Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!bellcore!att!cbnews!military
From: military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Thirty Seconds over Tripoli
Message-ID: <8691@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 31 Jul 89 12:28:36 GMT
Organization: BRS Information Technologies
Lines: 49
Approved: military@att.att.com



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