# Is the Army gambling with a losing hand? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 26, 2004, 10:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-army-gambling-with-a-losing-hand/247156 "2004-05-26T10:23:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2004, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-army-gambling-with-a-losing-hand/247156/21 "2004-05-31T05:41:50Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > Obsolete? By what measure? What dated or old-fashioned technology is it going to be using that makes it obsolete? > > Certainly, the air threat from the Warsaw Pact is no more, but with the Russians selling Su-27 and variants to anyone with the dough, I certainly think that America should keep at least some number of a clearly superior aircraft around. We can afford supremacy. And I bet any Raptor pilots that some day may be tangling with Chinese Su-27 pilots near Taiwan would agree. > > Like it or not, the F-15 is getting long in tooth, and the Air Force ain’t about to buy F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, so they need a new ‘Premium Fighter’. The F-35 will be our next F-16, and it sensible to get a F-15 replacement as well. Somehow, I don’t think that congress would sign the check if we wanted to buy a bunch of Rafales or Eurofighters… Well, for one, its performance in dogfighting isn’t that great. The payload is small. It is built entirely around a concept of being “stealthy” in an age where we know that the Russians can see it, and if the Russians can do it, it is on the open market. It has limited engagement use. In the unlikely event that we were to go to war with a nation with a large air force, we have the military capability to destroy them before they get off the runway. We have planes that carry out the tactical bombing role much more effectively than the F-22. In your (rather unlikely and absurd) example of Chinese Su-27/37s and/or MiG 1.4s duking it out over the skies of Taiwan… well, OK. I don’t deny the need for a tactical fighter. We certainly need one of those. However, we don’t need one outdated and costing such an absurd amount of money. And still, I don’t know how a limited number of F-22s would fair against the sheer numbers of Chinese fighters, especially since they would have the home field advantage. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2004, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-army-gambling-with-a-losing-hand/247156/22 "2004-05-31T06:08:33Z")
> [@Zagadka](#): > > Well, for one, its performance in dogfighting isn’t that great. The payload is small. It is built entirely around a concept of being “stealthy” in an age where we know that the Russians can see it, and if the Russians can do it, it is on the open market. Sure they can see it, if the conditions are right. But as long as we see them within AMRAAM range before they see us in AA-12 range, all is good. And the stealth characteristics of the F-22 help it do just that. One can only ‘stealthify’ a high-performance fighter so much, and given the most advanced technology in the world, the F-22 is as stealthy as is possible to make a ‘fighter’. Perfect? Hardly. But with combine that with supercruise, low probability of intercept radar system, and other gadgets, and you have yourself one potent fighter. Also, I think that way too much is given to purported Russian anti-stealth capabilities. One lucky SA-2 shot by the Serbs does not a viable anti-stealth capability make. > [@](#): > > It has limited engagement use. In the unlikely event that we were to go to war with a nation with a large air force, we have the military capability to destroy them before they get off the runway. Probably. We can _probably_ eliminate a given air threat before it gets in the air. It’s always nice to have backup, no? > [@](#): > > We have planes that carry out the tactical bombing role much more effectively than the F-22. Sure. We also have planes that carry out the tactical bombing role much more effectively than the E-3, but we ain’t getting rid of those either. Just as it takes different strokes to move the world, it takes different aircraft with differing (and often overlapping) capabilities to form an effective airforce. > [@](#): > > In your (rather unlikely and absurd) example of Chinese Su-27/37s and/or MiG 1.4s duking it out over the skies of Taiwan… well, OK. I don’t deny the need for a tactical fighter. We certainly need one of those. However, we don’t need one outdated and costing such an absurd amount of money. And still, I don’t know how a limited number of F-22s would fair against the sheer numbers of Chinese fighters, especially since they would have the home field advantage. Absurd? China has said that they reserve the right to take Taiwan by force, and we have reserved the right to defend Taiwan. Unlikely, of course, but hardly absurd. Regardless, I just threw that out as an example. Indonesia is also getting Su-27/30s. Brazil is looking at getting some. Saudi Arabia has F-15s and a bunch of extremist nutbags. Egypt has a bunch of F-16s. Et cetera. Do I see a burning need for the F-22 _right now_? Nope. But certainly there are potential conflicts in the future in which it may be very usefull. You know that fighter develpment isn’t like it used to be. It’s not like WW2 were we can design and build a new fighter within a reasonable timeframe. No, if we want to maintain the worlds finest A-A capabilities, it means lots of money now, before we actually need said capability. