Why is Stealth So Important?

On 15 Jan 2004 22:18:19 GMT, (Smartace11) wrote:

By all respect to all Thud or Scooter drivers of Vietnam era,we must also not
forget the the most dangerous missions in Vietnam were assigned to Rf101 and
RA5 planes.

Negative. The most dangerous missions were the F-4 chaff layers in Linebacker.
Hard to miss a chaff stream across the sky. The target is right at the front
of it. Second, the BUFFs over Bullseye, in the post release turn away from the
run in. heading.

Not to get into a "mine is bigger than yours", but different aircraft
at different time had different risks.

The only way a reasonable comparison can be made would be check stats
on losses per sortie. If that is done, you won't find the RF-101 at
the head of the list, since the aircraft was used theaterwide for
recce. While the Voodoos did lose a bunch, they didn't lose the
highest number per sortie.

As for Linebacker, I just compiled a list of LB losses and found the
USAF lost 60 F4-D and E aircraft during the period from May through
October of the LB campaign. Only a fraction of those were involved in
chaff drops. A lot were lost to MiGs.

While the relationship between the chaff corridor and the source is
true, only the lead flight in a chaff package gets that distinction.
The remaining three or four flights are back along the stream and
don't stand out as well. Additionally, they are above the guns and
stabilized in resolution cell pod coverage. It's a lousy mission, no
argument, but don't think it was the most dangerous.

My nominee would be early illuminators flying stabilized circles
around heavily defended targets, hand-aiming a grease pencil mark on
the canopy to keep a Zot spot on the target long enough for the bomb
dropper to dump an LGB.

You might also want to go back and check loss rates in the early days
of the war before ECM pods, chaff support and RWR gear.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On 15 Jan 2004 22:18:19 GMT, (Smartace11) wrote:

By all respect to all Thud or Scooter drivers of Vietnam era,we must
also not
forget the the most dangerous missions in Vietnam were assigned to Rf101
and
RA5 planes.

Negative. The most dangerous missions were the F-4 chaff layers in
Linebacker.
Hard to miss a chaff stream across the sky. The target is right at the
front
of it. Second, the BUFFs over Bullseye, in the post release turn away
from the
run in. heading.

Not to get into a "mine is bigger than yours", but different aircraft
at different time had different risks.

Yep. And I would not forget the "other" aviators in the theater--over 3,000
UH-1 variants were lost during the war, with over 2,000 crew KIA
(www.vhpa.org/heliloss.pdf ). That would mean about as many UH-1's were
lost as all of the fixed wing losses from all of the services combined, add
the other helo types and I suspect the loss "balance" would shift to the
rotary side.

Brooks

snip

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 00:42:16 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message

Not to get into a "mine is bigger than yours", but different aircraft
at different time had different risks.

Yep. And I would not forget the "other" aviators in the theater--over 3,000
UH-1 variants were lost during the war, with over 2,000 crew KIA
(www.vhpa.org/heliloss.pdf ). That would mean about as many UH-1's were
lost as all of the fixed wing losses from all of the services combined, add
the other helo types and I suspect the loss "balance" would shift to the
rotary side.

Brooks

Yep. Lots of losses of helicopters. Lots of helicopters. Lots of
intrepid Army aviators shot down multiple times. An incredibly
hazardous mission.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

"Denyav" wrote

Write to your Congressman/woman and demand a Mitchell style public demo,US
stealth fleet vs.US counter LO system now.

There has been an ongoing, real world public demo for over a decade.

Result:
US stealth aircraft - thousands

Various radar systems - 1

Pete

My nominee would be early illuminators flying stabilized circles
around heavily defended targets, hand-aiming a grease pencil mark on
the canopy to keep a Zot spot on the target long enough for the bomb
dropper to dump an LGB.

You might also want to go back and check loss rates in the early days
of the war before ECM pods, chaff support and RWR gear.

