Smart bombs not so clever in Gulf War

David Usborne
Sunday 29 June 1997 23:02
Comments

DThe performance of America's hi-tech weaponry during the Gulf War - including its stealth fighters and the smart-bombs that purportedly could find their way down the narrowest of air shafts - was grievously overstated by the Pentagon and defence contractors, according to a report that will be be published today.

That there was always some exaggeration regarding the effectiveness of US hardware in the war has been known for some time. The performance of the Patriot anti-missile system, lauded during the war, has come under particularly scrutiny.

But this report, which the Pentagon until the last had been trying to suppress, gives new and startling detail about what it terms a "pattern of overstatement" by defence officials and the manufacturers of the systems in assessing their effectiveness both to journalists and elected representatives.

Prepared by the General Accounting Office (GAO), which is the investigating body of the US Congress, the document will cast a long shadow when Congress considers future spending for arms programmes with price-tags matched only in extravagance by the sci-fi claims attached to them.

American taxpayers will be especially surprised to hear a central conclusion of the report that there was "no apparent link between the cost of aircraft and munitions and their performance in [Operation] Desert Storm". The super-expensive F-117 stealth fighter and the much more basic A-10 aircraft both managed "100 per cent survivability" when flown at night.

While the Pentagon claimed that laser-guided bombs dropped by the F-117 aircraft struck their targets 80 per cent of the time, the report says that in fact a third of those hits could not be corroborated. "Desert Storm data do not fully support claims for the F-117's accuracy," the report concludes. Indeed, the real hit rate may have been as low as 41 per cent.

The GAO debunks assertions that on the first night of Desert Storm, the Lockheed F-117s struck 37 crucial targets in Iraq. Instead, the report says, aircraft from various coalition countries, Britain included, hit just 21 of those 37 targets and the "F-117s missed 40 per cent of their air defence targets".

The Tomahawk cruise missiles also apparently did a less brilliant job than at first asserted. On the Pentagon's insistence, however, the actual success rate of the Tomahawks remains classified. Thus the report says "subsequent intensive analysis shows that the hit rate was (text deleted) per cent". Whatever that figure is, it is "less than generally perceived", it adds.

The report also overturns the Pentagon's famous "one target, one bomb" for its laser-guided bombs, suggesting that it took between four and 10 bombs to attack targets such as bridges.

John Dingell, a US representative from Michigan, said the document showed a "pattern of overstated, misleading, inconsistent or unverifiable claims" and exposed important information about the effectiveness of highly expensive systems that "until now had been withheld from the taxpayer".

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in