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2004, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-army-gambling-with-a-losing-hand/247156/23 "2004-05-31T06:25:59Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > Also, I think that way too much is given to purported Russian anti-stealth capabilities. One lucky SA-2 shot by the Serbs does not a viable anti-stealth capability make. Well, we’re talking theoreticals here. What Russia has deployed, what Russia has sold to someone like Serbia, and what Russia is developing are all different things. Gods willing, we won’t need to find out how good they’ve gotten. > [@](#): > > Absurd? China has said that they reserve the right to take Taiwan by force, and we have reserved the right to defend Taiwan. Unlikely, of course, but hardly absurd. China is posturing. > [@](#): > > Regardless, I just threw that out as an example. Indonesia is also getting Su-27/30s. Brazil is looking at getting some. Saudi Arabia has F-15s and a bunch of extremist nutbags. Egypt has a bunch of F-16s. Et cetera. Do I see a burning need for the F-22 _right now_? Nope. But certainly there are potential conflicts in the future in which it may be very usefull. Granted. But I think the F-22 is way too expensive and way too reliant on stealth to do the job efficiently. Much cheaper and more effective alternatives are available and can be made available. If I could go back in time and change stuff, I would cancel the program in '91 and start on something that would be cheaper and more effective today. Can’t do that, but “keep going because we’ve invested so much” is a bad excuse. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2004, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-army-gambling-with-a-losing-hand/247156/24 "2004-05-31T06:51:11Z")
> [@Zagadka](#): > > If I could go back in time and change stuff, I would cancel the program in '91 and start on something that would be cheaper and more effective today. Agree. > [@](#): > > Can’t do that, but “keep going because we’ve invested so much” is a bad excuse. A bad excuse certainly, but it’s the only excuse we’ve got… ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2004, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-army-gambling-with-a-losing-hand/247156/25 "2004-06-01T16:51:17Z")
> [@Rashak Mani](#): > > They are still trying to finance “Star Wars” too… and they don’t have good urban warfare tech “tank”. Well urban warfare isn’t exactly the place to use tech for a big advantage… not current tech. > > ``` > hhmmpphh.... talk about Cold War mentality. > > ``` You’re assuming “Star Wars” is a single point system. Most weapons programs are multi-point. They are designed for a variety of platforms. “Star Wars” is a term used for intercept technology. It is more software than missile. As it is being perfected it will be incorporated into tactical missile defense systems as well as strategic defense systems. Stopping the program because of early failures would be a mentality that would end every program the military has. They almost always fail in early tests. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2004, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-army-gambling-with-a-losing-hand/247156/26 "2004-06-01T18:16:22Z")
> [@Zagadka](#): > > _You’re comparing combat systems of 1975 to 2005? The US spent more time bombing the holy f out of Vietnam and Korea with less effect than the Soviets had._\* > Your time reference is off a little. It was between 1979 and 1989. Durring this time the United States and Soviet Union diverged considerably on weapons strategy. You’re correct from the standpoint of remote vehicle use because this started in earnest durring the first Gulf War. > > Vietnam is where the concept of ground targetable weapons system was reinvented (Yes there were attempts in WWII). The first use of remote viewing drones proved VERY expensive but also showed the potential. You could say the billion spent on the system was a waste or you could say it proved the concept. The first country to bring a successful technology to fruition is the leader of the pack. > \*\*While the performance