Delete comment from: Elements Of Power
I'm not certain I understand the question exactly, so if I swing and miss feel free to rephrase. I think what you are really asking about is the 'end game' and utility of 'stealth' vs. 'speed' (momentarily treating smash as a non-tactic sub-element of 'stealth'). There may be a time when you might wish you had that one extra knot, and there is of course a minimum V for any situation. But there is no absolute advantage in going faster either for maneuverability or survivability. there are a couple of problems with the hypothetical "If your stealth fails or is compromised, you still need that maneuvering energy to defeat a launch kinematically" unless we narrow the situation considerably. First we have to accept the probability that 'stealth' failed to the point that it was not effective against all the parts of the kill chain to the point that the failure allowed the aircraft to be 1) detected 2) tracked long enough for a decision to be made to 3)fire at it and 4) the weapon to perform the flyout to it to be in position in the first place to bring maneuverability into the equation. Now the question becomes (assuming our active countermeasures are ineffective by themselves) do we have enough maneuverability (of which V is only a component) to get out of the way of the oncoming weapon? You can still make working the V differential for you by being able to climb/turn more quickly and evade the oncoming system. This has been the favorite method for dodging SAMs since Vietnam. If the system is proximity-fuzed, then your 'LO' would also have to be compromised gainst it as well for even a 'close-enough' hit.
The value of LO is that it breaks or disrupts the kill chain at every link, and it is really a system of systems not prone to catastrophic failure (see gentle reminder above).
Jun 9, 2011, 10:24:26 PM
Posted to Speed vs. Stealth: Stealth Wins