Jump to content

Aircraft Survivability


Recommended Posts

According to the article he posted they took only parts, and when you drop a model it breaks but it doesn't crumple or burn which it sure looks like happened with this aircraft. How can it be complete when parts are utterly destroyed?

Well, here's the best way I can put it. 1) you're not completely wrong to infer that the F-117 wreck didn't provide a functional wreck, but 2) a functional sample isn't necessary to exploit technology which, to that point, probably wasn't physically available.

Think of it like this: as aviation technology surpassed aerodynamic innovations and turbine engine advancements, exploitation of other, often incomplete, assets was enough to understand construction techniques, where and how raw materials were harvested (probably not the best use of the word 'harvest' there) and other things which I will specify.

1) The Air Force raced to photograph Su-20 (-17/-22?) wrecks in Egypt during the 1970s to find the compressor and turbine blades. They didn't need the whole engine or aircraft to benefit from the wreckage. What they wanted was to learn how Soviet engines were able to withstand high heat for sustained periods at power levels Americans struggled to obtain. The answer was that the blades had ports through which air traveled to cool the blades without warping them.

Also, the number of blades and width of the first stage compressors and final stage of the turbines helped the US build a digital library of Soviet engines which was used to identify aircraft types real time for the pilots and radar controllers.

2) Even if Belenko's MiG-25 wasn't in tact when it reached Japan, the radar could have been inspected and judged, engine myths could have been debunked, the engines could have been added to the library and the construction techniques would have been revealed.

3) K-129 was at least partially recovered, probably exploited in some way.

And when materials were examined, maybe this caused a few new SR-71 missions to look for mines and factories in areas the US didn't suspect before.

The point is that you don't need an intact aircraft to exploit the technology. Maybe the Russians improved their laser guidance devices, learned from our engines, learned how to construct advanced composites, learned the composition of the 'mystery' paint, and other secrets that most Americans don't even know, all because of that shoot down. This confirms my fear that sending in highly advanced aircraft into murder boxes, where less advanced aircraft can be used, compromises American technological secrets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, here's the best way I can put it. 1) you're not completely wrong to infer that the F-117 wreck didn't provide a functional wreck, but 2) a functional sample isn't necessary to exploit technology which, to that point, probably wasn't physically available.

Think of it like this: as aviation technology surpassed aerodynamic innovations and turbine engine advancements, exploitation of other, often incomplete, assets was enough to understand construction techniques, where and how raw materials were harvested (probably not the best use of the word 'harvest' there) and other things which I will specify.

1) The Air Force raced to photograph Su-20 (-17/-22?) wrecks in Egypt during the 1970s to find the compressor and turbine blades. They didn't need the whole engine or aircraft to benefit from the wreckage. What they wanted was to learn how Soviet engines were able to withstand high heat for sustained periods at power levels Americans struggled to obtain. The answer was that the blades had ports through which air traveled to cool the blades without warping them.

Also, the number of blades and width of the first stage compressors and final stage of the turbines helped the US build a digital library of Soviet engines which was used to identify aircraft types real time for the pilots and radar controllers.

2) Even if Belenko's MiG-25 wasn't in tact when it reached Japan, the radar could have been inspected and judged, engine myths could have been debunked, the engines could have been added to the library and the construction techniques would have been revealed.

3) K-129 was at least partially recovered, probably exploited in some way.

And when materials were examined, maybe this caused a few new SR-71 missions to look for mines and factories in areas the US didn't suspect before.

The point is that you don't need an intact aircraft to exploit the technology. Maybe the Russians improved their laser guidance devices, learned from our engines, learned how to construct advanced composites, learned the composition of the 'mystery' paint, and other secrets that most Americans don't even know, all because of that shoot down. This confirms my fear that sending in highly advanced aircraft into murder boxes, where less advanced aircraft can be used, compromises American technological secrets.

We should definitely send only the least advanced aircraft into "murder boxes"

By your definition above there it's dangerous to send anything, so why are we worried about the F-117 any more than any other "advanced" aircraft? If we are too afraid to use advanced combat aircraft in combat, what is the purpose in fielding them at all? And what is the implication of sending combatants in substandard equipment?

This is something you have brought up before, the idea thay all aircraft will inevitably be shot down eventually by the cliche golden BB, and spill secrets to the enemy, so it's far better to send substandard systems especially those that are almost guaranteed to be lost.

It's very much a self licking ice cream cone. Better to send inferior aircraft that will definitely be lost, rather than one that would only be brought down by luck further reinforcing the notion that losses are commonplace, and thus advanced aircraft must be shielded even more.

