Israeli Stealth???

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 09:24:02 +0100, "Ian Craig"
wrote:


"Denyav" wrote in message
...
Not built, not flying, non-existant. NATO research would mean US
research, and we are not giving stealth away. Yet more of your
Ubermench fantasy.

1)Who needs stealth?
2)You cannot give away anything that does not belong to you.
Stealth is a British and German product and stealth in US is gift of
Harold
Macmillan to US.

Which was never recipricated by the US at the time. If I remember correctly
(and this was from 2 Discovery Wings programmes about the speed of sound and
stealth), the Americans asked for the data from our stealth and supersonic
programmes, with the promise of letting the British have information about
new munitions. Needless to say we're still waiting.......

And will be for a very long time. If the Brits, or anyone else, had
stealth technology they would have built stealth aircraft. The don't
and have not.

Al Minyard

And will be for a very long time. If the Brits, or anyone else, had
stealth technology they would have built stealth aircraft. The don't
and have not.


Well,I think nobody,incl.US,is going to build stealth planes like B2 or f117
again,this technology is already a thing of the past.

You seem very sure that the UK doesnt have a stealth aircraft - how come?
Know something we dont? Just cos we havent got a batwing or f117 doesnt mean
we dont have stealthy aircraft?

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 09:24:02 +0100, "Ian Craig"
wrote:


"Denyav" wrote in message
...
Not built, not flying, non-existant. NATO research would mean US
research, and we are not giving stealth away. Yet more of your
Ubermench fantasy.

1)Who needs stealth?
2)You cannot give away anything that does not belong to you.
Stealth is a British and German product and stealth in US is gift of
Harold
Macmillan to US.

Which was never recipricated by the US at the time. If I remember
correctly
(and this was from 2 Discovery Wings programmes about the speed of sound
and
stealth), the Americans asked for the data from our stealth and
supersonic
programmes, with the promise of letting the British have information
about
new munitions. Needless to say we're still waiting.......

And will be for a very long time. If the Brits, or anyone else, had
stealth technology they would have built stealth aircraft. The don't
and have not.

Al Minyard

In message , Ian Craig
writes
You seem very sure that the UK doesnt have a stealth aircraft - how come?
Know something we dont? Just cos we havent got a batwing or f117 doesnt mean
we dont have stealthy aircraft?

We know the technology and have done a fair bit of work, particularly on
RCS reduction of existing and future platform.

We don't have any admitted LO aircraft, quite likely for the same four
reasons we only have four leased C-17s: money, cash, moolah and dinero.

If we're up against the sort of quality opposition that _needs_ stealth
aircraft, the US has them and is on our side; if not, the money's better
spent on enhancing more conventional capabilities (like, getting Link-16
so that we're at least on the same network and can swap data properly)
than on buying a handful of F-117-a-likes.

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)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"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.

Chris Manteuffel

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?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

What does stealth get you on Day 1 of the Falklands?

Day 1? It's gets the Argentinians occupying the islands.

Day 29? It gets you the first serious British attacks...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ...
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.

I realize this. You are right that the money for new stealth bombers
just isn't there, and that the best that you can get is LO planes. I
was just arguing (in a minimalist way) that your statements about how
the RAF/FAA don't need stealth because the USAF can do that already
seem to me to be the same sort of thinking that British Exchequers
have made for 50 years, and which aren't really true.

Incidentally, what kind of investments are RAF/Army putting into
drones? I honestly don't know, I don't recall reading much about their
programs, but the push to graduation has meant that I'm rather out of
the loop on development programs.

Chris Manteuffel

In message , Chris
Manteuffel writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
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.

I realize this. You are right that the money for new stealth bombers
just isn't there, and that the best that you can get is LO planes. I
was just arguing (in a minimalist way) that your statements about how
the RAF/FAA don't need stealth because the USAF can do that already
seem to me to be the same sort of thinking that British Exchequers
have made for 50 years, and which aren't really true.

"True enough" for the equipment programme. Who are we credibly going to
fight, that has the sort of air defences that make stealth aircraft
_essential_, and why are we going into that fight alone? (If they're
really that good, _can_ we fight them alone?)

Also, is stealth _really_ the only option, or can the problem be
addresed by other means that are comparatively suboptimal for this
scenario but are more generally cost-effective across the potential
threats and missions?

If there was spare cash kicking around, it would be very nice to have:
but there's no driver to force it: and there are many more credible
capability gaps to fill.


Also, it would not completely amaze me that if such a contingency _did_
arise, we'd beg and plead to investigate some sort of short-notice lease
plus crash training program of four or six F-117s.

Incidentally, what kind of investments are RAF/Army putting into
drones? I honestly don't know, I don't recall reading much about their
programs, but the push to graduation has meant that I'm rather out of
the loop on development programs.

There's a rather busy office next door to mine that's working on naval
UAV concepts and possibilities (FSC or mid-lifing the 23s are the likely
hosts, if not CV/LPH); the Army has the Watchkeeper project underway to
replace Phoenix; don't know about the RAF.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

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