of the US troops in Afghanistan was indeed impressive, it is also worth noting that 70% of the country remains in the hands of regional warlords, and anywhere outside of a city is considered prohibitively dangerous. Additionally, the Taliban still controls most of the southern part of the country, and the majority of Al Qaeda suspects, leaders, and fighters escaped before captured or KIA. \*\* > > Their getting chewed up with the same technology that worked at the start of the war. We’re not trying to conquer the country or it would have been over in 2 days of bombing. I’m also not sure where you get the figure of 70%. I have dial-up so if you have some good recent references (no anti-war stuff) I would love the link. Not calling you on it, just want the info. > > \*\*Pinpointing targets with elite troops brought in by helicopter to direct precision (GPS/laser) guided weapons launched from platforms hundreds of miles away will do a lot to blow sh\*t up, but it is pretty ineffective for holding territory. \*\* > > We’re in agreement but for different reasons. First a correction, the platforms are not hundreds of miles away, the decision makers are. The platforms are usually close at hand but out of reach (bombers at 50,000 feet or disposable drones at 100-30,000 feet). > > It is not possible to conquer a nation. You can subdue it, you can destroy it, but you cannot conquer it. Urban warfare will never work if Democratization is the goal. Stabilizing a region to the point where people WANT the changes is the only long-term method that will work (IMO). > > \*\* > Iraq’s military largely laid down and played dead. The conquests of Afghanistan and Iraq were too much of sickeningly mismatched forces, with one side trying to avoid direct confrontation, and without sustained effect, for them to be considered apt demonstrations of the US military superiority. > > Too bad it does diddly squat to fight insurgents O\_o\*\* > > The Iraqi’s surrendered to drones knowing they were part of a linked targeting system. That is technology at work. > > Not sure what you mean by diddly squat when fighting insurgents. Having troops linked together has allowed them to target insurgents. It also allows better ground coordination. I haven’t heard any specific ratios of dead but my impression is that it is better than 10 to 1. > > What is not being used and has not been introduced (to my knowledge) is small targetable munitions. Air strikes are not used against individual targets. There have been 500 lb bombs directed at suspected ammo dumps or large nests of fighters. > > \*\*Additionally, this battlefield bravado, while certainly impressive, does little to hold ground. IMHO, this has always been America’s weak point - we are known for excessive bombardments followed by a quick strike. Literally, carpetbomb and sweep up. While effective against battlefield troops, these tactics are incredibly INEFFECTIVE against insurgents and in urban warfare. Following my IS theory and basic logic, the enemy will increasingly rely on these methods and avoid where we shine. We can keep them from fielding a massive army of tanks, but god help us if they’re inside a city. Then we just tend to lay siege and letting corpses pile up, which is incredibly bad for international politics. > > So, my question is more related to what is going on in urban/insurgent warfare, where we are more likely to fight our future battles. > > Are lightly armored mobile platforms with linkups and laptop computers for every soldier worth the investment in urban warfare? > > I look to the experts on these situations - people who have been engaged in this type of warfare for decades - for answers. I don’t see Humvees with guided rockets being used in most of these conflicts. \*\*Again, I agree with your premise that battlefield tactics won’t sustain a conflict in urban warfare situations. I don’t think anything will except the realization that democracy CAN work and is more desirable than what they had. I still think personnel carriers are death traps because they allow the enemy an easy target. 5 Humvee’s with light armor weapons represent 5 targets (of 4 people each). They also represent 5 targets that can respond independently, which means they can defend both themselves and the other Humvees. A personnel carrier is almost as vulnerable as a Humvee and all the soldiers capable of defending themselves are inside the vehicle. If you could make a personnel carrier impervious to attack then you’d have something but even the heaviest armored tank is easily defeated up close. Hitting a personnel carrier with an armor piercing weapon will kill all 20 people in it. The Abrahms M1 A1 is designed to target multiple tanks while moving at high speeds. The theory is to destroy them before they have a chance to engage. It is still vulnerable to attack if it is used for sentry duty, despite its heavy armor. If you want to make smaller personnel carriers which allows all the occupants access to defensive weapons then you have the ultimate urban warfare platform. Maybe we’re arguing apples and oranges here. ---