Bravo

The 1st objective is completing the mission. Not preserving secrets. If that takes an advanced aircraft, then you use the advanced aircraft. I don't hear anyone whining about the 160th using the world's most advanced helicopters to transport it's best warriors. (And yes we have had losses where we destroyed the wreckage with those aircraft)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1st objective is completing the mission. Not preserving secrets. If that takes an advanced aircraft, then you use the advanced aircraft. I don't hear anyone whining about the 160th using the world's most advanced helicopters to transport it's best warriors. (And yes we have had losses where we destroyed the wreckage with those aircraft)

2 things: Yes people griped at its loss, but that was 4.5 years ago. The value of the target was judged to be worth the sacrifice.

Losing our most advanced aircraft in murder boxes to destroy trucks isn't a fair trade by me, but maybe you feel differently.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like a doctrinal definition for murder box, please. I don't understand the term, nor what it's being used to argue.

I think it has to do with gaming:

18j2506sst9qcjpg.jpg

1461978-1122a_10a01.jpg

PEW! PEW! PEW! BRRRRRT! BOOM!

Edited by Trigger
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 things: Yes people griped at its loss, . The value of the target was judged to be worth the sacrifice.

You think that only happened once, huh? Number 1 I'm talking about the usual 160th helicopters that are considered advanced and have been confirmed losses that were then destroyed to preserve the tech in the helicopters.

And number 2, how do you know how many times the stealth helicopters were used before or after the raid on various targets judged to be "worth the sacrifice?" You are judging it from hindsight using only a single sample size.

but that was 4.5 years ago

I have no idea how that is relevant.

but anyway, The F-117 was how many years before that?

Losing our most advanced aircraft in murder boxes to destroy trucks isn't a fair trade by me, but maybe you feel differently.

Losing less advanced aircraft and pilots to destroy trucks is a "fair trade?"

I don't think you understand the basic proposition. Using advanced aircraft in "murder boxes" means far fewer losses, possibly zero in fact. While using less advanced aircraft is sure to result in losses of aircraft and pilots. Losing our people "to destroy trucks" is a "fair trade"??

If you aren't willing to lose machines then you certainly shouldn't be sending human beings. If the trucks are deemed worthy enough to attack in a "murder box" then they are worth the risk to pilot and plane. Simply dismissing the targets as unworthy of risk is not an answer. If it aint worth dying over, then its not worth killing over-- Something people seem to forget these days, as we launch head long into wars and we are then upset when the enemy gets its licks in.

You are not going to have the war were you keep casualties and costs to a minimum while eliminating risk, and using just the right amount of force it takes to kill the enemy and be effective. You can pick a combination of those factors, and emphasize some over others but never really eliminate them. You are in the wrong business if you think you can have it all without the mess here.

I can use cheap planes that lower costs, but increase risk, lower effectiveness and lose personnel for example. Its trade offs.

Back in the old days you went to war to win, not lose less until its time to go home with the minimum amount of risk applied. That seems like kind of a crazy idea these days I know, but once upon a time you used the best tool for the job that gave you the best chance of accomplishing the mission, surviving, and (big picture here) winning the battle and finally war. you didn't send substandard gear with the idea that the target wasn't even worth attacking in the first place in a losing effort. I think you are confused on the concept of "economy of force"

lastly back in the late 1990s there was this guy who used to cruise through A-stan in a Land Rover, and he was deemed not worthy of the risk of an attack, not worth the risk for a "terrorist in a truck". Guess how that ended up? This is a people war. Its not the trucks, its the terrorists they transport, denying them the tools they need to wage their kind of war is critical. Like someone saying Neptune Spear was employing our advanced machines and people to "kill some guy in a house" its a bit more than that right? You can dismiss those targets in "murder boxes" if you wish but it brings up far bigger questions about the nature of the conflict you are fighting, and other questions about airpower being used at all.

It comes back to one of my favorite themes, if you aren't playing to win don't play. Because there is no such animal as "partially dead" troop in a "partial committed" conflict. Don't just mark time losing people week after week until its time to go home, trying to preserve cost and technology, in that case the winning move is not to play, thus preserving the force and the money, and the tech.

Its all academic. Its foolish to think that only stealth aircraft have tech we would rather not have fall into enemy hands, from Jamming aircraft to spy aircraft, to drones to Spec Ops aircraft.

A ship in the harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are for.

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like a doctrinal definition for murder box, please. I don't understand the term, nor what it's being used to argue.

