Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: tzeng@sunland.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Expensive fighters
Message-ID: <1991Jun7.072419.8667@amd.com>
Date: 3 Jun 91 19:30:53 GMT
References: <1991May31.061422.13627@amd.com> <1991Jun1.012857.28133@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Lines: 32
Approved: military@amd.com


From: tzeng@sunland.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng)


sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes:
> It would have helped if the F-16s were using smart weapons/standoff
> munitions instead of dumb bombs, preferable with the LANTIRN targeting
> pods.  We could just as easily question the wisdom of the DoD planners
> who have purchased gee-wiz planes with low-tech munitions.

Hi Doug!

I believe that they've managed to get fairly high accuracy with good
ol' iron bombs on the F16...hence the somewhat questionable practice
of sending high-tech fighters in with low-tech munitions.  I've heard
that the Isreali raid on the nuclear power plant was made with F16s
and iron bombs with good results.  I've also heard that that story is
pure bunk or that damage assessment done was highly inflated.  I'd
appreciate info (solid as opposed to the ever present rumour variety)
if anyone has any.  I tend to believe the original article I read
several years ago but it was the Washington Post and not a "trade" journal.

You sort of end back up into the old debate of "platform" vs "weapons"
and where you're going to sink your money into.  In a optimal world
the answer is both...in the real  world we all know that tradeoffs
have to be made to save the odd billion dollars or so.

The problem lies in the fact that the bean counters occasionally
forget that if we keep sending our high-tech fighters OVER the target
area the odds of that golden BB appearing becomes much higher. 

Nigel Tzeng