Really? The F-117 was used in combat before anyone even knew they existed. After hundreds of sorties, it took a week of stupidity on the part of the USAF and one minute of luck and common sense on the part of the Serbs to finally get one shot down.
And aside from computers not liking to get wet (who knew?) the B-2 has performed flawlessly for 20 years.
Agreed; I think the shoot-down of the (lone) F-117 was partly foresight and partly luck; by that time, the Serbs knew the standard infil/exfil routes of the NATO bombers, so all they had to do was sit tight and wait until something overflew their position. I don't think they MEANT to nail an F-117, but that's what flew over that day, so they took a shot. As Jimmy mentioned, we had a ZERO attrit rate in ODS with F-117's.Originally Posted by Jimmy
"Yeah. See, we plan ahead, that way we don't do anything right now. Earl explained it to me." - Tremors, 1990
That's not what i'm talking about. Do those 80+ planes provides any critical advantage in war to justify their existence?
Imagine there was no F-117 and B-2 in 1991 and 1999. Would it change anything? I highly doubt that. USAF had a "week of stupidity" in Serbia because they could allow it.
Would it change anything in global thermonuclear war in 1980's? I have even more doubts about it.
Even in Serbia most bombs were delivered by non-stealth fighters simply because there is more of them. And if we look at losses-per-sortie F-117 looks not so good. Ok, let's ignore it as an accident, but in high-intense conflicts such accidents are inevitable and betting on few overpriced planes does not look like a good idea. (It might be ok for strategical forces, but neither F-117 nor B-2 belongs to them).
And all this without single word about how good those "stealth" planes can avoid modern air defense.
Last edited by NUS; 19 Mar 10, at 09:43.
Nus the B2 is a strategic heavy bomber it definitely belongs list among that group. It is a highly capable aircraft with a pretty good 20 year operational history at this point. The F-117 on the other hand you have something of a case for. It at the time of its introduction was only questionably capable as a military aircraft. That may well be why it has been retired for years now.
As for weather or not they were useful and made a difference in the 90's they were definitely useful during ODS a number of heavily defended command and control centers and air defense networks were taken out by F-117's. Would they have eventually been taken out by non-stealth planes? Yes, but it would have taken more time, and with much greater risk to pilots and other multi-million dollar aircraft. Could they have eventually been taken out with cruise missiles? It is likely however the numbers of missiles in theatre was becoming very limited.
As for the peacekeeping in eastern Europe the whole operation was a giant political clusterF**K with every entity handicapping the military from doing as they should have and asinine rules of engagement at every level. If you are flying set courses into and out of the war zone with every flight how long until some belligerent entity sets a SAM site there?
As for was it something of a effective tool against soviet forces? Yes the knowledge that the US has a few airplanes that can fly right through all of their air defense forces and there were a ton of them. That was really helpful in keeping down limited war engagements. In the global thermonuclear war issue the F-117 wouldn't have been really helpful. The B-2 would have been but the real truth is in global thermonuclear war there is no winner.
All that said I am personally not sold on an all "stealth" force. A few stealth planes to help with first strike against air defenses. It makes sense to lower the radar returns on your other planes where it does adversely effect performance,and isn't expensive. When you start giving up performance and numbers of aircraft then its overboard.
The difference is in the number of NATO aircraft lost. There was only one F-117 lost in combat and that one was shot down because the USAF got arrogant and flew F-117s into a same target area at the approximate same time, for four nights. The USAF changed in-bound and out-bound routes and no further losses of F-117s. The F-117 went into areas where conventional would have significant loss'. The same is especially true for the bombing of targets within the Bagdad city limits.
There would a far less generals and command staff to survive. Cities and miltary targets would still be obliterated.
The one loss for 1,300+s sorties, what other attack plan comes close to the F-117's loss rate, or total loss'. It hit high value targets Bagdad, Belgrade, ect. which were heavily defended.
The other aspect is, where and when the next Persian Gulf War occur? (The 'peace loving people' of America have leaders who get us into conflicts at an aweful rate.)
In July of 1990, the F-117 was the "poster child" for extravagent military spending. It was subsonic, carried no guns/missles and, has a puny 4,000-lb weapons load. After the conflict, the F-117 was the "poster child" for American technology.
In high intensity conflicts the stealth aircraft is as important as it was in PGW#1. Command post, under ground ammunition bunkers, fuel bunkers would be among the first targets. This would limit the enemy to what ever supplies it has locally.
Stealth aircraft can get through where conventional attack would have paid a very heavy price for flying over targets such as Bagdad and Belgrade. SEAD aircraft would be needed to help clear a path through the defense.
A radar network if dense enough will detect virtually everything that approaches. Jamming, SEAD, keep the loss' to an exceptible level. Fortunately, no country has ever had unlimited money to create such a defense.
After PGW#1, the USAF and WP evaluated the type of attack on Bagdad, "IF" this same model was applied to the European theater, the attack would have been successful.
Without stealth aircraft to use precision bombs, civilian loss' would have been much higher.
The F-117 was an essential learning tool and step up the ladder in the evolution of Stealthy designs, without it there would have been no F-22 JSF or PAK -FA or B-2.
The F-117 shootdown in Kosovo was no accident, it was carefully thought out and planned. The USAF screwed up and the Serbs knew exactly when and where the F-117 was going to be so they set up the shot. By the way it was taken out by a "SAM" school who taught the rest of the Serb SAM organization their trade.
There is also comment that F-117 and other NATO aircraft movements were monitored right from the airfields through various sources and the Serbs knew in advance when missions were being flown. Couple that with poor insecure NATO Comms because of interoperability issues and they get to build a picture.
I think the F-117 has an outstanding combat record and it was even offered to the RAF.