If I may; it may be a description of a target similar to what the guys went thru over Route pack 6a/6b in SEA especially around Hanoi/Haiphong; an area more heavily defended that Berlin in WWII.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You think that only happened once, huh? Number 1 I'm talking about the usual 160th helicopters that are considered advanced and have been confirmed losses that were then destroyed to preserve the tech in the helicopters.

And number 2, how do you know how many times the stealth helicopters were used before or after the raid on various targets judged to be "worth the sacrifice?" You are judging it from hindsight using only a single sample size.

I have no idea how that is relevant.

but anyway, The F-117 was how many years before that?

Losing less advanced aircraft and pilots to destroy trucks is a "fair trade?"

I don't think you understand the basic proposition. Using advanced aircraft in "murder boxes" means far fewer losses, possibly zero in fact. While using less advanced aircraft is sure to result in losses of aircraft and pilots. Losing our people "to destroy trucks" is a "fair trade"??

If you aren't willing to lose machines then you certainly shouldn't be sending human beings. If the trucks are deemed worthy enough to attack in a "murder box" then they are worth the risk to pilot and plane. Simply dismissing the targets as unworthy of risk is not an answer. If it aint worth dying over, then its not worth killing over-- Something people seem to forget these days, as we launch head long into wars and we are then upset when the enemy gets its licks in.

You are not going to have the war were you keep casualties and costs to a minimum while eliminating risk, and using just the right amount of force it takes to kill the enemy and be effective. You can pick a combination of those factors, and emphasize some over others but never really eliminate them. You are in the wrong business if you think you can have it all without the mess here.

I can use cheap planes that lower costs, but increase risk, lower effectiveness and lose personnel for example. Its trade offs.

Back in the old days you went to war to win, not lose less until its time to go home with the minimum amount of risk applied. That seems like kind of a crazy idea these days I know, but once upon a time you used the best tool for the job that gave you the best chance of accomplishing the mission, surviving, and (big picture here) winning the battle and finally war. you didn't send substandard gear with the idea that the target wasn't even worth attacking in the first place in a losing effort. I think you are confused on the concept of "economy of force"

lastly back in the late 1990s there was this guy who used to cruise through A-stan in a Land Rover, and he was deemed not worthy of the risk of an attack, not worth the risk for a "terrorist in a truck". Guess how that ended up? This is a people war. Its not the trucks, its the terrorists they transport, denying them the tools they need to wage their kind of war is critical. Like someone saying Neptune Spear was employing our advanced machines and people to "kill some guy in a house" its a bit more than that right? You can dismiss those targets in "murder boxes" if you wish but it brings up far bigger questions about the nature of the conflict you are fighting, and other questions about airpower being used at all.

It comes back to one of my favorite themes, if you aren't playing to win don't play. Because there is no such animal as "partially dead" troop in a "partial committed" conflict. Don't just mark time losing people week after week until its time to go home, trying to preserve cost and technology, in that case the winning move is not to play, thus preserving the force and the money, and the tech.

Its all academic. Its foolish to think that only stealth aircraft have tech we would rather not have fall into enemy hands, from Jamming aircraft to spy aircraft, to drones to Spec Ops aircraft.

A ship in the harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are for.

Survivability means something different than stealthiness. Stealthiness is an edge while survivability is dependent on several things, such as susceptibility and vulnerability. But when that edge disappears, stealth aircraft will find themselves in a tough pickle. For one, stealth is supposed to reduce the amount of support required for a mission. When a stealth aircraft finds itself exposed to air defenses, it will be up the creek with no paddle because it will be missing support. We don't need to look any further than a lost F-117 for proof that even a stealth aircraft could find itself in a situation with low chance of survival.

I want to address one of the tangents you went on about the stealth helo lost in Pakistan. You waiver on a line where on one side you say stealth aircraft operate without risk to defenses, but on the other side you recognize the loss our country took when it lost stealth tech in the past -- all while knowing good and well that stealth aircraft (plural) have been hit before. After the shoot down that compromised the F-117's secrets (which you deny) the 160th lost a stealth helicopter in the Bin Laden raid, thus giving more stealth secrets to our rivals. Those techs aren't free, and the employment of stealth aircraft into zones where they could be lost just as easy as the next aircraft can set us back even more. Now if the stealth option is necessary, then use it, but don't throw it out there when it will suffer the same or worse fate as another aircraft.

