It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Burton fast became one of the most unpopular men in the Pentagon. He titled the briefing he gave on his findings "Letting Combat Results Shape the Next Air-to-Air Missile." His findings? Of more than 260 Arab aircraft knocked down by Israel in 1973, only five fell to Sparrows in 12 firings. Of the 632 Sparrows fired in all the wars Burton studied, only 73 destroyed the airplane they were fired at, for a kill rating of 11%. The ancient Sidewinder did almost three times better: of some 1,000 Sidewinder firings, 308 kills resulted in a kill rating of 30%.
The host of U.S. radar-based weapons are all vulnerable to ARMs. The E-3A AWACS has a superb radar antenna that can detect hundreds of targets simultaneously -- and can itself be seen at extremely long distances. An AS-4 or -6 could be launched 300-400 mi. away and home in on it with ease. The same is true for the 40 Aegis cruisers and destroyers destined for fleet service with the Navy. With hundreds of Soviet ARMs ready for firing from submarines, surface ships, aircraft, and land, a U.S. carrier battle group, heavily dependent on radar, might be in serious trouble, especially if the missiles were sea-skimmers.
Pilots of B-1 and B-2 bombers penetrating Soviet airspace most likely will use terrain-following radar to stay low and avoid detection. Using inexpensive radar finders, like the fuzzbusters motorists use to avoid police speed traps, on hiss surrounded by flat terrain, the Soviets should have no trouble seeing the bombers coming. And Soviet radar homing and warning equipment can pick up VHF transmissions or over-the-horizon radar from distant approaching aircraft. In fact, the whole issue of stealth technology could become moot, if one considers that a radar antenna runs along the entire length of a B-2 wing's leading edge. Once in visual range, stealth is irrelevant. It is more than probable that an F-117 or a B-2 can be found, identified, and shot down using basic common sense. The F-117 has to make such wide turns that its survival in a visual air-to-air fight is precarious.
Still, a growing number of soldiers and analysts are asking tough questions about the future of radar warfare. "We cannot go around radiating signals," says Amlie. "The French sell a missile to the entire Third World that will hit an Aegis every time. We are building a peacetime military that will never be effective in combat."
As the cheapest U.S. Air Force combat aircraft used in Desert Storm, the A-10 Thunderbolt II stands out as a rare example what can be accomplished by simple, inexpensive, reliable weapons. Promoted by military reformers, and derided by many Air Force officials slow and unmaneuverable, the $12 million(4) A-10 not only proved its value in Desert Storm, but it far outperformed more expensive aircraft. The list of superlative is astounding, especially given the small number (144) of A-10’s deployed:
Over 300 Apaches worldwide were essentially grounded in order to provide spare parts for 274 Apaches in the Gulf. Apaches outside of the Gulf flew an average of four minutes per day, only 10 percent of normal operations, in order to save spare parts.(24) In essence, this means the taxpayer bought over 600 expensive attack helicopters in order for the Army to be able to field 274 of them. Instead of fixing the $11 billion Apache program’s logistical shortcomings, the Army is pressing a. with a new, $34 billion light attack helicopter program
Despite receiving massive logistical support, Apaches in the Gulf only flew at or below peacetime rates, even during the ground war reporting period.(26) The peacetime rate is about 1/2 hour of flying per day, averaged over a month. This means that throughout the war Apaches flew only one fifth of the hours the Army stated it would require for combat.(27) However, statistics detailing hours flown by Apaches in the shorter four day period of the ground war are not yet available.(28) It is possible that combat objectives for the Apache were achieved during the 100 hour ground war. But even if so, it remains extremely unclear how a longer conflict would have strained Apache supply and readiness.
This is not to suggest that the M60A1 is a match for the M1 or M1A1, but that it was good enough to defeat the fourth largest army in the world. There are several other main battle tanks available that can match the performance of the M1, at a much lower cost.
These same reports say that the M1 must be shut down for repairs every three to five hours, and could not travel more than twenty miles before requiring emergency maintenance.