Funny I was going to mention that but didn't

My put was pretty subjective Ed but you may well be right. My first stint
there was in Constant Guard out of Holloman, one of the "summer help" in F-4Ds.
We flew mostly bombing missions in line abreast four ships, four flights in
trail. Like the WWII bomber formations, it was "hold your position nomatter
what". On one of my first Linebackers, I got up close and personal with a
couple of optically guided SA-2s that were flying through the formation close
enough for me to realize the Mach 3 sonic boom could really rattle the F-4.
Hated that mission. The Korat Hunter-Killer and escort missions felt a lot
better than those dumb bomb truck sorties..

Did have a friend out of Ubon tell me, stats aside, that the chaff mission was
a lot worse in his opinion, having flown both.

I escorted a flight of LGB droppers during Linebacker II in Gen Merkling's back
seat - one of those double bang "to hell with crew rest" Linebacker sorties.
We sat in orbit over the lake in the middle of Hanoi for 15 minutes waiting for
a small cloud to move off the coal fired electrical plant there. It moved,
they got it. we all went home. Only had about 8 rounds of 57mm shot at us the
whole time. Guess they were Winchester from the night before. I think that
was the second or third night of LBII

Steve

Yep. And I would not forget the "other" aviators in the theater--over 3,000
UH-1 variants were lost during the war, with over 2,000 crew KIA
(www.vhpa.org/heliloss.pdf ). That would mean about as many UH-1's were
lost as all of the fixed wing losses from all of the services combined, add
the other helo types and I suspect the loss "balance" would shift to the
rotary side.

Brooks


Yeah but we wer talking about airplanes, though!

Just kidding.

That was a pretty messy job. Talked to any number of rotary wing guys at the
bar who had been shot down four or five times.

"Denyav" wrote in message
...

Write to your Congressman/woman and demand a Mitchell style public demo,US
stealth fleet vs.US counter LO system now.


No. You have to support your own claims.

"Ed Rasimus" wrote

Yep. Lots of losses of helicopters. Lots of helicopters. Lots of
intrepid Army aviators shot down multiple times. An incredibly
hazardous mission.

So hazardous the missions were flown by Warrants:

"These commissioned warrant officers are direct representatives of
the president of the United States. They derive their authority from the
same source as commissioned officers but remain specialists, in contrast
to commissioned officers, who are generalists."

To put it nicely.

"Gene Storey" wrote in message news:HGFNb.310$ce2.102@okepread03...
Peasants never get a say in any country (including the United States).


That might make sense, if not for the laundry list of Peasant Wars
of the 20th Century. : )

Eric Wolf wrote the classic study of the same name.


There were enough intellectuals and educated people fighting


Nearly all the South Vietnamese intellectuals and educated people
lived in large cities...where the Communists had the least support.
That is one reason why the 1968 Tet Offensive failed. There was
no general uprising of the people in the cities, as the Commies
had hoped.

The Vietcong's main support base was, in fact, drawn from peasants
in the countryside.


the peasants didn't count.


LOL.


On top of that you seem to be talking about the wrong folks. I'm talking
about the Vietnamese that rejected the countries division into two
regions under the promise of a vote.


If peasants didn't count, very few people would reject such a division.


South Vietnam was a fake country.


No more phony than the Communist regime. Giap himself was a Catholic.
Bottom line is that the South lost funding and support from their
foreign allies at a time when the North did not.

The Vietcong guerrillas nonetheless failed, the North Vietnamese Army
was forced to take over their fight, and the war was decided with
conventional battles, years after American ground troops pulled out
of Vietnam.

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 23:51:14 -0600, "Gene Storey"
wrote:

"Ed Rasimus" wrote

Yep. Lots of losses of helicopters. Lots of helicopters. Lots of
intrepid Army aviators shot down multiple times. An incredibly
hazardous mission.

So hazardous the missions were flown by Warrants:

"These commissioned warrant officers are direct representatives of
the president of the United States. They derive their authority from the
same source as commissioned officers but remain specialists, in contrast
to commissioned officers, who are generalists."

To put it nicely.


Yes, a lot of Army aviators are warrant officers. A lot are also
commissioned officers.

Don't know the source of your quote, but it starts out with an
oxymoron, "commissioned warrant officers". They area either one or the
other.

Whether or not a warrant officer is an appropriate rank for a job has
nothing at all to do with the hazard involved.

One might want to review the ranks of the POWs in the Vietnam war to
check regarding the hazard and warrant relationship.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8