!jkmedcal@uunet.UU.NET (Jeff K Medcalf) writes:
:
: >From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@apple.com
: >Scenario #1: Soviet Union spends billions building an air defense radar
: >system capable of dealing with stealth. By only building 5 or 10 planes,
: >we achieve the effect of the entire procurement.
:
: Except the Soviets are way ahead of us in IR technology (in fact, most if not
: all of thier newer fighters have infrared sensors on them, enabling an elec-
: tronically silent approach and kill), and may very well opt to up this lead,
: put large airborne infrared sensors in service in conjunction with satellites,
: and thus spend much less money developing a counter. This would not be good
: enough to stop a fleet, but it could stop 5-10.
The B-2's stealthiness included a lot of work in masking the planes IR
signature, as well as the radar signature.
: Dropping biological weapons could be done by missile much more easily and with
: less cost. Spies and their supplies, I would assume, have routes in and out
: which give them some cover and legitimacy (a record of shipment is better than
: something just arriving). Assinating leaders is not as easy as it sounds when
: you're dealing with moving people and big aircraft. We learned that in Libya.
A B-2 strike like the one done by F-111s in Libya might have been a lot more effective: the defenders might have had *no* warning, rather than the few minutes that they had back then. Reduced AA activity would have made for simpler entry and exit and much easier targeting problems.welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) (07/21/89)
From: welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty)
In article <8413@cbnews.ATT.COM>, Jeff K Medcalf writes:
*I also notice that a 747 costs about $174 million. Even if the B-2's run at
*around $500 million each, I question whether that is too high of a cost
*differential. Does anybody know the costs of a B-17 and a DC-3? Or a B-52 and
*a 707? Try comparing in those terms, and I am willing to bet that B-2 is not
*much, if any, above the ratio of cost of previous bombers and transports.
i don't know what a DC-3 costs, but early on in the B-17 program the price
was in the vicinity of $200,000/aircraft -- this was a pre-B-17E model (keep
in mind that there was a major redesign from the 17D to the 17E, with major
improvements in armor and armament.)
richard
--
richard welty welty@lewis.crd.ge.com
518-387-6346, GE R&D, K1-5C39, Niskayuna, New York
Officer: Do you know how fast you were going?
Driver: No. The speedometer only goes up to 85henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (07/21/89)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) In article <8445@cbnews.ATT.COM> stevew@wyse.wyse.com (Steve Wilson xttemp dept303) writes: >>Except the Soviets are way ahead of us in IR technology... > >I'm not sure I buy this at all. We aren't exactly incapable of dealing >with IR ourselves. We have a multitude of VERY capable weapons systems >using IR technology, i.e. Sidewinder, nite vision systems, etc. But our fighters, in particular, do not carry IR detectors. Probably a better statement would be that the US is ahead a bit in the technology, but the Soviets have a large lead in practical deployment of it. And they are likely to keep it. Some of the ANG units which have recently switched from older US fighters to modern ones have argued loudly that the IR detectors from the old fighters should be shifted to the modern ones, if there's no other way to get IR detectors on them. No results. >Secondly, it is my understanding that one of the design parameters of the >stealth hardware is to muffle the IR signatures of the planes... The B-2 is probably designed with IR signatures in mind. One simple aspect of this is the engine exhausts being above the wing, so you can't see them from below. Of course, now that the B-2 is expected to penetrate at low level rather than 30,000 ft, this particular design decision is a bit more dubious... Helicopter designers have for some time been adding widgets to deflect exhaust gases upward to minimize IR signature downward; the latest Soviet design deflects the gases DOWNWARD instead, to hide from IR-equipped fighters above. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (07/21/89)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >... Infa-Red Search and Track (IRST) and the soviets were not the first >to use them. We used them a long time ago (F-106) but found they weren't >useful and dropped them. The problem is that the pilots are just too busy >and don't have time to monitor another sensor. ... Oddly, the Air National Guard pilots who were the last ones actually flying IRST-equipped aircraft disagree, and are very unhappy about losing the IRSTs in the transition to modern fighters. As for the pilot not having time to monitor another sensor, the obvious answer to this is that an air-defense interceptor (as opposed to an air-superiority fighter -- the two are *NOT* the same thing) needs a crew of two, one for flying and close-up gunnery and one for sensors and long-range missiles. Assorted fertilizer about cockpit automation notwithstanding. The Brits got this one right on the air-defense variant of the Tornado. Ditto with the USN on the F-14. But the USAF hasn't built an interceptor for 25 years, and has forgotten how. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
jac@paul.rutgers.edu (Jonathan A. Chandross) (07/21/89)
From: jac@paul.rutgers.edu (Jonathan A. Chandross) fiddler@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) > A B-2 strike like the one done by F-111s in Libya might have been a lot > more effective: the defenders might have had *no* warning, rather than > the few minutes that they had back then. Reduced AA activity would have > made for simpler entry and exit and much easier targeting problems. (Incidentally, if you insert carriage returns at the end of each line it makes it easier to edit.) You forget that one of the F-111's was shot down by a SAM. This isn't so bad - a few millions down the toilet and a couple of pointlessly dead pilots. But just imagine the glee of the Libyans had they shot down a B-2. Could the Air Force afford to take a chance on this? Besides the Libyan strike could have been adequately carried out by sea launched missiles. There was no need to risk Americans. [mod.note: Once more, the conversation dances dangerously close to the Forbidden Zone of politics and policy. Let's keep it civil and factual. - Bill ] Jonathan A. Chandross Internet: jac@paul.rutgers.edu UUCP: rutgers!paul.rutgers.edu!jac
