By: obligatory
- 3rd February 2014 at 04:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The purpose of the air campaign as expressed by the allied commander was neither to destroy Serb army nor use up old ammo,
but to humiliate Serbs and ruin their economy.
Then i can only presume that these weapons were released by partner nations. These were massive stockpiles, and unless someone tells me where else they went, i will stand by my opinion. The overall hit percentage of the campaign was poorer than in WWII. Somehow i find this hard to believe unless they intended to miss.
By: Sens
- 3rd February 2014 at 12:37Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Then i can only presume that these weapons were released by partner nations. These were massive stockpiles, and unless someone tells me where else they went, i will stand by my opinion. The overall hit percentage of the campaign was poorer than in WWII. Somehow i find this hard to believe unless they intended to miss.
Wrong. Whatever was hit the Serbs were forced to hide their mobile forces and were disabled by that. No way to make free use of that to have the edge in the ground-war. Just preoccupied for the own survival. The main task of military-power is to force your will on that of the opponent. It worked with minimum losses for the Allied forces.
Stealth gives every aircraft an advantage in the time versus force race without restricting its advantage of movement too much. To defend the own airspace from that is just too expensive despite technical gains for over a decade at least.
For example, the USAF was ready to sacrify a dozen of its F-117A over Badgad to hit the critical targets there. Stealth and some luck allowed them to achieve that without a loss of the F-117A. Some possible ones had not changed the outcome as well. As long as the attrition rate did not prevent that, stealth is a smart solution to destroy the critical targets at will.
By: swerve
- 3rd February 2014 at 12:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
...The overall hit percentage of the campaign was poorer than in WWII. ...
Come off it! For much of WW2 most bombs dropped didn't even hit the right city, let alone a target.
The number & weight of munitions used by the RAF was as much as in one ordinary, not very big, WW2 air raid. It could be carried by about 75 Lancasters - a type which flew 156000 sorties in WW2, the equivalent of 2000 such air raids. And that's just one bomber type. It's not exactly a lot.
Nor did it cost "several defence budgets", unless you mean the defence budgets of very small or poor countries. The US share has been estimated at $3 billion.
By: TEEJ
- 3rd February 2014 at 23:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Then i can only presume that these weapons were released by partner nations. These were massive stockpiles, and unless someone tells me where else they went, i will stand by my opinion.
Again I don't think that they were. Some of the stockpile of 1,000 pounders were transferred to the US for B-52 use during the 1991 Gulf War. This was for anti-runway operations conducted by B-52s
The stockpiles would be a source for the production of UK Paveway LGBs. Probably much of the old stockpile had their explosive fill removed and the casings stored for future UK Paveway production?
Why don't you put in a FOIA request to see if any were transferred to Allied nations during 1999? Somehow I don't think so. The UK unguided munition shape is pretty distinctive and wouldn't go unnoticed during the campaign if they were being used by other NATO partners. Far too much coverage for such a theory to go unnoticed. Aviation enthusiasts were out in force at the Italian bases during the conflict.
By: pegon
- 4th February 2014 at 11:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So, maybe i was reading to much into it. Still, it is strange they hit everything in GV1, then nothing in Kosovo, only to go back to Bagdad and hit everything they wanted.
At the same time there used to be regular updates in (FI) on the stockpile problem. Yet, after the Kosovo war they stopped.
No solid evidence, but conspiracy theories have been made on less than this.
By: swerve
- 4th February 2014 at 13:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You keep saying they hit nothing in Kosovo. Why? They hit most of what they aimed at. Sometimes they aimed at the wrong things, but they still mostly hit it.
Hitting decoys is still hitting things. Ask the Serbian soldiers staying under cover to avoid being bombed whether NATO didn't hit anything, or the Serbians crossing the Danube by boat because the bridges were down, or queuing for scarce petrol because oil refineries & fuel stores were wrecked. I could go on.
Why don't you tell us what you think the UK stockpile was before the war, & what it was afterwards? You've not given even the vaguest indication of numbers so far.
please remind it is a google translation of popularization articles. Constructive remarks are welcome.
It was excellent.
But regarding the -100dB sensitivity, the antennas are already way below that threshold. The sensitivity currently is at below background radiation level meaning that they see and hear everything. The trick is to have a good filter with few false positives. Btw, check your inbox ;)
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 3rd February 2014 at 04:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The purpose of the air campaign as expressed by the allied commander was neither to destroy Serb army nor use up old ammo,
but to humiliate Serbs and ruin their economy.
Posts: 297
By: pegon - 3rd February 2014 at 08:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Then i can only presume that these weapons were released by partner nations. These were massive stockpiles, and unless someone tells me where else they went, i will stand by my opinion. The overall hit percentage of the campaign was poorer than in WWII. Somehow i find this hard to believe unless they intended to miss.
