Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Can The President Negate The Value Of Stealth?  
User currently offlineCMB56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 230 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4824 times:

I have a question that has origins in the Vietnam war. At the time the rules of engagement for American fighter pilots over the North required a visual ID before they could engage enemy Migs. Given the very political environment that any conflict will bring with it could these same rules be impossed by a political leadership more worried about perception that the lives of our own pilots. Could the president by a rules of engagement decree simply negate the value of stealth? If an F-22 had to visually ID the SU-27s or Mig-29s it was hunting then most if not all the stealth value is gone and you are stuck in an old fashioned dog fight and the guy that gets inside gets the kill.

15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12060 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4784 times:

Yes, the President can set the ROE for any conflict during his administration. You may remember that President Clinton restricted bombing operations to 15,000' or above as a ROE. He did not want any US aircraft shot down, and possibly have a POW. Of course, that did not work very well, as the US bombed the Chinese Embascy, unintentionally. Also the Serbs ripple fired SAMs and successfully shot down a F-117 stealth fighter.

Other ROEs that contributed to the shoot down were all aircraft flying the same routes and times every day.


User currently offline11Bravo From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1716 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4730 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
Of course, that did not work very well, as the US bombed the Chinese Embascy, unintentionally.

The bombing of the Chinese Embassy had nothing to do with the ROE or the altitude restrictions. The target was misidentified. The attack was very accurate, they just picked the wrong target prior to the mission.



WhaleJets Rule!
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15459 posts, RR: 26
Reply 3, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4622 times:

Quoting CMB56 (Thread starter):
Could the president by a rules of engagement decree simply negate the value of stealth?

In a word, yes.

Quoting CMB56 (Thread starter):
If an F-22 had to visually ID the SU-27s or Mig-29s it was hunting then most if not all the stealth value is gone and you are stuck in an old fashioned dog fight and the guy that gets inside gets the kill.

While the "first look, first shot, first kill" mantra of the F-22 would be history, the Raptor is a more than capable dogfighter and should be able, with a well trained pilot, to at least match the Flankers and probably beat the MiG-29.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
Also the Serbs ripple fired SAMs and successfully shot down a F-117 stealth fighter.

There was also the fact that the Serbs used visual spotters, and the lack of electronic warfare aircraft also worked against the Nighthawk. Furthermore, if I recall correctly, just as in Bosnia some years before, the allies fell into a fairly predictable pattern of attack routes in the area.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently onlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4360 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4462 times:

Wasn't the interpretation of passive signals in large computer networks by western hacker scene another fact in this?

User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4416 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
You may remember that President Clinton restricted bombing operations to 15,000' or above as a ROE.

Do you have ANY evidence to back this up??

Because from what I've read, it was General Short who made that determination. You need to stop throwing out bogus statements.

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 2):
The bombing of the Chinese Embassy had nothing to do with the ROE or the altitude restrictions. The target was misidentified. The attack was very accurate, they just picked the wrong target prior to the mission.

Exactly. I have no idea where he got the idea that the bombing was a result of piss poor ROE. I think it's pretty obvious that he's more interested in grinding a political ax.  

In fact, SecDef Cohen later said, "...one of our planes attacked the wrong target because the bombing instructions were based on an outdated map." I know of no investigation that fingered the ROE as the cause.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/340735.stm

Quoting CMB56 (Thread starter):

Anyway, it would be nice to think that after the lessons of Viet Nam, politicians would know to minimize their meddling in military operations. Micromanaging the fine details from the Situation Room has never been a wise move.

...But we still manage to trip over our own feet. Hell, Donald Rumsfeld was one of the biggest micro-managers to run the Pentagon. He literally got involved in which specific units would/would not deploy to Kuwait, for the invasion of Iraq. The idea of the SecDef taking charge of the TPFDL is the epitome of a broken system.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6727 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4388 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
Also the Serbs ripple fired SAMs and successfully shot down a F-117 stealth fighter.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 3):
Furthermore, if I recall correctly, just as in Bosnia some years before, the allies fell into a fairly predictable pattern of attack routes in the area.

The primary reason, no need to get up to the presidential level, there are enough "managers" at the lower levels to mess things up.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 5):
Anyway, it would be nice to think that after the lessons of Viet Nam, politicians would know to minimize their meddling in military operations. Micromanaging the fine details from the Situation Room has never been a wise move.

When the B-52 bombing campaign of the North began it was not the politicians back home who decided that the slow turn was the only manuever to get out of dodge.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 5):
...But we still manage to trip over our own feet.

Unfortunate that this still occurs, my simple solution is that commissioned officers have to serve in the field for at least 5 years before being kicked up the promotion ladder to desk jobs, now they may mess up the day to day operation of the military but hopefully the 5 years will train and or weed out the "boarderline" cases. Simplistic I know, but we cannot always rely on wars to bring better leaders to the fore, uncessary casualties always preceed such events.


User currently offlineKingairTA From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 458 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4339 times:

Back on subject. I'd suspect that the stealth craft would still have the upper hand if it had to visually identify the target. Because he knows where the target is at and has the surprise advantage.

