Air Force worries about both of it's airplanes. - Page 2

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Air Force worries about both of it's airplanes. (Page 2 of 3)

Posted: 1/12/2006 6:15:31 AM EDT

[#1]

It's the Air Force's version of "it will be replaced by the F/A-22 Raptor"

But the Raptor will be replaced by the F-18 Super Hornet.

Posted: 1/12/2006 6:21:03 AM EDT

[#2]

I will hate to see the B-52s go. There is the "Oh, Fuck!" factor. You know when they go on a mission that the enemy is going "OH, FUCK!"

Posted: 1/12/2006 6:38:11 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Well...clearly the "Fighter Mafia" still rules the USAF.

+1

Posted: 1/12/2006 6:42:01 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
This is putting all your UNHATCHED eggs in one basket. Yes, we have a few F-22s coming on line but how many will we really end up with? Is it really going to live up to its billing? How much will the costs go up when Lockheed Martin finally has the Air Force over a barrel because all the aklternatives have been retired?

Call me a pessimist but I'd rather hang on to something that works a little longer, especially when we have N. Korea and Iran getting uppity.

What the Air Force needs to come up with is a dedicated Wild Weasel because it lost a great capability when it retired the F-4G. The F-16CJ doesn't even come close in matching the capability of the F-4 in terms if detecting and destroying SAM's and relying solely on stealth technology thinking it won't be defeated one day is stupid. Lets be realistic here because if anyone thinks that other air forces are going to go heads up with ours, they are fooling themselves. They will use any combination of air and ground units to destroy ours and without a dedicated two man Wild Weasel platform out there, we are going to be in a world of hurt.

Posted: 1/12/2006 6:45:32 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
U-2's are rapidly being replaced defacto by the Global Hawk.

I think they're going to have to make a lot more Global Hawks.

Posted: 1/12/2006 7:03:04 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Quoted:
So, because we have not had a significant ariel engagement with the last country we've fought (just happens we've been fighting the same coutry for 12 years), you think that, in the future, air supperiority will be so easy to achieve? The SU-30 and its varients currently employed by various threat nations around the world demand an answer - that answer is the F-22, F-35 and, yes, the Super Hornet.

The F-15 has yet to be shot out of the sky by another aircraft and it's still a viable platform plus it has something the F-22 doesn't, the best kill ratio of any combat aircraft ever flown. People compare it to the modern era Mig's and SU's but what they don't factor in is that they don't have the radar capability to match it. Their third generation Mig-29's and SU-27's aren't even fly by wire, so do you think that their radar technology has even come close to western designs? And to top that off, the pilot training and tactics of our forces can't be touched. Is it old? Well yes. Is it obsolete? Nope, not by a long shot.

Actually, while some of the Russians' electronics systems are dated by our standards, some of their stuff is amazingly good. They are especially adept at electronic warfare. Their belief is that if they can negate our long range missiles and get into the eye-ball to eye-ball furball, their more maneuverable planes can win the fight with dogfight missiles and guns.

Posted: 1/12/2006 7:03:13 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Quoted:
This is putting all your UNHATCHED eggs in one basket. Yes, we have a few F-22s coming on line but how many will we really end up with? Is it really going to live up to its billing? How much will the costs go up when Lockheed Martin finally has the Air Force over a barrel because all the aklternatives have been retired?

Call me a pessimist but I'd rather hang on to something that works a little longer, especially when we have N. Korea and Iran getting uppity.

What the Air Force needs to come up with is a dedicated Wild Weasel because it lost a great capability when it retired the F-4G. The F-16CJ doesn't even come close in matching the capability of the F-4 in terms if detecting and destroying SAM's and relying solely on stealth technology thinking it won't be defeated one day is stupid. Lets be realistic here because if anyone thinks that other air forces are going to go heads up with ours, they are fooling themselves. They will use any combination of air and ground units to destroy ours and without a dedicated two man Wild Weasel platform out there, we are going to be in a world of hurt.

Stealth technology

Posted: 1/12/2006 7:16:47 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Well...since you asked:

I am a retired naval officer. I spent twenty eight years in the service.

Nice, at what rank did you retire and with what warfare qualification(s)?

I will not bore your vast intellect with my detailed military bio, suffice to state that I've served in a lot of billets of ever increasing responsibility and accountability.

No, really, I'd love to hear.

After my retirement, I was employed as a DoD contractor for various engineering and scientific firms. I then entered academia, working for a university science and engineering lab, supporting the DD(X) radar project. After a good run there, I decided to join a Washington DC DoD consulting firm.

This makes a lot of sense given your posts. Sounds to me like you have been so long removed from warfighting you have forgotten that the people who DO the warfighting should be the ones who dictate what is required.

My background is in combat systems, electronic systems including sonars, radars, comms, nuclear weapons, missile systems, C4ISR, and ship repair, and the consumption of mass quantities of beer in foreign venues.

