Why is Stealth So Important?

Seems to me like all the modern wars I can remember up from Vietnam
use mostly ordinary fighters and bombers.

I don't understand why such emphasis is put on that stealth stuff when
we use the same old planes from previously.

I still remember when the F-14 and F-15 came out. Don't we still use
these? Aren't they better than everyone else's stuff?

My son Billy tells me I'm out of date on such matters and that the old
Reds have stuff that is better than ours. Tell me it ain't so. I saw
on tv one night a show on the History Channel that showed a new plane
that did amazing flying but I can't recall its name. It was a Red
plane tho.

I don't have much interest in stealth so long as we keep pounding them
Arabs with B-52 bombs! God bless the almighty B-52.

Since I'm out of date maybe you guys can fill me in on the latest.
What makes a stealth aircraft better? If they are so good how come we
don't own many? What if they were all destroyed, wouldn't we still be
able to fight with the proven stuff?

Many thanks,

James Dandy

On 9 Jan 2004 07:50:56 -0800, (James Dandy)
wrote:

Seems to me like all the modern wars I can remember up from Vietnam
use mostly ordinary fighters and bombers.

I don't understand why such emphasis is put on that stealth stuff when
we use the same old planes from previously.

In 1966, while I was flying the F-105 over N. Vietnam, we lost one
every 65 missions. In 1991, during Desert Storm we lost one fixed wing
aircraft every 3500 mission. In 2003 in Iraqi Freedom we lost one
fixed wing aircraft in 16,500 mission.

So, we're going to send you into aerial combat, how do you want your
odds of survival?

I still remember when the F-14 and F-15 came out. Don't we still use
these? Aren't they better than everyone else's stuff?

Are you still driving the car you bought in 1970? Are new cars better?


My son Billy tells me I'm out of date on such matters and that the old
Reds have stuff that is better than ours. Tell me it ain't so. I saw
on tv one night a show on the History Channel that showed a new plane
that did amazing flying but I can't recall its name. It was a Red
plane tho.

Everyone has been developing not only aircraft, but avionics and
weapons as well. Flying 30 year old stuff isn't a good way to make it
to retirement.

I don't have much interest in stealth so long as we keep pounding them
Arabs with B-52 bombs! God bless the almighty B-52.

Since I'm out of date maybe you guys can fill me in on the latest.
What makes a stealth aircraft better? If they are so good how come we
don't own many? What if they were all destroyed, wouldn't we still be
able to fight with the proven stuff?

Stealth aircraft are more survivable. We don't have many, because the
military competes for $$$ against the welfare princesses and
redistribution of wealth candidates who run for election on a platform
of taking from "them" and giving to the masses. If they were all
destroyed, we'd be in deep kimchi. They are the "proven stuff."



Many thanks,

James Dandy

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

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On 9 Jan 2004 07:50:56 -0800, (James Dandy)
wrote:

Seems to me like all the modern wars I can remember up from Vietnam
use mostly ordinary fighters and bombers.

I don't understand why such emphasis is put on that stealth stuff when
we use the same old planes from previously.

In 1966, while I was flying the F-105 over N. Vietnam, we lost one
every 65 missions. In 1991, during Desert Storm we lost one fixed wing
aircraft every 3500 mission. In 2003 in Iraqi Freedom we lost one
fixed wing aircraft in 16,500 mission.

I think we can pretty well know the iris on the J-75 was taking out 1% of
the F-105s. When Ed posted here that the F-105's brakes could not hold the
airplane in AB, I could see that iris stuck open/closed/half way between.
Since the introduction of onboard automated testing in aircraft and the next
30 years of R&D, the number of failures per launch has been driven down year
on year; excludeing aging aircraft issues, that may show themselves at any
time.

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 09:50:55 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


I think we can pretty well know the iris on the J-75 was taking out 1% of
the F-105s.

Are you referring to the turbine Christmas tree? Failures of the
Christmas tree which held the three stages of turbine blades caused a
number of unexplained losses. I mention the bailout of Joe Vojir on
takeoff at Korat as well as the loss of Buzz Bullock and Dain Milliman
in takeoff accidents caused by turbine failure in When Thunder Rolled.

The AB nozzle (iris) didn't cause any accidents that I know about.
And, the nozzle is not synonymous with the speed brake petals or
pizzas (which were removed in '65).

When Ed posted here that the F-105's brakes could not hold the
airplane in AB, I could see that iris stuck open/closed/half way between.

No afterburner equipped aircraft that I know about can be held by
wheel brakes in AB. Carrier aircraft get into AB for launch by
employing a "hold back". The F-4, for example, couldn't be held in
military power by the wheel brakes. Engines were checked at 100% one
at a time. Takeoffs were done with a runup to 85% prior to brake
release, then to mil and finally to AB.



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

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 09:50:55 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


I think we can pretty well know the iris on the J-75 was taking out 1% of
the F-105s.

