How long until current 'stealth' techniques are compromised?

"Denyav" wrote in message
...

Really?


Really.



During Balkan conflict no US aircraft,stealth or not,flew without
Jammer support.


Nope. Sending jammers along with stealth aircraft would be
counterproductive. The jammers would be a signal that an attack is
imminent.



Two f117 were hit ,one lost,the other safely returned,both because of
jammer
failures.


Nope.



The originator of now famous saying "Jammers are like American Express
never
leave home without them" is a f117 "driver".period.


Nope.

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 06:13:57 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

During Balkan conflict no US aircraft,stealth or not,flew without
Jammer support.


Nope. Sending jammers along with stealth aircraft would be
counterproductive. The jammers would be a signal that an attack is
imminent.

LOL. And what exactly does that do for them? Without jamming they
can track and shoot down stealth aircraft that get close enough to a
radar. When you are getting that close you start jamming otherwise
they are going to see you and blow you out of the sky. See below.

Two f117 were hit ,one lost,the other safely returned,both because of
jammer
failures.


Nope.

March 29, 1999 8:38, the stealth F-117 bomber, flown by Capt Dale
Zelco, was shoot down near the village Budjanovci, 64 km from
Belgrade. They broadcast footage of the wreckage on TV. The USAF
attributed the shootdown to three factors. 1) Yugoslav defenses
adpating to the airstrikes and finding ways to work around their
limitations. 2) US forces got too predictable in their routing and
multiple SAM units were moved into the path of the F-117 and brought
it down with a salvo of missiles. 3) EA-6B jamming aircraft assigned
to protect the F-117 was too distant to provide effective jamming. As
a result the F-117 was more visible to radar than usual. (source: Air
Forces Monthly, No.138 September 1999)

Read #3 as many times as it takes to sink in.

April 30 1999 An F-117A of the 49th FW was damaged during strike
mission by a nearby explosion of an SA-3 SAM, "...causing loss of part
of the tail section, but the aircraft was able to return safely to
Spangdahlem air base, Germany." (source: Air Forces Monthly, July
1999, p. 75)

Your repeated denial of reality is noted.

--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft

Nope. Sending jammers along with stealth aircraft would be
counterproductive. The jammers would be a signal that an attack is
imminent.

Still better than losing stealth aircraft,I guess.

Two f117 were hit ,one lost,the other safely returned,both because of
jammer
failures.


Nope.

Unfortunately true.

The originator of now famous saying "Jammers are like American Express
never
leave home without them" is a f117 "driver".period.


Nope.


Unfortunately true too,Moreover,it originated during DS not Balkan
conflict,even in DS F117s had no easy time,Balkan conflict was only worse.

Henry J. Cobb wrote:
Since the Air Force has never put their stealth aircraft into harm's
way without jamming I would think they agree that stealth alone has
never been 100 percent effective.

It has been widely reported that USAF F-117s flying into Baghdad were
initally supported with jammers, but that this practice was stopped when the
Stealth pilots complained that the AAA was opening up before they dropped
their bombs. The gunners were apparently being alerted to the impending
attacks by the fact that their radars were being jammed. When the jamming
was stopped, the AAA only began firing reactively *after* the bombs went
off.

So they're 100 percent dependent on the Marines.

??? The Navy flies most of the EA-6Bs, and they do deploy to land bases from
time to time, as well as from carriers.

Which is why Boing just got the contract to develop the Growler.

This contract has nothing to do with the Air Force, since the USAF is not
actually planning to get any EA-18s. The Air Force solution appears to be
EB-52s equipped for very powerful stand-off jamming, as wll as fairly masive
hard-kill defense suppression.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Henry J. Cobb wrote:
Since the Air Force has never put their stealth aircraft into harm's
way without jamming I would think they agree that stealth alone has
never been 100 percent effective.

It has been widely reported that USAF F-117s flying into Baghdad were
initally supported with jammers, but that this practice was stopped when
the
Stealth pilots complained that the AAA was opening up before they dropped
their bombs. The gunners were apparently being alerted to the impending
attacks by the fact that their radars were being jammed. When the jamming
was stopped, the AAA only began firing reactively *after* the bombs went
off.

So they're 100 percent dependent on the Marines.

??? The Navy flies most of the EA-6Bs, and they do deploy to land bases
from
time to time, as well as from carriers.

Which is why Boing just got the contract to develop the Growler.

This contract has nothing to do with the Air Force, since the USAF is not
actually planning to get any EA-18s. The Air Force solution appears to be
EB-52s equipped for very powerful stand-off jamming, as wll as fairly
masive
hard-kill defense suppression.

Tom, the EB-52 remains in the mythical category, last I knew. The EA-6 is
considered a true joint asset, and the USAF contributes to its manning.

Brooks

Kevin Brooks wrote:
"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
hlink.net...

This contract has nothing to do with the Air Force, since the USAF
is not actually planning to get any EA-18s. The Air Force solution
appears to be EB-52s equipped for very powerful stand-off jamming,
as wll as fairly masive hard-kill defense suppression.

Tom, the EB-52 remains in the mythical category, last I knew.

I agree it's not confirmed (hence the "appears to be" in my post). However,
it's looking increasingly likely, IMO.

The
EA-6 is considered a true joint asset, and the USAF contributes to
its manning.

Yes, but this does not contradict my post at all. The EA-18 is apparently
not being bought joint (at least not yet) and the procurement numbers being
discussed seem to be predicated on needing to equip ten carrier airwings
with six aircraft each, without provision for expeditionary squadrons.
Sure it will be tasked jointly; everything is these days. But there
probably won't be any to deploy with Air Force AEFs.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
hlink.net...

This contract has nothing to do with the Air Force, since the USAF
is not actually planning to get any EA-18s. The Air Force solution
appears to be EB-52s equipped for very powerful stand-off jamming,
as wll as fairly masive hard-kill defense suppression.

Tom, the EB-52 remains in the mythical category, last I knew.

I agree it's not confirmed (hence the "appears to be" in my post).
However,
it's looking increasingly likely, IMO.

Not too sure about that. I suspect the USAF is more interested in keeping
what remaining heavy bomber capability it enjoys from the remaining B-52's
than it would be in turning a chunk of them into EB's.


The
EA-6 is considered a true joint asset, and the USAF contributes to
its manning.

Yes, but this does not contradict my post at all. The EA-18 is apparently
not being bought joint (at least not yet) and the procurement numbers
being
discussed seem to be predicated on needing to equip ten carrier airwings
with six aircraft each, without provision for expeditionary squadrons.
Sure it will be tasked jointly; everything is these days. But there
probably won't be any to deploy with Air Force AEFs.

And the EA-18 would also be jointly manned, and jointly used. Ten CAW's
worth provides a few left ashore, which is the way they currently handle the
support of the AEF's with EA-6's. Granted there has been talk of wanting
more capability, but there has also been talk of using UAV's for this role
as well.

Brooks


--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)