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 3rd February 2014 at 12:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wrong. Whatever was hit the Serbs were forced to hide their mobile forces and were disabled by that. No way to make free use of that to have the edge in the ground-war. Just preoccupied for the own survival. The main task of military-power is to force your will on that of the opponent. It worked with minimum losses for the Allied forces.
Stealth gives every aircraft an advantage in the time versus force race without restricting its advantage of movement too much. To defend the own airspace from that is just too expensive despite technical gains for over a decade at least.
For example, the USAF was ready to sacrify a dozen of its F-117A over Badgad to hit the critical targets there. Stealth and some luck allowed them to achieve that without a loss of the F-117A. Some possible ones had not changed the outcome as well. As long as the attrition rate did not prevent that, stealth is a smart solution to destroy the critical targets at will.
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 3rd February 2014 at 12:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Come off it! For much of WW2 most bombs dropped didn't even hit the right city, let alone a target.
The number & weight of munitions used by the RAF was as much as in one ordinary, not very big, WW2 air raid. It could be carried by about 75 Lancasters - a type which flew 156000 sorties in WW2, the equivalent of 2000 such air raids. And that's just one bomber type. It's not exactly a lot.
Nor did it cost "several defence budgets", unless you mean the defence budgets of very small or poor countries. The US share has been estimated at $3 billion.
Posts: 297
By: pegon - 3rd February 2014 at 12:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So tell me where the stockpiles went, if i am wrong, i will admit it.
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 3rd February 2014 at 13:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
But you haven't admitted it yet, although you are wrong.
Posts: 2,163
By: Amiga500 - 3rd February 2014 at 13:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just a pity it'll be about 2020 before its fielded eh?
Posts: 2,318
By: TEEJ - 3rd February 2014 at 23:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Again I don't think that they were. Some of the stockpile of 1,000 pounders were transferred to the US for B-52 use during the 1991 Gulf War. This was for anti-runway operations conducted by B-52s
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/257582-british-bombs-used-b-52s-desert-storm.html
Further reference to stockpiles and use during Allied Force at following link.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmdfence/347/34716.htm
The stockpiles would be a source for the production of UK Paveway LGBs. Probably much of the old stockpile had their explosive fill removed and the casings stored for future UK Paveway production?
Why don't you put in a FOIA request to see if any were transferred to Allied nations during 1999? Somehow I don't think so. The UK unguided munition shape is pretty distinctive and wouldn't go unnoticed during the campaign if they were being used by other NATO partners. Far too much coverage for such a theory to go unnoticed. Aviation enthusiasts were out in force at the Italian bases during the conflict.
Posts: 297
By: pegon - 4th February 2014 at 11:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So, maybe i was reading to much into it. Still, it is strange they hit everything in GV1, then nothing in Kosovo, only to go back to Bagdad and hit everything they wanted.
At the same time there used to be regular updates in (FI) on the stockpile problem. Yet, after the Kosovo war they stopped.
No solid evidence, but conspiracy theories have been made on less than this.
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 4th February 2014 at 13:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You keep saying they hit nothing in Kosovo. Why? They hit most of what they aimed at. Sometimes they aimed at the wrong things, but they still mostly hit it.
Hitting decoys is still hitting things. Ask the Serbian soldiers staying under cover to avoid being bombed whether NATO didn't hit anything, or the Serbians crossing the Danube by boat because the bridges were down, or queuing for scarce petrol because oil refineries & fuel stores were wrecked. I could go on.
Why don't you tell us what you think the UK stockpile was before the war, & what it was afterwards? You've not given even the vaguest indication of numbers so far.
Posts: 699
By: Orion - 5th February 2014 at 14:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not sure whether this has appeared before, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10619378/Successful-test-flight-for-Taranis-stealth-drone.html .
Regards
Posts: 4,168
By: halloweene - 5th February 2014 at 14:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
About stealth and its relevance...
Self advertising...
http://translate.google.com/translate?client=tmpg&hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fportail-aviation.blogspot.fr%2F2013%2F11%2Ffurtif-vous-avez-dit-furtif-partie-1.html&langpair=fr|en
http://translate.google.com/translate?client=tmpg&hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fportail-aviation.blogspot.fr%2F2013%2F12%2Ffurtif-vous-avez-dit-furtif-partie-2.html&langpair=fr|en
please remind it is a google translation of popularization articles. Constructive remarks are welcome.
Posts: 1,149
By: Tu22m - 5th February 2014 at 23:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It was excellent.
But regarding the -100dB sensitivity, the antennas are already way below that threshold. The sensitivity currently is at below background radiation level meaning that they see and hear everything. The trick is to have a good filter with few false positives. Btw, check your inbox ;)