Next tangent: I don't agree in assuming that the next war will be like Afghanistan. I don't hope to see the US open new fronts to chase terrorists around in countries we will have to babysit for the next decade. The realist in me realizes the militaries of our actual rivals aren't riding around in white Toyotas shooting rifles at streetgoers. You can bomb the hell out of those guys with stealth fighter-bombers all you want -- or you could hit them with other aircraft just as well. But I'm not banking on our military rivals not having the firepower to shoot down and exploit our most advanced aircraft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like a doctrinal definition for murder box, please. I don't understand the term, nor what it's being used to argue.

The Revell end opening boxes. I hate those things.

Regards,

Murph

Link to post
Share on other sites

Survivability means something different than stealthiness. Stealthiness is an edge while survivability is dependent on several things, such as susceptibility and vulnerability. But when that edge disappears, stealth aircraft will find themselves in a tough pickle. For one, stealth is supposed to reduce the amount of support required for a mission. When a stealth aircraft finds itself exposed to air defenses, it will be up the creek with no paddle because it will be missing support. We don't need to look any further than a lost F-117 for proof that even a stealth aircraft could find itself in a situation with low chance of survival.

Yeah you really don't know what you are talking about

I want to address one of the tangents you went on about the stealth helo lost in Pakistan. You waiver on a line where on one side you say stealth aircraft operate without risk to defenses, but on the other side you recognize the loss our country took when it lost stealth tech in the past -- all while knowing good and well that stealth aircraft (plural) have been hit before.

thats right Stealth aircraft have been hit-- in less than about .1 percent of missions. Even the F-117 loss was a coordinated effort to get just one of them. If a stealth aircraft is the only thing that can survive a "Murder box" then that should be the airplane that is sent. You don't send a lesser airplane that will get shot down and not complete the mission.

After the shoot down that compromised the F-117's secrets (which you deny)

Number 1 I didn't deny it. I questioned what the definition of "Mostly intact sent to Russia" --I know reading comprehension isn't a strong suit though. Parts where sent to Russia where it was tested according to your source. What they specifically got out of that is anyones guess. Russia won't disclose it. So tell me Oscar, what secrets did they get?

the 160th lost a stealth helicopter in the Bin Laden raid, thus giving more stealth secrets to our rivals. Those techs aren't free, and the employment of stealth aircraft into zones where they could be lost just as easy as the next aircraft can set us back even more.

Assuming that stealth aircraft are just vulnerable is a complete fallacy. They are not equal. In order to win your argument you are saying the aircraft are equal, and thus risking the least advanced aircraft is preferable. But they are fundamentally different. There wouldn't be a helicopter raid if not for the stealth helicopters in the first place. If they are equally vulnerable, then why were the stealth helicopters developed in the first place?

Now if the stealth option is necessary, then use it, but don't throw it out there when it will suffer the same or worse fate as another aircraft.

Again, they are not equal. This isn't about stealth or not, its about you making a blanket statement about all the aircraft being the same, when they clearly are not. even a 160th Chinook is vastly different from a vanilla Chinook and with good reason, the more advanced helicopter is needed to accomplish the SF mission.

Next tangent: I don't agree in assuming that the next war will be like Afghanistan. I don't hope to see the US open new fronts to chase terrorists around in countries we will have to babysit for the next decade. The realist in me realizes the militaries of our actual rivals aren't riding around in white Toyotas shooting rifles at streetgoers. You can bomb the hell out of those guys with stealth fighter-bombers all you want -- or you could hit them with other aircraft just as well. But I'm not banking on our military rivals not having the firepower to shoot down and exploit our most advanced aircraft.

You are changing the parameters again, what happened to the "murder boxes"?

Oscar, this whole thing seems to be beyond your depth, and that's the best way I can put that. You either don't understand or can't articulate your opinion and I'm sick of wasting my time with you. I'm sure it makes sense in your head though, and I'm not going to waste my time trying to figure out whatever rules or parameters or phrases you have invented for your little scenarios.

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to address one of the tangents you went on about the stealth helo lost in Pakistan. You waiver on a line where on one side you say stealth aircraft operate without risk to defenses, but on the other side you recognize the loss our country took when it lost stealth tech in the past -- all while knowing good and well that stealth aircraft (plural) have been hit before. After the shoot down that compromised the F-117's secrets (which you deny) the 160th lost a stealth helicopter in the Bin Laden raid, thus giving more stealth secrets to our rivals. Those techs aren't free, and the employment of stealth aircraft into zones where they could be lost just as easy as the next aircraft can set us back even more. Now if the stealth option is necessary, then use it, but don't throw it out there when it will suffer the same or worse fate as another aircraft.