Are you referring to the turbine Christmas tree? Failures of the
Christmas tree which held the three stages of turbine blades caused a
number of unexplained losses. I mention the bailout of Joe Vojir on
takeoff at Korat as well as the loss of Buzz Bullock and Dain Milliman
in takeoff accidents caused by turbine failure in When Thunder Rolled.

I am refering to the AB nozzle, the iris at the back. It was a high failure
rate item, if stuck open offered the operator power in AB settings only, if
stuck in between, only lead sled power settings were available.

The AB nozzle (iris) didn't cause any accidents that I know about.
And, the nozzle is not synonymous with the speed brake petals or
pizzas (which were removed in '65).

The AB nozzle was a sticky part of the J-75.

When Ed posted here that the F-105's brakes could not hold the
airplane in AB, I could see that iris stuck open/closed/half way between.

No afterburner equipped aircraft that I know about can be held by
wheel brakes in AB. Carrier aircraft get into AB for launch by
employing a "hold back". The F-4, for example, couldn't be held in
military power by the wheel brakes. Engines were checked at 100% one
at a time. Takeoffs were done with a runup to 85% prior to brake
release, then to mil and finally to AB.

I don't believe the F-4 had the nozzle problems associated with the J-75 AB.

In 1966, while I was flying the F-105 over N. Vietnam, we lost one
every 65 missions. In 1991, during Desert Storm we lost one fixed wing
aircraft every 3500 mission. In 2003 in Iraqi Freedom we lost one
fixed wing aircraft in 16,500 mission.

One of the many "wrong" lessons learned in Vietnam,the ideas of Boyd&Co and
Stealth proponents are only two of them.

Vietnam was a proxy war,NV had full support of the other superpower and
China,whereas IRaq was a completely isolated third world country.Moreover,2003
Iraq Freedom operation started after 10 years of intense "preperations" and
further weakening Iraqi defences ,even if US used B-17s during Iraqi Freedom
(DSII),we probably would not lose even one of them either.

Only one conflict in last half century is comparable to Vietnam and its Yom
Kippur war .
FYI during first two weeks of Yom Kippur War Arab armies launched well over
7000 SAMs aganist Israeli aircraft.
Do you know how many SAMs launched aganist US aircraft during DSI and DSII?

Even aganist a small and weak country with improvisation skills,like Serbia,the
performance of Air Force was moderate at the best as a quote from Gen.Jumper
explains "Missions over Serbia on day 78 were as dangerous as they were one day
1"

Your next opponent might be Taliban,Iraq,Zimbabve,Ruanda,Backwardistan etc but
there is no guarantee for that.

Stealth is used today to "knock down the door" and the rest of
the stuff does the grunt work. The B-2 and other stealth assets
are used to knock down the electronic systems (radar, communications, etc).
Once that's done, you can build air superiority and the enemy has
no GCI to help them. Everything they launch has to go solo. Actually,
if the Iraqi's would have flushed their fighters, they would have done
some damage, but in the end, the massive amount of fighters and AWACS
that were flying could have easily beat them back in a few hours.

Once that's done, the air is ours, and we start plinking pop-up electronic
assets and the mechanized forces.

On 09 Jan 2004 20:15:51 GMT, (Denyav) wrote:

In 1966, while I was flying the F-105 over N. Vietnam, we lost one
every 65 missions. In 1991, during Desert Storm we lost one fixed wing
aircraft every 3500 mission. In 2003 in Iraqi Freedom we lost one
fixed wing aircraft in 16,500 mission.

One of the many "wrong" lessons learned in Vietnam,the ideas of Boyd&Co and
Stealth proponents are only two of them.


ROTFL! Oh really, and what pray tell is your practical insight to draw that
conclusion, compared to that of a combat vet who has a wardrobe full of
'dont that' T Shirts.



greg

--
You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit against the Harlot
after she marches right down the aisle and kicks you in the nuts.

ROTFL! Oh really, and what pray tell is your practical insight to draw that
conclusion, compared to that of a combat vet who has a wardrobe full of
'dont that' T Shirts.

Combat vets should try to do what they supposed to do best, we are not going to
re-fight Vietnam war or any war in the past,if f16 or f22 were available during
Vietnam war,it would be magnificent,but it was 30 years ago and science and
technology did not stop in 70s.

Stealth is used today to "knock down the door" and the rest of
the stuff does the grunt work. The B-2 and other stealth assets
are used to knock down the electronic systems (radar,

Yeah right,It proved its abilities,albeit under full ECM support aganist
defences of Panama,Afghanistan,Iraq,Serbia etc.
(In Balkans two ECM failures meant two f117 damages,but nevermind)
I wonder how they would fare against US ,UK or German counter LO systems?

Today you can detect and track a LO aircraft even more easily than conventional
aircraft with multistatics.
The stealty airborne platforms have only a PR value today,and thats the reason
why Air Force put them on display on every occasion,even though the passive
stealth is an extremely "sight-sensitive" technology !.