military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (07/31/89)
From: brspyr1.brs.com!miket (Mike Trout) In sci.military Digest Monday, 24 July, 1989 Volume 2 : Issue 54 > > > 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. Don't forget that our valiant Lt. Col. Ollie North blabbed that that the Libyans "could expect a bombing raid," which caused Libya to put its flak crews on full alert. North then blamed his own slip-of-the-lip on Congress. Of course, Libya's ability to detect the F-111s inbound gave them far more tactically useful information, but North's blundering is at least slightly to blame. > 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. This is true, ASSUMING the B-2's signature is what Northrop and the USAF claim it is. So far we don't know this, and there is no hard information one way or the other. Also, blind-firing a SAM is a complete waste of a missile; unless you have at least SOME hope of getting target information after launch (as with some Viet Namese SA-2 launch procedures against the USAF), your chance of getting a hit is just about 0%. > > 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. Agreed, and it's also possible that the use of sea-launched missiles MAY have exposed USN ships to Libyan attack. Libyan ships are armed with Otomat missiles (of untested worth but probably dangerous) and SS-N-2C missiles (well-tested but probably easily avoided or shot down); and don't ignore the impressive on-paper strength of the Libyan Air Force. Of course, Libyan ability to use their weapons to reasonable efficiency is laughable, so the threat may have been negligible. But it should always be considered. -- NSA food: Iran sells Nicaraguan drugs to White House through CIA, SOD & NRO. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BRS Information Technologies, 1200 Rt. 7, Latham, N.Y. 12110 (518) 783-1161 "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without...a rebellion." Thomas Jefferson
jwm@stda.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) (08/01/89)
From: jwm@stda.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) In article <8691@cbnews.ATT.COM> you write: }From: brspyr1.brs.com!miket (Mike Trout) }In sci.military Digest Monday, 24 July, 1989 Volume 2 : Issue 54 } }> > > 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. } }Don't forget that our valiant Lt. Col. Ollie North blabbed that that the }Libyans "could expect a bombing raid," which caused Libya to put its flak crews }on full alert. North then blamed his own slip-of-the-lip on Congress. Of }course, Libya's ability to detect the F-111s inbound gave them far more }tactically useful information, but North's blundering is at least slightly to }blame. Why yes, this is true. If they hadn't had enough warning ONE of their interceptors might have been in the air. As it was, ALL of them were on the ground with the pilots refusing to take off. }> > 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. } }Agreed, and it's also possible that the use of sea-launched missiles MAY have }exposed USN ships to Libyan attack. Libyan ships are armed with Otomat }missiles (of untested worth but probably dangerous) and SS-N-2C missiles }(well-tested but probably easily avoided or shot down); Didn't have a good enough terrain map to get in good hits. Fixed now. (IAW newspapers). }(well-tested but probably easily avoided or shot down); and don't ignore the }impressive on-paper strength of the Libyan Air Force. The ones that refused to take off.... }Of course, Libyan }ability to use their weapons to reasonable efficiency is laughable, so }the threat may have been negligible. But it should always be considered. But their AA missles are real good at hitting buildings. And after they managed to shoot down their own city they let pictures of their missles get taken and claimed they were US weapons. Unfortunately for them, the AA missles don't look like bombs... [mod.note: I'm not trying to criticize Jim in particular, but let's try to steer this topic back to the technical side. - Bill ] -- "In these matters the only certainty is that nothing is certain" - Pliny the Elder These were the opinions of : jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu - or - jwm@aplvax.uucp - or - meritt%aplvm.BITNET
mlewis@uunet.UU.NET (Marcus S. Lewis) (08/02/89)
From: unocss!mlewis@uunet.UU.NET (Marcus S. Lewis) >From article <8691@cbnews.ATT.COM>, by military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker): > > Also, blind-firing a SAM is a complete waste of a missile; unless > you have at least SOME hope of getting target information after launch (as with > some Viet Namese SA-2 launch procedures against the USAF), your chance of > getting a hit is just about 0%. Here's a "yeah, but...". I'm not sure I can back this up, but isn't the Soviet SA-5 nuclear-capable? I am not sure of my sources here at all, but even a small nuke can blow the #$$%^^&* out of the B-2's electronics. Seems to me given ANY indication of a "probable" B-2 sortie over the Soviet landmass, a single nuke in the general area of the suspected intruder might make it a wee bit uncomfortable, if not for the pilot the EWO? My suspicion is that the Soviet Air Defense Ministry would not hesitate to fire a nuke over Soviet water, at the very least, and might not worry too hard about a high-altitude (say 55,000 - B-2 cruising altitude?) air-burst over the landmass itself. Marc -- Na khuya mne podpis'? | Internet: cs057@zeus.unl.edu | UUCP: uunet!btni!unocss!mlewis Go for it! | Bitnet: CS057@UNOMA1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (08/03/89)
From: att!dptg!ulysses!smb > My suspicion is that the Soviet Air Defense Ministry would not hesitate to > fire a nuke over Soviet water, at the very least, and might not worry too > hard about a high-altitude (say 55,000 - B-2 cruising altitude?) air-burst > over the landmass itself. I think they'd hesitate for a long time; they may not have as much transistorized or IC-based gear as we do, but the EMP pulse is still going to be quite damaging.
bowersr@urubu.CS.ORST.EDU (Bob Bowers) (08/04/89)
From: bowersr@urubu.CS.ORST.EDU (Bob Bowers) EMP pulse? Sounds like something to be referred to the Department of Redundancy Department. (heh-heh) Bob Bowers | "What is this, a Chinese fire drill?" bowersr@urubu.CS.ORST.EDU | --Sun Tzu )
ts@cb.ecn.purdue.edu (Thomas Ruschak) (08/07/89)
From: pur-ee!ts@cb.ecn.purdue.edu (Thomas Ruschak) From: att!dptg!ulysses!smb > My suspicion is that the Soviet Air Defense Ministry would not hesitate to > fire a nuke over Soviet water, at the very least, and might not worry too > hard about a high-altitude (say 55,000 - B-2 cruising altitude?) air-burst > over the landmass itself. I also think that you have to consider this from the point of view of the Politiburo, who are unlikely to release nuclear warheads to every Ivan, Evgeny and Pavl SAM officer. Turn it around. If the Russians had such a stealth aircraft, do you think they'd give nukes to all the Roland batteries? Thomas Ruschak pur-ee!pc!ts "Incompetents! I'm surrounded by incompetents!" - Cobra Commander