That's the nature of the game, you employ a platform, you take a risk that it might be lost. The whole point of stealth is to decrease (not eliminate) that risk.

Not sure why you felt that the use of that stealth helo increased the chance that it would be lost? If you believe what you read in the press, that helo crashed due to non-combat reasons. The fact that it (apparently) made it to the objective with it's SEAL's intact must count for something, right? Also, if you believe what is out there in the press, the helo lost in Pakistan was an earlier generation of "stealthhawk". Later, more advanced helos are supposed to currently be in service. I doubt the loss of that helo was a catastrophe for the US and even if it was, given the result of the mission, I'm guessing that most folks would say it was still worth it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the nature of the game, you employ a platform, you take a risk that it might be lost. The whole point of stealth is to decrease (not eliminate) that risk.

Not sure why you felt that the use of that stealth helo increased the chance that it would be lost? If you believe what you read in the press, that helo crashed due to non-combat reasons. The fact that it (apparently) made it to the objective with it's SEAL's intact must count for something, right? Also, if you believe what is out there in the press, the helo lost in Pakistan was an earlier generation of "stealthhawk". Later, more advanced helos are supposed to currently be in service. I doubt the loss of that helo was a catastrophe for the US and even if it was, given the result of the mission, I'm guessing that most folks would say it was still worth it.

Yep.

Moreover, secrets can be compromised via spies, double agents, infiltrators, hackers etc... Maybe we shouldn't even develop anything advanced in the first place? As long as it exists, it can be theoretically compromised, and not just by crashing in enemy territory

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah you really don't know what you are talking about

It doesn't make sense to you because I referenced the Post-Naval Graduate Schoo's Robert Ball, a specialist in structural dynamics and survivability, instead of relying on conjecture as you have.

thats right Stealth aircraft have been hit-- in less than about .1 percent of missions. Even the F-117 loss was a coordinated effort to get just one of them. If a stealth aircraft is the only thing that can survive a "Murder box" then that should be the airplane that is sent. You don't send a lesser airplane that will get shot down and not complete the mission.

It wasn't a huge effort to get that F-117. Sure they used spotters in Italy to transmit when the F-117s took off, but that doesn't mean they weren't detectable to begin with. We're not talking about a single stealth being hit with SAMs either, we're talking about multiple stealth aircraft going into areas unsupported when their stealth failed and getting hit. If their stealth wasn't taken for granted then they would have received better support, which will continue to be a factor. You can't treat all stealth operations like its Panama in the 1980s.

Number 1 I didn't deny it. I questioned what the definition of "Mostly intact sent to Russia" --I know reading comprehension isn't a strong suit though. Parts where sent to Russia where it was tested according to your source. What they specifically got out of that is anyones guess. Russia won't disclose it. So tell me Oscar, what secrets did they get?

Why are you asking me? You seem to acknowledge they got something out of the F-117, so what else are you trying to prove? By the way, you actually did deny that materials went to Russia, then you got hung up because you don't understand the difference between a complete wreck and a functional sample.... All this and you're criticizing MY reading comprehension?! LOL riiiiight

Assuming that stealth aircraft are just vulnerable is a complete fallacy. They are not equal. In order to win your argument you are saying the aircraft are equal, and thus risking the least advanced aircraft is preferable. But they are fundamentally different.

I'm not saying any of those things. I'm plainly stating that aircraft have different levels of survivability, stealth is an edge that tends to disappear, and that some stealth aircraft have no defense when stealth fails. That's really not a huge argument to make given all the evidence. I can't say I'm surprised at your attempts to reframe my argument in order to beat it. After all, one of the most common actual fallacies I see here is the strawman, which we can reasonably say you've mastered.

There wouldn't be a helicopter raid if not for the stealth helicopters in the first place.

You'd sort of have to be the president to make that decision.... you've really gotten a little too big for your breeches there!

You are changing the parameters again, what happened to the "murder boxes"?

I did no such thing. This thread is about aircraft survivability and I was trying to steer it back on course because you were turning it into your personal soapbox again. You really don't have respect for any other posters on this board when you keep doing this.

Oscar, this whole thing seems to be beyond your depth, and that's the best way I can put that. You either don't understand or can't articulate your opinion and I'm sick of wasting my time with you. I'm sure it makes sense in your head though, and I'm not going to waste my time trying to figure out whatever rules or parameters or phrases you have invented for your little scenarios.