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2004, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-army-gambling-with-a-losing-hand/247156/27 "2004-06-01T20:54:42Z")
> [@Zagadka](#): > > It is built entirely around a concept of being “stealthy” in an age where we know that the Russians can see it, and if the Russians can do it, it is on the open market. ``` I didn't know Russians have detection methods... is this true ? Conjecture ? The stealth fighter had a mechanical problem over Serbia, no ? ``` Anyway even the best stealth won’t stop low flying planes from being shot by the ocassional eye ball detection… ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-army-gambling-with-a-losing-hand/247156/28 "2004-06-03T01:52:20Z")
> [@Rashak Mani](#): > > I didn’t know Russians have detection methods… is this true ? Conjecture ? The stealth fighter had a mechanical problem over Serbia, no ? > > Anyway even the best stealth won’t stop low flying planes from being shot by the ocassional eye ball detection… I lamented the loss of the plane to an acquaintance of mine telling him it would surely fall into the hands of the Russians. He laughed and said the Russians would spend the next 10 years trying to duplicate 20 year old technology. Yes, the F117 has vulnerabilities. It shows up on radar with a cross section somewhere between 10 and 100 cm(2). You have to understand this is not the lead aircraft in an attack. Radar jammers are also part of the approaching mix. It would be tough to lock onto an F117 under good conditions. Picking it out of a barrage of anti-aircraft shells and the added noise of a jammer makes this plane viable despite it’s technological age. It’s also not designed for close support. It is a stand-off weapon. Get in close enough to release a guided weapon and get out. I have a great shot of an F-117 on it’s first public airshow display. They actually had armed guards around it. Now it’s a museum piece. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-army-gambling-with-a-losing-hand/247156/29 "2004-06-03T02:05:54Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I lamented the loss of the plane to an acquaintance of mine telling him it would surely fall into the hands of the Russians. He laughed and said the Russians would spend the next 10 years trying to duplicate 20 year old technology. The Russians stole a lot of ideas, but I don’t recall them ever seriously working on a stealth fighter, though I’m sure they would have loved to have the technology to study. Do you happen to know how the MiG 1.44 program is coming along? Last I heard, they were stripping out the new flight control and targetting systems and replacing them with MiG-29 systems to make it more affordable to sell to pilots already used to that system. :-/ ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-army-gambling-with-a-losing-hand/247156/30 "2004-06-03T03:08:35Z")
Steal it, hell, we’ve given them the schematics to some of our stuff (parts anyway). From what I gather they’re interested in bidding on contracts. Since they have an obnoxious amount of titanium it isn’t completely out of the question but I doubt it will ever happen. Can you imagine the political fallout if they started supplying us with parts? I’m not real familiar with the 1.44 but if they are abandoning next-generation missile platforms that would be REALLY stupid. The MIG 29 is already a nice fighter plane. I like their philosophy of design. You could land a 29 on its belly, pick it up, pull the wheels out, and continue flying. They also have FOD doors that vent the intake up to avoid sucking up crap on the runway. I wish I kept up on the new stuff but I have to admit I like the nuts-and-bolts aspect of machines. Show me an airplane and I will probably be as fascinated with the landing gear as anything else. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-army-gambling-with-a-losing-hand/247156/31 "2004-06-03T03:28:39Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I wish I kept up on the new stuff but I have to admit I like the nuts-and-bolts aspect of machines. Show me an airplane and I will probably be as fascinated with the landing gear as anything else. You have to admit, Russian engineering is something… special… in a “how the nine bloody hells did they do that” kind of way, from the T-34 and AK-47 to the MiG 1.44, which can literally fly in circles around the F-22. Whereas American stuff is fancy, Russian stuff is sturdy. Almosty a pity we never duked it out with them. What would be really interesting is sticking American and Russian designers together for a few years. I bet they’d come out with some pretty amazing stuff perfectly suited to modern fighting conditions. Then again, I am a slavophile, so maybe I’d just like to see what they could do with American tech. Or maybe what Americans could do with Russian work conditions. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-army-gambling-with-a-losing-hand/247156/32 "2004-06-03T04:11:23Z")