yla@IDA.LiU.SE (Yngve Larsson) (07/22/89)
From: yla@IDA.LiU.SE (Yngve Larsson) In article <8479@cbnews.ATT.COM> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >. The Brits got this one right on the air-defense variant >of the Tornado. Ditto with the USN on the F-14. But the USAF hasn't >built an interceptor for 25 years, and has forgotten how. > > Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology > uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu I thought that the ANG Phantoms were supposed to fill this role. Were else would the USAF need to deploy air-defence interceptors instead of sleek, sexy air-superiority machines? :-) Yngve Larsson -- Yngve Larsson UUCP: ...mcvax!enea!liuida!yla Dept of CIS Internet: yla@ida.liu.se Linkoping University, Sweden Phone: +46-13-281949
bash@ihlpb.att.com (T Basham) (07/22/89)
From: bash@ihlpb.att.com (T Basham) > Helicopter designers have for some time been adding >widgets to deflect exhaust gases upward to minimize IR signature downward; >the latest Soviet design deflects the gases DOWNWARD instead, to hide from >IR-equipped fighters above. > > Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology So, let's equip the ground forces with IR sensors B-]. Seriously, though, What is the status of the FLIR testing. Last I read in AW&ST said it was being tested on an F-16, but that was a while back. Has there been any more news? It must be working or our great news media would be all over it B-[. Tom. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
fiddler@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (07/25/89)
From: fiddler@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) In article <8480@cbnews.ATT.COM>, jac@paul.rutgers.edu (Jonathan A. Chandross) writes: > fiddler@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) > > A B-2 strike like the one done by F-111s in Libya might have been a lot > > more effective: the defenders might have had *no* warning, rather than > > the few minutes that they had back then. Reduced AA activity would have > > made for simpler entry and exit and much easier targeting problems. > > (Incidentally, if you insert carriage returns at the end of each line it > makes it easier to edit.) I do. (The news editor isn't set for wraparound mode. Wonder what happens after I send it?) > You forget that one of the F-111's was shot down by a SAM. This isn't > so bad - a few millions down the toilet and a couple of pointlessly dead > pilots. But just imagine the glee of the Libyans had they shot down a > B-2. Could the Air Force afford to take a chance on this? Unless the Libyans were firing volleys of SAMs blindly...the B-2 would likely not have given the SAM radars a target to launch on. Little or no warning on inbound raiders, either. > Besides the Libyan strike could have been adequately carried out by sea > launched missiles. There was no need to risk Americans. Missiles aren't the cure-all that some wish they were. Certainly they are less flexible than aircraft: Hard to call back, retarget, ... These considerations seem to dictate the use of aircraft for a while longer on purely tactical and strategic grounds.
mmm@apple.com (07/26/89)
From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@apple.com In response to what I said, jkmedcal@uokmax.UUCP (Jeff K Medcalf) says: > Except the Soviets are way ahead of us in IR technology (in fact, most if not > all of thier newer fighters have infrared sensors on them, enabling an elec- > tronically silent approach and kill), and may very well opt to up this lead, > put large airborne infrared sensors in service in conjunction with satellites, > and thus spend much less money developing a counter. This would not be good > enough to stop a fleet, but it could stop 5-10. I disagree. The Soviets cannot choose the time and place of a B-2 strike. To build a system capable of dealing with 5 or 10 requires the same amount of coverage and the same detection technology as building a system capable of dealing with 132 B-2's. Only the number of AA rockets changes, not the number of sensors (IR-equipped planes and radar). BTW, I heard on TV the number of planes constructed or under construction is 13. > Dropping biological weapons could be done by missile much more easily and with > less cost. Spies and their supplies, I would assume, have routes in and out > which give them some cover and legitimacy (a record of shipment is better than > something just arriving). Assinating leaders is not as easy as it sounds when > you're dealing with moving people and big aircraft. We learned that in Libya. No, B-2 would be used where it was necessary to drop the biological weapon secretly, so that its origin would not be indicated and the fact of its occurrence would not be immediately known. Only one plane would be needed for that. Spies could always use some help. Imagine if the B-2 can do a pick-up? If the B-2 has VTOL capability, our spies would be free to roam virtually any part of the world. [mod.note: Allow me to opine for the masses that the B-2 probably has nothing even remotely like V/STOL capability. I would suspect that V/STOL requirements (such as vectorable thrust) are incompatable with those of stealth. I would likewise harbor doubts about the B-2's rough field capabilities. - Bill ] Assassination? What do you think spies are for? > As for using B-2 against non-Soviet nations, that is simple: few if any could > build, or afford, a counter, and a small percentage of the fleet could have > results all out of proportion to size. So why not just build that small percentage of the fleet? Whipping Third World nations is the only time these big expensive weapons get used! And if the number we build is below the threshold of a Soviet immune response, so much the better! It'll be like giving our intelligence agencies a ring of invisibility or a transporter beam!!
