Effectiveness of air superiority

Post by **Balthagor** » Nov 21 2002

A link was sent to me that might be a good one to discuss. Feedback welcomed as usual..

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... e_tricks_2

(Thanks to R. Byrd)

tkobo · Post by **tkobo** » Nov 21 2002

Interesting read.But it seems to me to be the normal mix of fact and fantasy used to make readers believe the entire article when only parts of it have any real value of truth.
Kinda like reading an article in the Daily Babel.

A few things that ring false at first read.
Despite what the article says apaches(roughly 2 dozen) and c130 spectres were deployed to Kosovo.
The apaches are said to have not been used due to the fact that their style of attack is most effective in a theatre with a "front",which kosovo really didnt have.
C130 spectres however were used quite alot.

Another is the stealth aircraft "shining like buses".
Hmm, lets see.Over 1000 sorties were flown by roughly 25 f117as.This resulted in one shot down and 2 severely damaged f-117 aircraft(both of which landed safely).
Now is it me,or do these "buses" seem awful hard to hit ??Here we see yet another case of some truth blown way out of purportion in an attempt to cloud the truth.
Yes,stealth planes loss some of their stealth when they open their bays,yes water and even dirt can degrade their stealth also,yes certain configurations of certain radars have a much higher chance to spot stealth aircraft.Does this come even close to a "shining bus " ? I think not.

Lets keep in mind that over 35,000 sorties were flown in roughly 11 weeks.With the loss of less than 100 aircraft.Lets also keep in mind that a genicidal war was halted as a direct result of these sorties.
Calling the air war anything short of a victory is quite insane.

Air superiorty is meant to punish enemy ground forces and protect friendly ground forces.Im not sure what more the writer of this article expected from it,but he needs to get a better grip on reality.

Ashbery76 · Post by **Ashbery76** » Nov 21 2002

"Another is the stealth aircraft "shining like buses"

Dont allways believe what your gov's tell you, there was a leak in the major papers from a U.K arms dealer a few years back that said during an air show in the U.K they tracked the Stealth bomber with ease from the states.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ashbery76 on 2002-11-21 12:23 ]</font>

tkobo · Post by **tkobo** » Nov 21 2002

Oh please.Yup ,they are just SOOOOOO easy to spot that in over 1000 sorties only 3 resulted in damage to an aircraft.Guess they just didnt think those big costly f117s were worth the ammo to shoot down.Not important enough targets I guess

Heck all the nations spending billions in stealth tech research and stealth planes and ships should just go out and buy old school buses

.Im sure with todays tech we can get those buses airborne somehow.

As for believing "my government" you obviously dont know me very well.I consider EVERY government about as trustable as Billyboy Clinton running a girl scout camp.

If for some reason you need an idea of what the authors mind set was just read the messages posted by the articles supporters.
Out of 18, the greater majority is nothing more than ethic hate/pride with little to no basis in fact.
The one guy even gets the stealth aircraft shot down wrong.

I dont know anything about the claim made by an arms dealer about seeing the f117 coming from america but more than few things stand out about the premise of such a statement.
#1 thats some radar he had to see the aircraft leaving america all the way from england.
#2 Trusting what an arms dealer,defense contractor,or used car salesman say will get you about the same results.
#3 there is a VERY large difference between the operational statis(employment of stealth features) of a stealth aircraft being ferried from one country to another and that of one being used in war.

Ashbery76 · Post by **Ashbery76** » Nov 21 2002

"1000 sorties only 3 resulted in damage to an aircraft"

Interesting but if you look at sorties by non stealth aircraft in kosova they have a lower damage rate.

tkobo · Post by **tkobo** » Nov 22 2002

What do you base this on ?

"According to Serb sources NATO lost 48 aircraft, 16 helicopters and about 300 soldiers operating on secret missions inside Yugoslavia. Other sites talk about NATO losing as many as 350 aircraft and 500 soldiers"
The only estimates Ive seen for US aircraft losses (due to combat)claimed by nato is 2.
One f117 and one f16.

Now as far as stealth aircraft go as a type of aircraft deployed,you'd also have to count in the B1s and B2s that saw action .NONE of them were lost.So 2 different types of stealth aircraft flew sorties and had zero losses.Kinda hard to lose less than zero.
And then the f117 which lost 1 and had damaged 2 others( you might even be able to count the 2 damaged as lost as Im not sure they can do heavy repairs to stealth aircraft and still have it function normal).
By the way ,lets also not forget that stealth aircraft fly the nastiest most dangerous missions available.
Mainly ,because they can.

Here by the way were the est serb losses-
Troops Killed: 5,000
Troops Wounded: 10,000
Tanks Lost: 93
APC's Lost: 153
Artillery Pieces Lost: 389
Military Vehicles: 339
Aircraft Lost in Dogfights: 6 Mig-29's & 1 Mi-8
Aircraft Lost on the Ground: about 40-50( 5 Mig-29's, about 20 Mig-21's

I see zero evidence that stealth aircraft were not effective.
I see zero evidence that the airwar was not effective.
In roughly 11 weeks of an almost total air war a nation decided to accept all of nato's demands ,demands it had vehemitly(sp) declined many times beforehand.
In fact some have claimed that Kosovo was proof that an all airwar could achieve victory pretty much on its own.I'm not sure I agree with this conclusion but they do now have a strong argument based on results at least to back them up.