Since you're so quick to point out "fallacies", I might as well call out your ad hominem attack. You haven't grown tired of "waisting your time", you've simply realized you never had a leg to stand on. There's a huge difference between arguing a point and propping yourself up with conjecture and tangents, which is as deep as you've gone so far. If you could just make one post without losing your focus or depending on fallacies I would be glad to see what you're really trying to say. And if it sounds as stupid as I think it does, then we could put it all to rest.

Edited by Exhausted
Link to post
Share on other sites
Survivability means something different than stealthiness. Stealthiness is an edge while survivability is dependent on several things, such as susceptibility and vulnerability.

This is incorrect. Low observable features are one of many design aspects of modern aircraft that contribute to increased survivability. LO features take many forms, and can apply in many different spectrums, including the RF, IR, visual, and acoustic spectrums. "Stealth" is not an accurate term, and has many negative or frankly SF connotations, hence the reason for LO. Adding LO features involves tradeoffs, no doubt, but it most certainly is a feature of survivability. Electronic warfare systems--both active and passive; aircraft signature--in all spectrums; decoys; expendables--chaff, flare, Bol IR, obscurants, etc; speed; maneuverability; redundancy; and resiliency are all design factors that contribute to survivability. Note that most of these survivability features are tailored to avoid the aircraft getting hit in the first place. "Advanced aircraft" of differing designs use differing amounts of these design features in differing manners to enhance their survivability relative to their role, perceived threat, and available technology, both when constructed and since modernized.

But Low Observable features are definitely a feature of survivability.

For one, stealth is supposed to reduce the amount of support required for a mission.

Not necessarily. Change the type of support required, maybe, to make it less complex, or to reduce the demand on certain types of low-density/high-demand assets. Change the type of support required from on scene to something over-the-horizon. While the original concept may have been for an airframe that is alone and unafraid, able to penetrate and strike with impunity because the enemy never knows it is there, that is not how it has played out operationally, and missions are never designed this way. As described above, certain low observable platforms have increased survivability against certain threat environments. They (and others) will require differing levels of support depending on the mission, adversary, threats, and available assets. What LO gives you, however, is an increased range of options, and an overall lower risk, making a commitment to certain types of tactics and operations more acceptable.

When a stealth aircraft finds itself exposed to air defenses, it will be up the creek with no paddle because it will be missing support.

Only if the mission planners and the people flying said LO platforms have completely blown off mission planning and are totally unaware of their platforms' capabilities. As I've said, there is ZERO chance an LO aircraft is operating without the specific, tailored additional support required for mission success. One of the tradeoffs for LO mission execution is they generally require extensive mission planning, far and away well above a conventional platform, to be successful. Don't take my word for it though, there have been numerous articles written about this level of planning. One of the (many) failures of the F-117 shootdown was allegedly failure to update this planning, and to fall back on pre-planned routes, turn points, and timing that had been flown several times repeatedly....making it very easy to set up an ambush. Part of the reason for that major, costly mistake COULD easily be due to the high operations tempo, lack of updated intel on the tactical situation, and the high overhead costs of LO mission planning. But you can easily see why it would happen, if you look at the whole picture. Those F-117s were definitely not flying "alone and unafraid," by the way, they had plenty of on-station support. Reference F-117A.com, where you can read about the F-15 pilot, Capt Mike "Dozer" Shower, who shot down a MiG-29 while providing support for F-117s performing strike missions. There was plenty of other support for those missions as well. They just do not fall into the traditional strike package mentality; often they're flown or executed from detached locations, or using other assets. Support is still essential to LO mission success though.

Finally, you seem to imply that "stealth"--more correctly, LO design features--implies an aircraft is less capable. This may have been true with 1st or 2nd generation LO designs. However, beyond the F-117, LO design has evolved significantly. The "advanced modern" platforms you are admonishing may be very welcome over a non-contested environment, not just for their survivability features, but for many other aspects of their design which enable them to GREATLY contribute to mission effectiveness. The synergistic effects of having these platforms on station means they make all the other platforms that much more effective; hence the reason they are often in such high demand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is incorrect. Low observable features are one of many design aspects of modern aircraft that contribute to increased survivability. LO features take many forms, and can apply in many different spectrums, including the RF, IR, visual, and acoustic spectrums. "Stealth" is not an accurate term, and has many negative or frankly SF connotations, hence the reason for LO. Adding LO features involves tradeoffs, no doubt, but it most certainly is a feature of survivability. Electronic warfare systems--both active and passive; aircraft signature--in all spectrums; decoys; expendables--chaff, flare, Bol IR, obscurants, etc; speed; maneuverability; redundancy; and resiliency are all design factors that contribute to survivability. Note that most of these survivability features are tailored to avoid the aircraft getting hit in the first place. "Advanced aircraft" of differing designs use differing amounts of these design features in differing manners to enhance their survivability relative to their role, perceived threat, and available technology, both when constructed and since modernized.

