Revamping cruise missiles:
We might as well revamp them. The USAF would be asking for the loot to do it at some point, anyway. They're due to be axed under one of the nuke treaties unless they're converted to conventional use. Might as well get the money we have sunk into the missile and just swap out the warhead.
Of course, we can debate the relative benefits of blowing a bunch of these very expensive weapons on this 'crisis'...
Replacements for the ALCM:
Honestly? I can't recall. There were a number of possibilities, and without a copy of Janes on hand (dang those things are expensive!) I could not tell you. They were indeed working on a bunch of options and the Gulf War provided a useful live-fire exercise for a lot of them.
Just recall:
1. we have a lot of bombers with ALCM racks/rotary launchers...the USAF won't let them sit idle. SOMETHING will get put on them.
2. There ain't no way in **** that the USAF is going to let the USN get all the 'glory' of pimpslapping 3rd world dictators with cruise missiles. Interservice rivalry fairly demands an equivalent capability.
(which in truth is a good thing...there ARE some regions of the world where the T-hawk launched from a ship cannot reach, and some times when its faster/easier to launch a strike from Kansas than it is to get a submarine or surface task force into position)
The Stealth:
Spartacus and I share an opinion on this. You hose off enough lead and someone will fly into it. the Serbs now claim they were tracking it (talk is cheap), which is also a possibility...consider:
Stealth technology does not make you invisible to radar...it merely makes you show up less well. _IF_ the pilot was flying VERY close to a REALLY good radar, they could pick him up. Since stealths are used to hit targets that other aircraft cannot reach, this fits.
Lets say you have a bridge that you don't want blown up. You park a REALLY good SAM/AAA system (or three) beside it. Something good enough to nail NATO planes and cruise missiles. You wait.
If I want to blow up that bridge, I have two options.
1. send in a flight of aircraft...a few jammers (EF-111 Ravens or EA-6B Prowlers), some 'wild weasels' (F-16s or F-15Es loaded out with a variety of weapons used to defeat your air defenses- HARMs which home on radar, rockeye cluster bombs to obliterate your thin-skinned SAM/AAA equipment, you name it), a fighter escort and finally a few strike aircraft laden with laser guided bombs. This will almost certianly blow up the bridge and the defenses in the area, but there is a decent chance that at least one aircraft will get nailed doing it. In this political environment? Unacceptable.
2. Send in one F-117A with a few laser guided bombs. The first indication of its presence would _likely_ be the bridge blowing up. Of course, thats a gamble. IF you turn on your radar at the right time (you can still hear these things, and on a clear night you might get lucky and see one), IF his course takes him really close to the SAM/AAA site, and IF his flight path is steady enough for you to get off a shot...you might just bag one. What was the terrain here? Flat. So, this guy was not hill hopping. Hmmm....
Also, since this plane would likley be going it alone, there is less of a chance that there would be a friendly plane nearby with a HARM to stuff the SAM/AAA radar. The Serbian operator could leave his radar on for longer without risk of being wiped out.
Until proven otherwise, though, I still think they got lucky with a stream of AAA fire. If you know something is coming in, just start hosing down the sky over the target. Bullets are cleap. You might just hit something.
Mike