While I am quite certain that I could give you a run for your money on that last one

, I am beginning to see why you are presenting the position you are.

While I have held a TS security clearance for many years, I am very careful not to post anything of a classified nature here or elsewhere on the web. My conclusions are derived from my personal knowledge of an issue. If some of the subject matter is classified, I make sure that anything I post is sanitized and that nothing I post can be used to derive any classified information by extrapolation or interpolation.

So...what is the depth and breadth of YOUR life's experiences, young padawan? Care to share with us your vast bio?

Navy for 8 years and I am a fighter Pilot. I have a degree in Aerospace Engineering from Canoe U. I shant bore you with the rest.

OBTW...you need to reduce your hubris. You immaturity continues to show through.

And yet, you are the one arguing on the internet with someone half (or a third) your age? And you have a post count of over 8k. I see.

Now go forth and learn well... Pay close attention to your betters

You believe you are proven to be my better? and you accuse me of Hubris?

and lose some of that ego you so easily expose.

you ever met a humble pilot?!? I didn't think so.

Matt

Posted: 1/12/2006 7:20:10 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So, because we have not had a significant ariel engagement with the last country we've fought (just happens we've been fighting the same coutry for 12 years), you think that, in the future, air supperiority will be so easy to achieve? The SU-30 and its varients currently employed by various threat nations around the world demand an answer - that answer is the F-22, F-35 and, yes, the Super Hornet.

The F-15 has yet to be shot out of the sky by another aircraft and it's still a viable platform plus it has something the F-22 doesn't, the best kill ratio of any combat aircraft ever flown. People compare it to the modern era Mig's and SU's but what they don't factor in is that they don't have the radar capability to match it. Their third generation Mig-29's and SU-27's aren't even fly by wire, so do you think that their radar technology has even come close to western designs? And to top that off, the pilot training and tactics of our forces can't be touched. Is it old? Well yes. Is it obsolete? Nope, not by a long shot.

Actually, while some of the Russians' electronics systems are dated by our standards, some of their stuff is amazingly good. They are especially adept at electronic warfare. Their belief is that if they can negate our long range missiles and get into the eye-ball to eye-ball furball, their more maneuverable planes can win the fight with dogfight missiles and guns.

That is a true statement - all the more reason that we need aircraft capable of multiple, consistent kills beyond visual range before we ever get to the visual arena. If our enemy is dead before they even know that they are targeted, so much the better.
Matt

Posted: 1/12/2006 7:23:01 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

The Defense Department plans to accelerate retirement of key Air Force aircraft, including nearly half the B-52 bomber force and the full U-2 spy plane and F-117 stealth fighter fleets, in a bid to save $16.4 billion and boost spending for the services' prized F-22A fighter aircraft program.

IDIOTS. We don't even NEED the F22.............

Yeah but how many roles does the F22 fill of the aircraft theyre phasing out in conjunction with stealth technology.

The F22 could never replace the B-52.

In terms of "bang for you buck" I am not sure anything could.

I really don't see the wisdom of having any major military cut backs. All this to save 600 billion. Not even a drop in the bucket. We need to just give them whatever then need rather than looking to save money by cutting out bombers.

Posted: 1/12/2006 7:25:28 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

The Defense Department plans to accelerate retirement of key Air Force aircraft, including nearly half the B-52 bomber force and the full U-2 spy plane and F-117 stealth fighter fleets, in a bid to save $16.4 billion and boost spending for the services' prized F-22A fighter aircraft program.

IDIOTS. We don't even NEED the F22.............

Yeah but how many roles does the F22 fill of the aircraft theyre phasing out in conjunction with stealth technology.

The F22 could never replace the B-52.

It was never designed to.

In terms of "bang for you buck" I am not sure anything could.

Not bang for buck, but the B-1 can carry more weapons.

I really don't see the wisdom of having any major military cut backs. All this to save 600 billion. Not even a drop in the bucket. We need to just give them whatever then need rather than looking to save money by cutting out bombers.

We have a winner

Matt

Posted: 1/12/2006 7:30:31 AM EDT

[#12]

The F35 will replace the F117 and the A-10, the Marines Harrier and the Navy's ground attack role. It's stealthier than the 117 and designed to take on ground targets. I have not heard if it will do Air to Air duty though. I don't see why it can't.

The F22 will take over all the air to air roles in the Air force with the Super Hornet will be the Navy's air to air weapon. Which from what I read got it's ass handed to it by the Indian Air Force flying the lastes MIG. The 29? Can't remeber the number.

The B-52 is an amazing aircraft. I expect them to be kept somewhere where they can be brought back if needed but the B-2 is and should be our main bomber.

Posted: 1/12/2006 7:32:10 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:
So, because we have not had a significant ariel engagement with the last country we've fought (just happens we've been fighting the same coutry for 12 years), you think that, in the future, air supperiority will be so easy to achieve? The SU-30 and its varients currently employed by various threat nations around the world demand an answer - that answer is the F-22, F-35 and, yes, the Super Hornet.