But Low Observable features are definitely a feature of survivability.

Not necessarily. Change the type of support required, maybe, to make it less complex, or to reduce the demand on certain types of low-density/high-demand assets. Change the type of support required from on scene to something over-the-horizon. While the original concept may have been for an airframe that is alone and unafraid, able to penetrate and strike with impunity because the enemy never knows it is there, that is not how it has played out operationally, and missions are never designed this way. As described above, certain low observable platforms have increased survivability against certain threat environments. They (and others) will require differing levels of support depending on the mission, adversary, threats, and available assets. What LO gives you, however, is an increased range of options, and an overall lower risk, making a commitment to certain types of tactics and operations more acceptable.

Only if the mission planners and the people flying said LO platforms have completely blown off mission planning and are totally unaware of their platforms' capabilities. As I've said, there is ZERO chance an LO aircraft is operating without the specific, tailored additional support required for mission success. One of the tradeoffs for LO mission execution is they generally require extensive mission planning, far and away well above a conventional platform, to be successful. Don't take my word for it though, there have been numerous articles written about this level of planning. One of the (many) failures of the F-117 shootdown was allegedly failure to update this planning, and to fall back on pre-planned routes, turn points, and timing that had been flown several times repeatedly....making it very easy to set up an ambush. Part of the reason for that major, costly mistake COULD easily be due to the high operations tempo, lack of updated intel on the tactical situation, and the high overhead costs of LO mission planning. But you can easily see why it would happen, if you look at the whole picture. Those F-117s were definitely not flying "alone and unafraid," by the way, they had plenty of on-station support. Reference F-117A.com, where you can read about the F-15 pilot, Capt Mike "Dozer" Shower, who shot down a MiG-29 while providing support for F-117s performing strike missions. There was plenty of other support for those missions as well. They just do not fall into the traditional strike package mentality; often they're flown or executed from detached locations, or using other assets. Support is still essential to LO mission success though.

Finally, you seem to imply that "stealth"--more correctly, LO design features--implies an aircraft is less capable. This may have been true with 1st or 2nd generation LO designs. However, beyond the F-117, LO design has evolved significantly. The "advanced modern" platforms you are admonishing may be very welcome over a non-contested environment, not just for their survivability features, but for many other aspects of their design which enable them to GREATLY contribute to mission effectiveness. The synergistic effects of having these platforms on station means they make all the other platforms that much more effective; hence the reason they are often in such high demand.

I think this is a fair assessment of the issue. When you're talking sense it shows. There is no doubt that latest generation LO aircraft are much more capable than older gens. You really don't need me telling you this, but you hit the nail on the head for the doomed F-117 mission. So much was changing on the ground, yet the Air Force sortied the Nighthawks as if the situation hadn't changed. I would hope that today's doctrines include more room for responsiveness when situations change quickly.

There is a big difference between the older days when stealth could be the only option to penetrate heavy defenses to carry out a strike or recon mission, and today when (what are effectively today's) fighter bombers carry more advanced LO features than the F-117. I will end that I don't think LO is necessary for every platform at this stage, though it will surely become an embedded feature for most platforms in the future.

I've never said that LO isn't the way to go, I've only said it doesn't replace other features needed from different aircraft or replace the need for wide support. However much LO features diminish threats in a variety of situations, there clearly exists are myriad of scenarios where LO aircraft are susceptible.

Edited by Exhausted
Link to post
Share on other sites

Your calf muscles must be like iron from that much back pedaling.

If accusing me of backpedaling actually helps you with anything, go ahead and do it.

You didn't say in your earlier posts what you just said above. Before it was all about your personal opinions about A-10s being too unstealthy to remain relevant but now you're posting about the factual limitations of LO aircraft. All I've wanted to see is an objective opinion and by some miracle you've posted one.

Edited by Exhausted
Link to post
Share on other sites

I KNOW THAT!!!....however you can bet the farm that as soon as the other guy gets wind of what you're working on, he's working on how to defeat (detect if you will) it; in the Balkans it was a guess at...a guess at what probable time one would be over head so saturate the area and BINGO!!!.

