Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!exodus!appserv!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: wb9omc@ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: How effective was the Stealth fighter?
Message-ID: <1991Apr11.033856.5300@amd.com>
Date: 9 Apr 91 18:05:12 GMT
References: <1991Apr9.025945.1283@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Lines: 59
Approved: military@amd.com


From: wb9omc@ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick)


prentice%triton.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (John Prentice) writes:
>Much is being made of the effectiveness of the Stealth fighters,
>based as far as I can tell mostly on the fact that we didn't lose any
>and that they accomplished their missions.  But the same thing was
>true of every other type of aircraft in the war.  I would therefore

	I might take some exception to that statement in the sense
that as far as the other aircraft go, we DID lose some.

[a lot about why our weapons were better and were in first AND how poor
the Iraqi air defenses were deleted at the request of moderator]

	I might say that in light of your comment that our weapons
were better, perhaps then the Stealth fighter-bomber helped achieve
an important goal - air superiority.

	It is admittedly hard to compare the F117a to the F15(any variant),
if for no other reason than they are not designed the same, are not to
be used for quite the same mission.

(and in fact, comparisons to other aircraft as well....)

	The stated mission of the F117a is to strike strategically
significant targets while evading enemy radar, and to do so at night.
Since this mission was accomplished, according to the USAF, one could
assume that the aircraft as a system does work.

	Now, as far as the question "could the F15 Strike Eagle (as
an example) have done the same thing?" goes, I'd bet that an F15 looks
pretty much like a nice big tasty target to enemy radars.  That includes
missile lock ons from enemy aircraft - which in this case proved to be
pretty much a non-problem.  The F15 has as its defense - speed.  Speed
that the F117a does NOT have.  However, it is much more difficult to
launch precision guided munitions at Mach 1.8 or whatever the F15
can run at than it is from a subsonic platform, especially at ground targets.

	A more interesting comparison might be to the A10 Thunderbolt II.
Also a subsonic platform.  Decidedly NOT stealth.  :-)  What is the
difference?  Mission, for one thing.  The A10 is a tank killer first
and an armored emplacement killer second.  It's entire design was to
allow it to get hit and keep going - at the very LEAST, to return the
pilot if not to continue fighting.  I dare say that the F117a can
not take the abuse that an A10 can, if you plan to keep it in the air.
The A10 can use laser/TV guided missiles (Pave Penney system????) and
so probably can do some of the things the F117a can do.  I DON'T recall
the FLIR and DLIR ever being installed on an A10 - which means for the
A10 to do its work at night might well be about impossible.

	To sum up, we have aircraft that can cover what the F117a does,
but not stealthily and probably not as well at night.  Why night?
What could be more demoralizing, surprising and frightening than
bombs falling that you can't see from an aircraft that you can't see or
target?

Duane