Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: stevenp@decwrl.pa.dec.com (Steven Philipson)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: How effective was the Stealth fighter?
Message-ID: <1991Apr17.055319.13285@amd.com>
Date: 16 Apr 91 19:28:54 GMT
References: <1991Apr12.055301.14403@amd.com> <1991Apr9.025945.1283@amd.com> <1991Apr11.033856.5300@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: DEC Palo Alto
Lines: 19
Approved: military@amd.com


From: stevenp@decwrl.pa.dec.com (Steven Philipson)


prentice%triton.unm.edu@ariel.unm.edu (John Prentice) writes;
> [...] However, the statistics from this war would
> appear to not tell us anything, simply because the losses of Stealth
> versus non-Stealth are statistically insignificant.

   The loss rates of all aircraft were low, but I haven't seen any
official statement that the *difference* in loss rates between were
statistically insignificant.  A large number of sorties and flight
hours were recorded.  Reported losses as I've seen them seem to indicate
that the rates *are* significantly different.  Could you please tell us
why you conclude that they are not?

-- 
Steve
stevenp@decwrl.dec.com