"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