Israeli Stealth???

They" who?

Who claimed that stealth planes would make ECM assets unneccesary.

The B-2, F-22 and F35 are certainly close enough :-)

Yeah right,0,0001 sqm frontal RCS and still detected,tracked and imaged very
easily.(not by your fathers radars though)

In article ,
(Denyav) wrote:

They" who?

Who claimed that stealth planes would make ECM assets unneccesary.

That's a "what," not a who.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

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

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.

I thought that you folks were getting the F-35, has that changed?


Al Minyard

In message , Alan Minyard
writes
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.

I thought that you folks were getting the F-35, has that changed?

The F-35 has an onboard office, thus denying it UAV status

--
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 Fri, 17 Oct 2003 21:02:29 +0100, Paul J. Adam wrote:
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?)

That's actually a whole host of questions: Who do we mean by "we"?
What defense (and associated foreign policy) posture should we have?
How much better are stealth aircraft, compared to unstealth
aircraft, against SAMs / stealth aircraft / unstealth aircraft? Do
stealth aircraft have other benefits? Is it better to go for lots of
cheap systems, or a few expensive systems? How big a priority is it
to minimise own casualties?

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.

Which, IYO?

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.

Hmmm. The F-117 is yesterday's aircraft; I'm not sure its an optimum
solution to future problems.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 02:35:47 +0100, phil hunt wrote:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 21:02:29 +0100, Paul J. Adam wrote:

"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?)

That's actually a whole host of questions: Who do we mean by "we"?
What defense (and associated foreign policy) posture should we have?
How much better are stealth aircraft, compared to unstealth
aircraft, against SAMs / stealth aircraft / unstealth aircraft? Do
stealth aircraft have other benefits? Is it better to go for lots of
cheap systems, or a few expensive systems? How big a priority is it
to minimise own casualties?

Having asked all these questions, I'll have a go at answering them.

Firstly, who is "we"? The UK has three options for foreign policy
alignment: on its own, with the EU or with the USA. This is a not
uncontroversial issue! Britian's relations with the EU (and by
implication with the USA) split the Labour party in the 1980s,
caused the Heseltine resignation (and thus the eventual toppling of
Thatcher), and split the Conservatives in the 1990s. No wonder the
current UK policy is to never have to choose between the EU and USA.

On its own, the UK has about 5% of world GDP; the EU and USA each
have around a quarter of the total, with the USA in the lead,
although the EU's growth by adding new members may change that.

The real difference is the UK is a part of the EU, but not of the
USA: consequently, Britain has more votes (and therefore influence)
in the European Parliament or Council of Ministers than in the US
Congress or cabinet. So (until such time as the USA offers Britain
membership) the decision essentially makes itself: "we" is the
European Union.

What defense posture, then, should the EU have? I prefer somrethin g
like the Swedish or Finnish postu armed to the teeth, and totally
non-threatening. (Britain currently has very small armed forces
compared to its population or meny it spends of defense; size up the
Swedish or Finnish armed forces relative to the British population,
then compare how big they are.) The EU should have a smallish
professional army, armed with the latest kit, backed up by units
tasked for peacekeeping, and a very large reserve force (200+
divisions). Note that this needn't cost much more than it does
already. In the air, a reasonable objective would be the ability to
gain air supremacy over the combined air forces in Europe's near
abroad (roughly, Eurasia west of the Urals-Afghanistan-Pakistan, and
Africa north of the Sahel)[1]. Note that these countries include
ones with very sophisticated aircraft and SAM capability, ones that
are very primitive, and ones in between.

How useful is stealth? In the future, warfare will be about
detecting the other guy before he detects you -- the first to be
detected loses. More primitive nations, with more primitive radars,
will be the most badly affected by a stealth adversary, because they
won't be able to detect stealth aircraft but would be able to detect
unstealthed ones. (The most primitive countries, with little
anti-aircraft capabilities, with be unaffected by whether their
adfversaries use stealth). Against more technologically capable
opponents, whether they are using stealth thremselves or not, the
use of stealth would probably help to gain a technological edge,
though not necessarily a bit one. So stealth is useful versus a wide
variety of potential adversaries.

(One must also consider exports: would anyone the EU might want to
influence by supplying arms to, have a need or desire for stealth
aircraft? I think the answer is clearly yes).

Current EU aircraft are unstealthed, and designing new ones takes
some time. But aircraft increasingly don't have a wetware control
system, and UAVs (including UCAVs and cruise missiles) are an
increasingly attractive option (I expect the UK's FOAS to be all or
mostly UAV), and the EU is increasingly stealthing them (such as the
SCALP family of cruise missiles). This is sensible and should
continue. The UK (and other EU nations, such as the Netherlands) are
also considering buying the stealthed F-35; this is sensible since
it gives some manned stealth capability.

UAVs should be made as cheap as possible. Defence electronics are
sophisticated and often expensive; consumer electronics are more
sophisticated, and often cheap. Mostly this is due to the value
networks[2] of the respective defence and consumer electronic
industries.

Cheap UAVs would overload the enemy's defences, and minimise own
casulaties.


[1] Not that that means they are considered enemies; indeed some
will probably join the EU at some point. It's a matter of countering
capability.

[2] _The Innovator's Dilemma_ has a good discussion on value
networks (and is an excellent book in general).

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

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

"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?)

In the next six months? I don't see Britain fighting anyone alone in
the next year. But then again, who saw the Malvinas war in Jan 1982?
(I certainly didn't; then again, I wasn't born until March.)

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?

And assess the value of aircraft lost (plus trained pilots and
prestige possibilities) in operations that would have been saved with
stealth ones for the most dangerous missions. (Comparing loss rates
over recent operations doesn't apply because the available stealth
planes handled classes of missions which in this hypothetical war
would have to be handled by less capable planes.)

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.

Always more 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.

How easily would they fit into the RAF logistical train? I'm told that
the Black Jets are real hanger queens, and normally only forward
deploy to specially prepared airfields. No detailed knowledge,
obviously, but I wonder whether you could create all that on the fly
while at the same time getting up to speed on the airframe itself.

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.

Okay. I tend to think that drones providing recon are the most
important element to the next generation of warfighting, but I'm a
network geek, so of course I'll skew that way. I'm not quite sold on
this whole revolution in military affairs, but I like some of its
parts.

Chris Manteuffel

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:


Low-observable isn't a US monopoly, Al, and the US does more
collaboration than you might think (though there are still internal
firewalls; teams working with the US can't then talk to Some Other
Nations or teams working with them...)
Heck, the theory was developed by the Russians, and
released publically about 30 years ago.

--
Matthew Saroff

Does anyone else out there strongly feel that the folks at the TV
Networks who have censored out Daffy's beak getting blown off (Shoot
Me NOW!) deserve to be stripped naked, tied face down over a chair,
covered with moose musk, and set in the migratory path of a large
moose herd?
Comments to (remove the numbers to reply)
Check http://www.pobox.com/~msaroff, including The Bad Hair Web Page