Stealth corvettes

Outside of the SSBNs, just how many subs do you think actually carry nukes? And the missiles of those boats are useless against surface ships. And the US Navy, indeed, all of the NATO navies, have made ASW an art form. I doubt it would be as one-sided as you think, especially since no one the US or the West is likely to fight in the near future has a really first-line submarine force. And it takes a lot more than just a good sub to ensure success. Doctrine, tactics, training, all of these need to be as highly developed as possible if you are to have any chance of winning out against a modern ASW force.

 

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htada/ ... 51121.aspx
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005 ... alth_x.htm


innovation

 

AFAIK there is a torpedo tube fired Tomahawk in production and use. Tomahawks can carry a tactical nuclear warhead.

Damaging a target enough can take it out of action (Ie a 'mobility kill' for tanks)

Anti-ASW maked subs quieter. Research is under way for subs that actually swim like fish and if it proves feasible the next generation of subs will be deviod of the cavitanio noises produced by a turning prop. A realistic equivelent of 'Red October's 'caterpiller drive' if you will.

I didn't mean it as one sided as it was taken, but the fact remains that subs are far more difficult when they're running silent than a surface ship.

Any idea if they're planning a return to diesel-electric or something. Nuc's are noisier than electrics.

 

Tomahawks are not, to the best of my knowledge, anti-shipping weapons.

 

I think that detect of stelt crafts hawe something 2 do with amplitude off microwawes that radar use.Modern stelt is based on modern radars who work on high amplitudes,and acuracy.Outdated radars work on much lower wawe amplitude and they can easyly spot stelts.Russians notice that and they deweloping anty-stelt radars,so that why i say that would be outdated soon.

 

Point taken about the Tomahawks.

I think they do have some sort of anti-ship weapon for torpedo tubes but I don't know if they are common. 'Fish' are easy to detect. (then again so is a nuke launch, or most sounds related to a sub...)

 

Harpoons. And yes, they're reasonably common, but less so than torpedoes (because you can fire a torpedo at a boat or a sub, but a harpoon can only be fired at a boat)

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-84.htm

 

A very interesting tale, but tale is all it is. You must realize that none of the claims are verifiable. The USAF doesn't discuss such matters with strategypage.com nor with usatoday so we are left with speculation and after the fact stories from the losing side who would like to paint themselves as some kind of heros.

The F-117s that bombed Baghdad and flew directly into what is generally acknowledged as one of the most heavy anti-aircraft concentrations in existence are more persuasive than the tales of one so-called hero who is very vague about how he accomplished his great deed.
All aircraft crash at some time and high performance military aircraft crash at a higher rate even in peacetime than most. The F-117 might have had a mechanical difficulty for all we know and as far as the 2 other claimed damaged, well that is also unverifiable.

 

No navy with the capability and budget for nuclear subs is likely to consider going back to diesel /electrics. The small difference in quietness is inconsequential when compared to the other major disadvantages of conventional subs.

 

Maybe but NATO and US newer speak about their losses on public except otther side got hard evidence.That 2 craft was confermed by finding the crash sites,but some off them crashed outside of serbia,so it was impossible to provide evidences.

 

Only one little problem with this is that the pilot (Lt. Col. Zelko) ejected, escaped and survived to tell his tale about being shot down...he recently did that:

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/news/s ... =123027457

So i think the pilot already verified that he was shot down (so no mechanical problems but a real ground to air kill)


BTW i think this part is in the wrong forum

 

I don't really doubt that an F-117 was shot down. No plane is invulnerable.
The tale told by Zoltan though is unverifiable and may not bear any resemblance to what actually happened. If the USAF became complacent and flew regular routes or in daylight then of course a stealth fighter can be downed. The Mark 1 eyeball works on stealth pretty well. The strength of stealth is that it makes it more difficult to track and more difficult to lock on to...not that it is invisible or impossible to track.
The claim of two others damaged is less likely though since it would be unlikely that the Zoltan would have any way of knowing if he had damaged but not brought down an F-117.
Even if the story is true read the article and read the lengths that they had to go to, constantly moving(100,00 kilometers!), using no radio communications, relying on spies and human observers etc. and it demonstrates IMO that these methods would be impractical in a major military engagement and could not be incorporated in a practical sense as an air defense system capable of defending a countries borders for example from attack.

 

Ah now i understand...yes you are right about that Grieg, that is indeed not verifiable (and not likely.

 

i am aware of the US reluctance to discuss their own losses, so those two links were all i had.

As for the man's methods, i agree that they were extremely impractical (especially in a major engagement, as you said), but they worked in this case. now, while i agree with you that it might as well have been a lucky shot, i am still partial to the ingenious nature of my countrymen


besides, is it possible that the US might have had had too much faith in their F-117's (bolstered by their success in the Gulf) and didn't bother with different routes because or arguments along the lines of "the Serbs won't be able to detect it anyway"?

 

Zable wrote:
[besides, is it possible that the US might have had had too much faith in their F-117's (bolstered by their success in the Gulf) and didn't bother with different routes because or arguments along the lines of "the Serbs won't be able to detect it anyway"?[/quote]
----------------------------------------------------------
The USAF/USN was also quite predictable in their route packages--ingress/egress--during air-war in North Vietnam. They tended to follow the same routes and used the same IP markers when attacking the North throughout the war. This allowed enemy AAA defenses to mass along the route and take a heavy toll.
A smarter tactic would have been to vary approach and exit routes, but the Vietnam War ROE--as imposed on USAF and USN aircraft made their attack approaches and departures quite predictable over time.

I suspect there are similarities in the way both wars were fought as the USA attempted to keep civilian casualties, and collateral damage to an absolute minimum. While the arguement that the USAF was overconfident in the stealth capabilities of the F-117 might have some degree of merit... the other aircraft in the USAF inventory--such as F-15, F-16 and FA-18 obviously did not share those steath characteristics. I expect they also commonly flew the same predictable routes in searching for and attacking targets.

Tim

 

true, but the presence of serbian SAM sites could have forced the planes to fly higher, out of the missiles' range, decreasing their bombing effectiveness. the F-117 wouldn't have had this problem

i'm just specualting, of course, but to me it does make at least some sense (being a layman in this area)

 

Even laser-guided bombs bombs and GPS equipped aircraft to drop them miss. A 'smart' bomb ended up in Kasikstan (spelling) or some other country....not in Afganistan where it's intended target was.

Oh yeah....Boeing's new plane's having teething troubles:
(square brackets are mine)

 

Plane loose his stelt ability when he open weapon storage to fire misiles,that can be one of the reasons,why he was seen,coz he was shoot down ower city Sabac,(around 30 km from belrade) and it is possible that he was prepared to fire.In that thime serbia was full of decoys (home made devices who acted as radar,wooden models,etc,that why NATO claimed 36 MIG-29 kills,and serbia had 14,2 trainers,4 out of services,and we still hawe them :lol: )

 

[/quote]

maybe i should have clarified. the F-117 could have flown the same route at a lower altitude, because of the stealth technology. other aircraft would have flown higher to avoid SAMs

 

Right, misunderstanding on my part