In ODS is it correct that the F-117`s had jamming support and the Iraqi air defences were blinded anyway around Baghdad so the Nighthawk didn`t actually go in relying solely on its Stealth characteristics anyway. I remember reading something along those lines. In it`s day it worked, it couldn`t operate as effectively now I reckon but the choice to consign it to history were probably both to do with economic and tactical considerations in equal measure.
Afterall the F-117 had no means to defend itself and would have been a dead Duck in the sights of even the limpest fighter in the merge as the technology emerged to track and target it. The flight plan for the F-117 involved banking the aircraft so it remained at certain angles to threat radars to reduce returns, because the designers knew you would get radar flashes from the airframe at certain angles, and when you opened the bay doors etc.. An imperfect design, a rough diamond
Eventually I think the design wasn`t viable anymore.
"Liberty is a thing beyond all price.
F-117s were retired because they no longer offered anything substantial that couldn't be done (better) by other airframes. I'm not going to argue we should still use them.
DID they do anything useful? Absolutely. I'd suggest you ask Saddam Hussein, but that would be rather difficult. The F-117 was a FANTASTIC success in Desert Storm. Nobody had any idea they were over Baghdad until the bombs impacted...the propaganda and morale alone from something like that would be worth it, but when you realize they actually hit strategically important targets, it becomes a no-brainer. Were they necessary in Allied Force...yeah I still think so. It may have flown some missions that could've been just as well hit by an F-16, but flying non-stealth aircraft over Belgrade would've been like flying over Hanoi. A stealth platform was definitely useful.
I'm not at all up-to-speed on 1980s WWIII plans, but what I would use the F-117s for would be to knock out a defensive layer or strategic target (POL or something). It would depend on locations, order of battle, etc. But yeah, I'd definitely be able to employ them in a scenario like that.
I just can't agree that the F-117 wasn't worth the investment. It doesn't have the best combat record and it wasn't heavily used over its lifetime, but when we did have the opportunity to take advantage of it, it did its job in impressive fashion. The huge leap in technology it represented surely trickled into other Lockheed programs since.
As mentioned, B-2s are most definitely strategic assets.
Excuse me, could you please explain this statement? You could make this statement about the F-14, F/A-18 (A-D), etc. The F-14 was a star during the Cold War and outlived its threat. When the F-117 was used it saved lives and allied aircraft.
Read the rest of the sentence. My point is that an aircraft or other weapons system doesn't have to see constant combat to be effective. In fact, your last sentence says almost exactly the same thing.
The original intended use of the F-117 was that of a first-strike tactical bomber using B61 "shapes"; the bomb bays were originally designed to accomodate the B61 and, conveniently, they were big enough to handle the GBU-10 (Paveway II), also.
"Yeah. See, we plan ahead, that way we don't do anything right now. Earl explained it to me." - Tremors, 1990
Ha! That makes it even easier.
You are correct, I did not fully read the paragraph.
From what I understand, 10% of sorties were flown by F-117s, which destroyed 40% of strategic targets.
Oh, and from what I've noticed, stealth aircrafts force enemies to deploy more sophisticated, expensive systems, forcing them to purchase less of them, making SEAD much easier.
Well... Subsonic aircraft with gravity nuclear bombs.One might expect better for $1 billion price tag. Good for USAF they still have B-52. Honestly i have problems trying to imagine situation then B-2 is better choice over B-52 with AGM-129. Why wasn't B-2 equipped with AGM-129? Was it START treaty limitations?
Skipped the part i'm entirely agree with...
And again i could not said it better myself. The question is if stealth bombers made in the 80's were a good investment.All that said I am personally not sold on an all "stealth" force. A few stealth planes to help with first strike against air defenses. It makes sense to lower the radar returns on your other planes where it does adversely effect performance,and isn't expensive. When you start giving up performance and numbers of aircraft then its overboard.
Well, F-16 were used over Bagdad at day on 19th of January 1991, 3 days after F-117 night flight: Target for Today: Baghdad
And this story does support you statement.
It tells us:
1) F-117 were assigned to the task. What else can be hit by a plane with no radar, no gun and very limited payload? Only known stationary targets of high value.
(Btw, Does anyone knows if F-117 can even hit moving target? If this information is unclassified ofc.)
2) 90% of sorties were flown by non-stealth planes. Who might have thought?
3) 60% of strategic targets were destroyed by non-stealth planes. Translation : you have very expensive stealth bomber and still most of the work is done by old good F-16 and B-52.
And the last one:B-52s delivered 40% of the weapons dropped by coalition forces, while suffering only one non-combat aircraft loss, with several receiving minor damage from enemy action
B-2 could go where no B-52 could ... undetected. It was a good tool for a penetrating attack, causing the opposition to concentrate their IADS and create holes for not-so-stealthy aircraft, and even more so for B-2's.Well... Subsonic aircraft with gravity nuclear bombs.
How can you determine this?And again i could not said it better myself. The question is if stealth bombers made in the 80's were a good investment.
... which are typically heavily defended.It tells us:
1) F-117 were assigned to the task. What else can be hit by a plane with no radar, no gun and very limited payload? Only known stationary targets of high value.
Nothing classified about it. LGBs can hit moving targets within some limitations.(Btw, Does anyone knows if F-117 can even hit moving target? If this information is unclassified ofc.)
It really doesn't matter. The F-117's purpose isn't saturation attacks or daily patrols. It's the day one kick-down-the-door mission and penetration attacks, and they did their jobs admirably where other aircraft might have trouble venturing into.3) 60% of strategic targets were destroyed by non-stealth planes. Translation : you have very expensive stealth bomber and still most of the work is done by old good F-16 and B-52.
And the last one:
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: