On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 19:39:17 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , Chris
Manteuffel writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
.. .
Then you get into the operational analysis issues like "just when does
stealth actually provide a clear benefit anyway?" and that's when the
punch-ups usually start: it's a controversial question. (Sure, stealth
lets you fly through enemy IADS alone (sort of) and unafraid (well,
mostly)... but then the USAF can do that today and tomorrow anyway)

April 2, 1982.

What does stealth get you on Day 1 of the Falklands? A F-117-a-like
doesn't have the range, a B-2 is gross overkill (and lacks the targeting
data: sure, it can get down there and drop bombs, but on what?) Also,
there's a distinct lack of air defence for a stealth aircraft to have to
hide from.

If you had to choose, would a small squadron of F-117-type aircraft be
more or less useful than (for example) AEW Sea Kings deployed and worked
up; CIWS fitted to at least the carriers, amphibs and Type 42s; better
boots; and more Chinooks?

That's what I mean by the analysis: where does stealth get you more
benefits than costs, and what scenarios do you gain in by pursuing that
option to the exclusion of others?

Well, the US has plenty of helos, boots, etc. We don't really give up
anything to get stealth. I can certainly understand that this would be
an issue for others.

Al Minyard