Ya can't have it both ways...it's either silly or interesting......as far as stand off/not being seen; seems that was the idea behind the AIM-54..launch from 90 plus miles away, well that hit probability isn't what Hughes said it was, at least according to some serving Navy types have said IIRC, meaning the Tomcat had to get closer placing him within the other guys range :hmmm:/> . Technology doesn't always perform as advertised; sometimes ya gotta get in close and punch the other guy in the nose; getting that close ya wanna believe you can walk away from the encounter. I've been told for decades there is no dumb/silly question except the one that goes never asked.....kind of like what if.....had some inventors never asked what if where would be be today? If ya don't know, but would like to you ask those who do or should, those who also don't know could also learn by observing or listening. Maybe we could come up with a real cloaking device :whistle:/> ; now that's real survivability, being seen only when ya want to; however cinematic special FX are the stuff of dreams, and challenges for tomorrows engineers and dreamers. It would be great of one of ARC's members decendants read or was told of a thread like this and picked up the torch and created some of the stuff we talk about :)/> .

Yes you can have it both ways. Frankly, the way you're framing the debate makes it seem like you're talking about a situation from the late 1970s, not 2016. So many of the people who discuss this area and criticize decisions really are talking about issue that we conclusively resolved 30 years ago.

In Vietnam, AAA was the number one source of combat aircraft loss 1,433 of 1,543 aircraft were lost to AAA, only 110 to SAMs. Low level penetration was the culprit, in part due to an overriding fear of SAMs in the 1960s. The Air force realized this in the late 1970s and started a transformation, led primarily by General Wilbur Creech. In addition to SEAD and the F-117, He pushed hard for the development of Precision guided munitions, and long range targeting pods: LANTIRN being the first iteration. Weapons deliveries would be accomplished at medium to high altitudes, using sensors that gave unparalleled vision of targets on the ground. Getting up and close to the target was what the AF wanted to avoid: that's how they lost a lot of planes very quickly in Vietnam. In the thirty years since that's the way the USAF has fought. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of sorties when bombs has been dropped: the vast majority of them at medium altitude, hitting the target with success. There was one huge anachronism to that: the A-10. It didn't get a lot of the upgrades, partly because it was slated for replacement. It should be noted that in the Gulf War, its most effective weapon was the AGM-65 Maverick: basically a stand-off weapon. The Precision engagement capability upgrades that were implemented in the late 2000s basically make it operate at medium altitude and improved the cockpit ergonomics to facilitate the employment of standoff weaponry so that it wouldn't need to soak up 30mms or (the greater danger), MANPADS, like the SA-24.

In Alf's case we bought our CF-18s before this revolution. DND officials realized its benefits during the gulf war, but had no money to upgrade the CF-18 until about 1996, with the WPGM program. We barely train for low level delivery, if at all: it puts too much strain on our aging aircraft fleet and we don't employ those weapons anymore.

About your comment on reliability. The Phoenix was designed and built in 1960s, using the first generation of solid state electronics. Back then, the government was one of the largest developer of electronics technologies. That's the complete opposite of today... where there are are over a billion smart phones made a year. You could today give a group of 4th year engineering students to make an AIM-54 missile using a modern Android phone, and (if they have any level of ability), would probably give you a missile that would vastly outstrip the accuracy and reliability of the original Phoenix. We have literally hundreds of thousands of data points that the reliability of this system. And its GPS guidance is not the only system we have: a large proportion of our systems have dual mode seekers, or two guidance systems. So we're have a pretty deep level of redundancy on these systems.

I think its really important to understand that we're now starting a new era in how we prosecute wars. We're really looking at distributed sensor systems and massive battlefield networks. DoD is developing a number of different systems that collect massive volumes of data and process them to make decisions. One of the best examples is Gorgon Stare: its a camera system mounted to a MQ-9 that basically covers a 10X10km area and records all of the video in that area, basically two terabytes every minute, that can be reviewed to make decisions.

AFAIK, part of the challenge, is how to sift through all of this data to get to the relevant bits in a timely fashion in order to assist in timely decisionmaking. One example of this is the F-35's avionics, which are designed to help analyze data from sensors on the aircraft and others around it and present it to the pilot in a useable form.

So to reiterate: This survivability debate is one that has completely changed. If you're going to get hit by a 30mm, "your doing it wrong".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back on topic, and this should come as NO surprise, but I'd go anywhere, anytime and in any weather in an F-111. 4,049 Vietnam missions with 6 losses, with no tankers, early warning, MiGCap, defense suppression or ECM support. And they were 'A' models! At the SALT talks, year after year, the Russians DEMANDED the removal of ALL 111's from the European theater. They knew what they were capable of, and that says it ALL to me! Shall we talk about Desert Storm?.....

DET1460

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...