User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2090 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4229 times:

I like CBM56's point... we've long had capabilities that we weren't allowed to use. Hell the F-14 could track 24 targets at once and fire 6 Phoenix missiles simultaneously at 6 different targets from over 100 miles away... but do you think we'd ever get to use it that way? Nope, nothing short of a full on war with the USSR and if we had tons of Soviet bombers headed this way. The point is that even with all that capability at hand, it was useless most of the time because ROE's state you have to 'see' the target and make sure it isn't friendly. The fact is a Tomcat could kill an enemy long before the enemy would know a F-14 was there... but it would never be allowed to.

I think this handicaps the F-22 as well... it doesn't matter how far away he can kill a percieved enemy, he's still going to have to get close enough to 'see' that he's not one of ours.



Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3320 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3880 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 3):
While the "first look, first shot, first kill" mantra of the F-22 would be history, the Raptor is a more than capable dogfighter and should be able, with a well trained pilot, to at least match the Flankers and probably beat the MiG-29.

Likely in this case you would use the F22 as backup to older frames. So if some F16's ID a formation of planes as hostile, the F22 can then support from BVR.


User currently offlineCMB56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 230 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3809 times:

Sounds like an interesting tactic. Sort of like the Sptifires take on the Me-109s while the Hurricanes attack the bombers. But if the friendlies and bad guys start to mix it up how do you support that from BVR. The same rule then comes into play. Visually identification required. I also don't think anyone in the USAF wants to consider a situation where the F-22 is simply a "goood match" for any enemy aircraft. That sounds like a kill ratio of 1 : 1.

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12060 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3598 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 9):
Likely in this case you would use the F22 as backup to older frames. So if some F16's ID a formation of planes as hostile, the F22 can then support from BVR.

I doubt the F-22 would fire from BVR, if friendly F-16s were close enough to get a visual ID on the enemy. The F-16s would simply take the kill shot themselves.

Quoting CMB56 (Reply 10):
Sounds like an interesting tactic. Sort of like the Sptifires take on the Me-109s while the Hurricanes attack the bombers. But if the friendlies and bad guys start to mix it up how do you support that from BVR. The same rule then comes into play. Visually identification required. I also don't think anyone in the USAF wants to consider a situation where the F-22 is simply a "goood match" for any enemy aircraft. That sounds like a kill ratio of 1 : 1.

Even though the Sptifires were mostly sent after the Bf-109s and the Hurricanes went mostly for the Ju-88s, each would not pass up an attacking German aircraft they were close to. The Hurricanes, although never given as much credit as the Spitfire was, was still a good dogfighter and could hold its own against the Bf-109s.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3320 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3473 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
I doubt the F-22 would fire from BVR, if friendly F-16s were close enough to get a visual ID on the enemy. The F-16s would simply take the kill shot themselves.

Unequal numbers, and the problems of maintaining contact with modern highspeed jets make BVR still very critical even if the intial contact is capible of winning 1 on 1. The stealth and speed of the F22 would be well used to assist the more numerous conventional fighters. Certainly we don't have enough F22 to leave everthing to it.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6727 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 3291 times:

Best equipment for any stealth a/c is a visual sighting system like what was on the F-14's unless one is in an all out war, ROE will always negate the value of stealth as positive ID's will be required. A long range visual tv system in this digital age with proper magnification would be priceless on any a/c which carries BVR weapons and has some stealth capabilities.

User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2090 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3259 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 13):
Best equipment for any stealth a/c is a visual sighting system like what was on the F-14's unless one is in an all out war, ROE will always negate the value of stealth as positive ID's will be required. A long range visual tv system in this digital age with proper magnification would be priceless on any a/c which carries BVR weapons and has some stealth capabilities.

Agreed, 100%.



Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6100 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3246 times:

It's not just some political/PR move not to allow shoot first ask questions later, there are situations where this would lead to a war you don't want to fight.

And what would each pilot think, knowing any of his allies (including his coworkers) could shoot him if there is a doubt about his ID ?



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Can The President Negate The Value Of Stealth?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Korean War Exhibit At The National Museum Of The U posted Sun Feb 21 2010 17:41:59 by broke
Current Projects At The National Museum Of The USA posted Thu Nov 12 2009 03:49:30 by Broke
Can China Enter The Latin America Arms Market? posted Wed Apr 15 2009 20:44:13 by Alberchico
RAH-66 Commanche-Why Can't It Replace The Apache? posted Sun May 13 2007 05:12:53 by AirRyan
Joing The RAF - Odds Of Flying A AC Not A Desk? posted Sat Apr 7 2007 15:55:32 by Jamesbuk
Coming Events At The National Museum Of The Usaf posted Mon Feb 6 2006 18:29:12 by Broke
What Is The Power Output Of A Super Nova? posted Thu Jan 12 2006 22:50:48 by Lehpron
Shadow Of The Blade The UH1 Huey posted Fri Feb 11 2005 04:05:02 by UPS Pilot
Holidays At The National Museum Of The US Air Forc posted Mon Nov 22 2004 16:51:30 by Broke
Can A380 Become The New Air Force 1? posted Thu May 20 2004 08:56:47 by SXFAN

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format