When I mentioned landing gears I was thinking of the Flogger. We have a Mig-23 in our local museum and it is a work of art. Even the early Migs were well designed. To service the Mig 15’s guns they just lowered the whole thing down by cable. [MIG-15 Guns](http://www.constable.ca/mig15.htm) No busting your knuckles in tight spaces. The interaction of engineers is already a reality. The Russians recommisioned their SST for joint experiments with NASA. [TU-144](http://town.hall.org/radio/NASA/102594_nasa_ITR.html) ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-army-gambling-with-a-losing-hand/247156/33 "2004-06-03T05:23:33Z")
There was a short-lived meme floating around that the US should manufacture Su-27 airframes, under license, for use as a F-15 replacement. Pack 'er full of American electronics and engines (the main areas where the Russians just suck), and you have a great plane. Also, the Israelis keep an eye on Russian stuff, just in case the American source dries up. They were going to joint-upgrade some Ka-50s with Turkey, but that fell through. Still, Russian stuff is better on paper than in practice. The vaunted MiG-29, which caused such consternation along with the Su-27 when they came out, is without a confirmed A-A kill. And its engines leave a nice smokey trail. And the engines wear out quickly. And the electronics frequently just stop electronicing. (Can’t blame that on MS!) I would hate to be that pilot in the MiG 1.42 who has to flip the switch to try that reported plasma stealth system. (Can we say ZOTZ!?) Even their latest few generations of tanks just ain’t all that. Up until the 3rd-gen western tanks came out, the Russians had an edge in equipment. Now? Both their equipment and crews are behind. Their tank guns have shorter lifespans, and that means less live fire. Their treads are also shorter lived, so less field practice. 2-year conscripts and no NCO corp means less skilled crews. The Russians try to play modern warfare using WW2 manufacturing techniques. That may or may not change; Until they do, they will have great designs, poorly executed. There is a future for Russian gear upgraded by western firms. What the Russians lack in finesse, western firms can fill the gap. The French have so kindly been providing electronics to the Chinese. Israel does a wicked MiG-21 upgrade. Italy, France, and Ukraine do some neato T-72 variants. Tough sell though, since Western gear has such an incredible track record over the past several decades. Even poor Croatia, (currently the proud owners of ~18 MiG-21s, courtesty of German handmedowns and some Ukraine purchases), turned down a offer for bargain-basement priced MiG-29s, and is looking a F-16 lease plan. Of course, I still think the 3rd Shock Army (coolest official army name since WW2) would have kicked some ass had WW3 happened. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-army-gambling-with-a-losing-hand/247156/34 "2004-06-03T05:37:30Z")
> [@Zagadka](#): > > You have to admit, Russian engineering is something… special… in a “how the nine bloody hells did they do that” kind of way, from the T-34 and AK-47 to the MiG 1.44, which can literally fly in circles around the F-22. When the MiG 1.42 reaches near-production status, that may be a fair comparison. Until then, lets put it up against [the X-29](http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/x-29.htm) or some other test bed. > [@](#): > > Whereas American stuff is fancy, Russian stuff is sturdy. I dunno about that. Would you rather be sitting in a BMP-1/2/3, or a M-2 Bradley, when the bullets are flying? How about a T-72/80 or a M-1 Abrams? I’ll grant that Russian stuff may be easier to field service. But that is only because their conscript army doesn’t allow for as much technical skill as does our own; They have no other choice but to make certain maint. functions simpler. But that same ‘ease’ of field servicing gives them inferior end products, since Russian manufactering doesn’t allow for the same level computer self-diag and modular systems that America is now starting to roll out. > [@](#): > > Almosty a pity we never duked it out with them. That is why the good Lord has given us the Operational Art of War series, along with Harpoon. > [@](#): > > Then again, I am a slavophile, so maybe I’d just like to see what they could do with American tech. Or maybe what Americans could do with Russian work conditions. Ditto. When our wargaming group meets, I am almost always on the Red team. ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-army-gambling-with-a-losing-hand/247156/35 "2004-06-03T06:08:38Z")
