Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!unmvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: jwm@stda.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Thirty Seconds over Tripoli
Message-ID: <8706@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 1 Aug 89 03:00:22 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: JHU-Applied Physics Laboratory
Lines: 62
Approved: military@att.att.com



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