Ashbery76 · Post by **Ashbery76** » Nov 22 2002

"In roughly 11 weeks of an almost total air war a nation decided to accept all of nato's demands ,demands it had vehemitly(sp) declined many times beforehand".

Its one thing doing that to weak country's like iraq/serbia but i wonder how effective these stealth fighter/bomber would be vs russia,and also have you heard reports that stealth fighters can be picked up by german mobile phones.

tkobo · Post by **tkobo** » Nov 23 2002

Thats the real rub isnt it ?
How effective is air superiority agaisnt a quality foe ?
How effective is stealth tech agaisnt a quality foe ?

I dont think the US has gone up agaisnt anyone that really measures up in quite a while.So these questions are still viable.

A quality foe IMHO opinion would have high tech equipment,abundant resourses,and a large and highly trained cadre of men.
Personally I can't think of any nation that fits this description at this time in history that the US would find itself fighting agaisnt.
Now before you think I'm slighting russia,remember,I said "at this time in history".And remember im NOT counting allies (like england,who meet the criteria but are highly unlikely to end up on opposing sides with the US in a war).
Now give russia some time to get back on their feet however and they fit the mold clasically.Give them the time to get the resources moving out of siberia in an effective manner,to stablize their economy and re-organize (and retrain)their forces and they will again be a true super power.

As for the mobile phone thing.Nope havent heard it.I also don't understand it.
Just how would a phone detect a stealth aircraft ?Is it picking up radio/transponders signals ?If so remember those signals dont exist during a stealth mission becuase said equipment is off and not used.

If you have got a link please post it.I live for this kinda stuff and would love to read it.

As for the "story" this thread is about,well in america they used to call this yellow journalism (i belive that was the term).
Basically emtionally charged writing meant to inflame passions instead of presenting facts and usable info.
Meant to inflame rather than instruct.

Post by **Balthagor** » Nov 24 2002

Wow! I really started something with this one, didn't I?

For the record, the guy who sent it too me is currently in the US army (not sure if air/navy/army) and sent it too me with about the same info I gave you guys. I feel that the general agreement is that it is inflated, but that the point of never assuming your country has the ultimate weapon is valid. Besides, if you have the ultimate weapon, what will you build next

So the next questions would be, for game purposes, what types of "tech tree" items should aircraft fear? Are newer stealth planes the only threat for older stealth planes? Should there be an anti stealth SAM you can research? Should you be able to put buses with wings in the air?... sorry got carried away.

BTW, the Cell phone picking up the stealth fighters?... I've seen comments of this twice in sources that I thought reliable. I'll try and find on the the links again. If it was Janes, I would have saved a copy of the article. I'll let you know.

tkobo · Post by **tkobo** » Nov 25 2002

I dont believe in "the ulitmate weapon stuff".
One reason stealth aircraft are so successful is that the enemies radar defense systems are among the very first struck.
The created weakness is then exploited by the stealth aircraft.The stealth aircraft are part of a combination first punch(or second if cruise are first) ,not solo gods of war.

In kosovo over 50% of the f117 missions were canceled due to weather conditions.
This is a side argument for more substantial weather effects if not actaul weather patterns in the game by the way .This also clearly shows that the environment is among the planes main weaknesses.
The system that shot the f-117 down in kosovo is said to have been a sa-10(s-300) favorit.In the late 90's this was one of russia's best sam systems.Ive heard it uses 3 seperate radars to track a target.One on the system,one on the missile and one independant mobile radar all slaved to work together.
The US aparently didnt even know the sam systems were in the theatre,as none were known to have been owned by the serbs.
Yelstin himself had told nato that NO s-300 systems were in the hands of the serbs but that there had been plans to sell them some.
The F-117 that was shot down also ended up in russian hands,they recently admitted this and added that the downed aircraft was used to test stealth properties and sam effectiveness against them.

In my opinion the future of stealth aircraft will be much the same as that of tanks.It will be a continual contest between the techs involved,in the aircrafts case ,of keeping them hidden and that of finding them with the winner of the moment being the primary factor in deciding the weapons effectivesness.
Just like armor and anti-armor weapons.

So I'd think that newer radar systems and newer configurations (even of older systems) would be the most logical counter technology to stealth tech.
Heck even a 20 year old fighter can down the average stealth bomber IF it can find it(not counting the f22 which is a multi function aircraft and not just a bomber.FEAR the F-22,at the moment at least

).

tkobo · Post by **tkobo** » Nov 25 2002

On a side not,russia is said to have developed a new type of stealth tech using plasma fields.
The s-37 supposedly has this new system in use already.
No idea how it works.I have only seen it mentioned a few times now.Supposedly the aircraft generates a plasma field around itself which somehow greatly lowers the planes emv,one report siad the field actaully eats/consumes the incoming radar waves,thus there is nothing to be reflected back.
I also read an article that claimed this tech could make radar sites/anteneas(sp) themselves undetectable.