maniac%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George W. Herbert) (07/27/89)
From: maniac%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George W. Herbert) Henry Spencer writes... >But our fighters, in particular, do not carry IR detectors. Probably >a better statement would be that the US is ahead a bit in the technology, > > Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology > uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu Aah, Henry, you ignore the ingenuity of american pilots. They will merely energize the seeker heads of their Sidewinder AIM-9[L,M,N] and wait for the growl. At that point they know there's a plane ahead. ;) george william herbert maniac@garnet.berkeley.edu
aws@vax3.iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) (07/29/89)
From: aws@vax3.iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) In article <8628@cbnews.ATT.COM> maniac%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George W. Herbert) writes: >>But our fighters, in particular, do not carry IR detectors. Probably >>a better statement would be that the US is ahead a bit in the technology, > >Aah, Henry, you ignore the ingenuity of american pilots. They will merely >energize the seeker heads of their Sidewinder AIM-9[L,M,N] and wait for the >growl. At that point they know there's a plane ahead. As indeed they do. However the field of view of an AIM-9 is limited. With an IRST on the aircraft you would get a wider field of view plus the posibility of identifying the aircraft from it's signature. Allen ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Allen Sherzer | DETROIT: | | aws@iti.org | Where the weak are killed and eaten | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
military@cbnews.UUCP (08/15/89)
From: Jeff K Medcalf <sun!Central!uokmax!jkmedcal@uunet.UU.NET> >From: portal!cup.portal.com!mmm@apple.com >With the imminent first flight (crash?) of the B-2 and the equally >challenging flight through Congress, I wonder whether the full procurement >of stealth bombers makes strategic sense. Wouldn't most of the goals >of stealth be achieved by simply completing perhaps 5 or 10 such planes? > >Scenario #1: Soviet Union spends billions building an air defense radar >system capable of dealing with stealth. By only building 5 or 10 planes, >we achieve the effect of the entire procurement. Except the Soviets are way ahead of us in IR technology (in fact, most if not all of thier newer fighters have infrared sensors on them, enabling an elec- tronically silent approach and kill), and may very well opt to up this lead, put large airborne infrared sensors in service in conjunction with satellites, and thus spend much less money developing a counter. This would not be good enough to stop a fleet, but it could stop 5-10. >Scenario #2: Soviet Union chooses to ignore the stealth threat, due to >the small number of aircraft. This seems like a big win (for us, U.S.) >because we then have absolute stealth. In a combative engagement, we have >5 or 10 planes to use as a "wild card" for ultra-critical missions, such as >seeding biological weapons in the SU, dropping spies or spy supplies, >assassinating political and military leaders, etc etc. Some of >these missions might occur prior to war, or against nations other than SU. Dropping biological weapons could be done by missile much more easily and with less cost. Spies and their supplies, I would assume, have routes in and out which give them some cover and legitimacy (a record of shipment is better than something just arriving). Assinating leaders is not as easy as it sounds when you're dealing with moving people and big aircraft. We learned that in Libya. As for using B-2 against non-Soviet nations, that is simple: few if any could build, or afford, a counter, and a small percentage of the fleet could have results all out of proportion to size. >What must be avoided is scenario #3: Soviet Union builds a super air >defense system to deal with stealth while we build an entire fleet of these >things. Then, we end up stuck with a bomber fleet severly performance- >limited by design constraints which no longer deliver powerful advantage. So then the Soviets build Stealth of their own and we must spend billions on a defense.... In any case, I doubt the fleet would consist of more than 100 aircraft. These aircraft would probably be less limited than you think. They still would carry a good bombload a long distance and tie up a disproportionate share of Soviet assets. There are some missions that are now or soon will be impossible with anything but the B-2, such as actual penetration of Soviet airspace. I also notice that a 747 costs about $174 million. Even if the B-2's run at around $500 million each, I question whether that is too high of a cost differential. Does anybody know the costs of a B-17 and a DC-3? Or a B-52 and a 707? Try comparing in those terms, and I am willing to bet that B-2 is not much, if any, above the ratio of cost of previous bombers and transports. A final note: in WWII the Germans neutralized their own fleet to hopefully prevent the loss of the ships. A weapon is meant to be used. The US could not, in the event of a war, say that the B-2 is too expensive too risk. The trick is in tayloring capabilities to missions, and letting the B-2s do what nothing else can. -- I dream I'm safe jkmedcal@uokmax.UUCP In my hotel womb Jeff Medcalf Soft and so nice It's a wonderful womb <-The Church, "Hotel Womb"