> [@Rashak Mani](#): > > I didn’t know Russians have detection methods… is this true ? Conjecture ? \*\*The stealth fighter had a mechanical problem over Serbia, no ? \*\* > > Anyway even the best stealth won’t stop low flying planes from being shot by the ocassional eye ball detection… I have to find where I left that cite ,but its probable that the airforce was lazy in its ingress routes, never varying and got smacked with an optically guided sam. Declan ---
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-army-gambling-with-a-losing-hand/247156/36 "2004-06-03T07:14:17Z")
> [@Declan](#): > > I have to find where I left that cite ,but its probable that the airforce was lazy in its ingress routes, never varying and got smacked with an optically guided sam. > Declan They did claim/say that it was engine malfunction that brought it down no ? ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-army-gambling-with-a-losing-hand/247156/37 "2004-06-03T08:00:56Z")
> [@Rashak Mani](#): > > They did claim/say that it was engine malfunction that brought it down no ? No, the USAF admits it was shot down. Like **Declan** said, the F-117 was flying an often-used route, and a number of SA-2’s were lobbed up there, and got lucky. 200 kilo warhead on those, so it makes a nice, if expensive, flak shell. An SA-2 also shot down Gary Powers U-2 back in the day. Not talked about as often, a SA-3, using a similiar manually-commanded ‘flak’ pattern, damaged a F-117 earlier. Eh. For the missions they fly, it’s a pretty good record, especially for a (then) 20-some year old design. ---
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2004, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-army-gambling-with-a-losing-hand/247156/38 "2004-06-03T15:58:49Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > Not talked about as often, a SA-3, using a similiar manually-commanded ‘flak’ pattern, damaged a F-117 earlier. Eh. For the missions they fly, it’s a pretty good record, especially for a (then) 20-some year old design. ``` SA-2 and SA-3 are radar guided or heat or both ? (yes I'm being lazy). I agree that a 20+ design it did pretty well then. So if the F-117 uses different paths they can avoid multiple SAM launches targeting them being set up on their paths ? Aren't these launchers pretty vunerable to HARM missiles and such ? Or do they turn on the radar at the last moment ? ``` ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-army-gambling-with-a-losing-hand/247156/39 "2004-06-04T06:48:10Z")
> [@Rashak Mani](#): > > SA-2 and SA-3 are radar guided or heat or both ? (yes I’m being lazy). I agree that a 20+ design it did pretty well then. > > \*\* So if the F-117 uses different paths they can avoid multiple SAM launches targeting them being set up on their paths ?\*\* Its an old variation on a box bracket that flak guns used to use back in WW2 , but instead of guns , your using missiles launched straight up ,and comand detonated to produce the flak. But basically yes , different ingress routes , different times of attack ,which is what really doomed that 117 , simply because not only did it fly the same route, it pretty much flew the same time frame, the serbs got wise and acted accordingly. [QUOTE]Aren’t these launchers pretty vunerable to HARM missiles and such ? Or do they turn on the radar at the last moment ? [/QUOTE] Yes , they are venerable to harm missiles , and yes , if they have air defense indepth , they will turn on and off radars and hand off contacts to separate air defense zones, while still retaining constant contact with the A/C Gotta give the serbs credit for paying attention to desert storm, while the launchers are venerable, what the serbs did was to station a lot of radars all over the place, all linked up to central air defense locations. So they played a shell game with the launchers. Declan ---
**Author:** ![Rashak\_Mani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@Rashak\_Mani](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rashak_Mani)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2004, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-army-gambling-with-a-losing-hand/247156/40 "2004-06-04T13:34:29Z")
So is Stealth Tech doomed ? (Seems the Russians have been giving a lot of technical help to all sorts of allies… could it be that they helped with the “flak” RPG method the somalis used in Mogadischu against the Black Hawk Helis ? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-army-gambling-with-a-losing-hand/247156.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-army-gambling-with-a-losing-hand/247156.md?page=3)