The Abrams' thermal sights were unhampered by the clouds of thick black smoke over the battlefield that were the result of burning Kuwaiti oil wells. In fact many Gunners relied on their "night" sights in full daylight. Such was not the case with the sights in the Iraqi tanks, which were being hit from units they could not even see. Concerns about the M1A1's range were eliminated by a massive resupply operation that will be studied for years as a model of tactical efficiency.
During the Gulf War only 18 Abrams tanks were taken out of service due to battle damage: nine were permanent losses, and another nine suffered repairable damage, mostly from mines. Not a single Abrams crewman was lost in the conflict. There were few reports of mechanical failure. US armor commanders maintained an unprecedented 90% operational readiness for their Abrams Main Battle Tanks.
One way to look at the effectiveness of the F-117A versus non-stealthy aircraft is to examine the survival figures. While the F-117 arguably flew some of the most dangerous missions, it flew very few of them, perhaps avoiding harm merely by not tempting the odds. During the course of the war, which consisted of over 100,000 aircraft sorties, a total of 41 airplanes of all kinds were lost in combat.(52) Of that total, almost half (18) of the airplanes were lost in the first week, when Iraqi air defenses were at their strongest. Thus, the Iraqi air defenses at peak effectiveness claimed one aircraft for every 555 flights.(53) the F-117As in the Gulf flew an average of 217 sorties per week.(54) Even considering the possibility that the F-117 flew a disproportionately high number of missions in the first week, it is highly unlikely to have flown anywhere near the 555 times that would, on average, put the plane in statistical danger of being shot down. The Stealth Fighter may have escaped the odds simply by not throwing the dice enough times to crap out.
The idea that “high-tech saves lives” does not seem to reflect the actual record of the Patriot system. Israelis and American scientists point out that damage to buildings tripled and casualties increased by 50 percent after Patriot was deployed to Israel. 67 This makes a great deal of sense considering that a minimum of two $700,00 Patriot missiles(68) were fired at each incoming Scud, increasing the amount of debris and explosives flying low over defended cities. Video clips show Patriot missiles following Scud debris into the ground – in essence helping Scuds to strike their targets
the f117 "sucess" in the iraq war was mainly by the horde of tomahawks launched and HARM attacks, also by the saturation of the radar system, and also by other resons, for example a very heavy proportion of the iraq radars were aimed to iran, actually if i remember well the apaches did the first strikes against radar instalations -well any heli would do that if your bases are close enought-
Although only 36 stealth fighters were deployed in Desert Storm and accounted for 2.5 percent of the total force of 1,900 fighters and bombers, they flew more than a third of the bombing runs on the first day of the war. In all during Desert Storm, the stealth fighter conducted more than 1,250 sorties, dropped more than 2,000 tons of bombs, and flew more than 6,900 hours. More than 3,000 antiaircraft guns and 60 surface-to-air missile batteries protected the city, but despite this seemingly impenetrable shield, the Nighthawks owned the skies over the city and, for that matter, the country. The stealth fighter, which is coated with a secret, radar-absorbent material, operated over Iraq and Kuwait with impunity, and was unscathed by enemy guns.
Aviation Regiment, the unit that drew the dangerous mission that was code named "Normandy."He should know because he was piloting one of the Apaches when simultaneous attacks knocked out two key early-warning radar sites in western Iraq at precisely 2:38 a.m. Jan. 17
Moments later, some 100 Air Force jets streaked across the border for an undetected bombing run on Baghdad that marked the start of Desert Storm's punishing air war
Originally posted by Harlequin
What has this thread got to do with stealth??
And Soviet radar homing and warning equipment can pick up VHF transmissions or over-the-horizon radar from distant approaching aircraft. In fact, the whole issue of stealth technology could become moot, if one considers that a radar antenna runs along the entire length of a B-2 wing's leading edge. Once in visual range, stealth is irrelevant. It is more than probable that an F-117 or a B-2 can be found, identified, and shot down using basic common sense. The F-117 has to make such wide turns that its survival in a visual air-to-air fight is precarious.
the fact is that the f117 were not detected because that tactical move that was done by APACHES, actually that was the main pylon of all the air strike
The russians also have A2A home-on-jam missiles - which would kinda kill an AWACS
New weapons have certain abilities that old ones didn't have... But are they as good as ana verage WW2 soldier... NO... that's my opinion...
Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
A lot fhe statements from your two articles seem to be completely twisted.
And what is to be expected? You are comparing short range and long range missiles here. Of course the short range is going to be more successful. That doesn't make the other less significant or useful, though.
The E-3 is able to jam and scramble enemy radars. It's performed this job well in Kosovo and Iraq. Your entire article seems to take no account of jamming capabilities at all.
Tell this to the Serbs and Iraqis who failed to shoot them down while they flew over....
I suppose this French missile is the Exocet, which was in use during the Gulf War, as well as in the Falklands. In spite of all its hype, it had little impact.
The A-10 certainly did prove itself, but not at the expense of other aircraft. The A-10 performed its role, which no other could compare with. At the same time, we obviously couldn't expect the A-10 to fill the roles of other combat aircraft.
Or, to put it in a more logical way, there simply wasn't the need or desire to employ all of them to one region, and instead they focused on a small amount. This says nothing about what they were capable of doing, just what was the cheapest solution at the time.
Which doesn't mean anything, because as said, it could have (and most likely did) achieve all of its roles in combat.
And what would happen if you pitted a M60A1 (oh, it's also wrong...M60A3's were employed) up against a T-90, or a more advanced American tank...?
While arguing over prices, the author obviously doesn't take into account survivability. If you are losing multiple M60A1's per Abram (as would be likely in a large scale affair for a more lightly armored tank), the price means nothing.
I would kind of doubt such a claim considering the fact that the allied forces moved with the speed they did. Either way, it seems in conflict with this:
The Abrams' thermal sights were unhampered by the clouds of thick black smoke over the battlefield that were the result of burning Kuwaiti oil wells. In fact many Gunners relied on their "night" sights in full daylight. Such was not the case with the sights in the Iraqi tanks, which were being hit from units they could not even see.
Concerns about the M1A1's range were eliminated by a massive resupply operation that will be studied for years as a model of tactical efficiency.
During the Gulf War only 18 Abrams tanks were taken out of service due to battle damage: nine were permanent losses, and another nine suffered repairable damage, mostly from mines.
Not a single Abrams crewman was lost in the conflict. There were few reports of mechanical failure. US armor commanders maintained an unprecedented 90% operational readiness for their Abrams Main Battle Tanks.
This is a rather blatant misuse of statistics. A F-117 is giong to be flying the most dangerous missions, where it's going to have a higher rate of being shot down.
They were the first ones in (while your article laughably tries to avoid admitting it), facing the toughest of Iraqi defenses.
The Patriots failure to protect a city is widely noted by critics of such weaponry. At the same time, it wasn't designed for such a role when it was employed in Israel, and it has since been upgraded significantly.
Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
The role was nothing more than opening a bridge. for the F-117. The only thing this shows is your own misconception of stealth.
The fact is, the F-117 was flying over the most heavily defended areas in Baghdad while other planes weren't allowed to go near it.
Just hope they can get past the defenses of an awacs, and in range to take such a shot...
There may be something to be said of the toughness of the WW2 era weapons, but many modern weapons have shown some of that same toughness in difficult terrain. Abrams, for instance.
Originally posted by grunt2
YEAHHHH LIKE HIGH BYPASS FIGHTERS TURBOFANS
shadow, also that logic is complety stupid and even arogant, i mean the russians tryed to copy the shutlle concept, now with your hand at your heart, the shuttle have a real and practical use???
[edit on 3-12-2005 by grunt2]
Originally posted by StellarX
The Germans during the second world war opted for more mobility and firepower instead of more armor.