The F-15 has yet to be shot out of the sky by another aircraft and it's still a viable platform plus it has something the F-22 doesn't, the best kill ratio of any combat aircraft ever flown.

Big fucking deal that the F-15 has the best kill ratio, one F-22 can and has owned five F-15s in operational testing.

People compare it to the modern era Mig's and SU's but what they don't factor in is that they don't have the radar capability to match it. Their third generation Mig-29's and SU-27's aren't even fly by wire, so do you think that their radar technology has even come close to western designs? And to top that off, the pilot training and tactics of our forces can't be touched. Is it old? Well yes. Is it obsolete? Nope, not by a long shot.

And F-15s are not fly by wire either.

Posted: 1/12/2006 7:36:11 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
The B-52 is an amazing aircraft. I expect them to be kept somewhere where they can be brought back if needed but the B-2 is and should be our main bomber.

The problem with the B-2 is that if you lose one you lost a whole lot of money. Aside from the fact that it is slow as hell and (I think) has less payload than other bombers.

I put my money on the B-1 being the go to bomber for many years to come (at least it should be).

B-52's are really where it is at though. They are not fast, nor stealthy, or sexy. But they are one hell of a bomber (best carpet bomber we have) and thank God that we have had them for all these years.

I am biased though Dad was a B-52 and B-1 pilot.

Posted: 1/12/2006 7:38:05 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This is putting all your UNHATCHED eggs in one basket. Yes, we have a few F-22s coming on line but how many will we really end up with? Is it really going to live up to its billing? How much will the costs go up when Lockheed Martin finally has the Air Force over a barrel because all the aklternatives have been retired?

Call me a pessimist but I'd rather hang on to something that works a little longer, especially when we have N. Korea and Iran getting uppity.

What the Air Force needs to come up with is a dedicated Wild Weasel because it lost a great capability when it retired the F-4G. The F-16CJ doesn't even come close in matching the capability of the F-4 in terms if detecting and destroying SAM's and relying solely on stealth technology thinking it won't be defeated one day is stupid. Lets be realistic here because if anyone thinks that other air forces are going to go heads up with ours, they are fooling themselves. They will use any combination of air and ground units to destroy ours and without a dedicated two man Wild Weasel platform out there, we are going to be in a world of hurt.

Stealth technology

...will eventually be defeated. I have no doubt that stealth will eventually be all but useless.

ETA: Again, putting all our eggs in the stealth basket. Technology is nice but like the Russians and CHinese believe, quantity can have a quality all its own (in many situations).

Posted: 1/12/2006 7:49:28 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

...will eventually be defeated. I have no doubt that stealth will eventually be all but useless.

ETA: Again, putting all our eggs in the stealth basket. Technology is nice but like the Russians and CHinese believe, quantity can have a quality all its own (in many situations).

Yes but for the moment F-22 and other a/c can perform SEAD/DEAD pretty effectively with JDAMs and other munitions. The sensor equipment on the F-22 is rumored to be effective enough that you do not need a dedicated Wild Weasle. The sensors on all the birds can function just as well in that role, so all it requires is changing the loadout of weapons before take off and using a different mode on you radar...or whatever.

Wild Weasles are specialized assets. With a force of nearly all stealthy a/c you can get buy without them. You can do the same job just as good, but you can also do other jobs.

Posted: 1/12/2006 7:51:57 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:

...will eventually be defeated. I have no doubt that stealth will eventually be all but useless.

ETA: Again, putting all our eggs in the stealth basket. Technology is nice but like the Russians and CHinese believe, quantity can have a quality all its own (in many situations).

Yes but for the moment F-22 and other a/c can perform SEAD/DEAD pretty effectively with JDAMs and other munitions. The sensor equipment on the F-22 is rumored to be effective enough that you do not need a dedicated Wild Weasle. The sensors on all the birds can function just as well in that role, so all it requires is changing the loadout of weapons before take off and using a different mode on you radar...or whatever.

Wild Weasles are specialized assets. With a force of nearly all stealthy a/c you can get buy without them. You can do the same job just as good, but you can also do other jobs.

So we'll have one plane doing the job of 5 or 6, all at the same time? Forgive me if I do not trust it to work out that simply with no backup plan. Of course, I'm sure the simulations and "war games" all show fantastic results...

Posted: 1/12/2006 8:01:41 AM EDT

[#18]

Why not? Its better than having a/c that can't do the sead/dead very well and having no weasles b/c of budget issues.

You can't have everything.

F-22's and other new a/c like the Rafale have equipment that is basically what a modern day weasle would have. Threat indicators, bearing, distance, strength, and jamming abilities. If you built a modern weasle it would probably have the exact same equipment as those a/c. So whats the point? You can make every F-22 a weasle if you needed to by just changing the mission and warload.

I'd rather have 400 F-22's with ability to do most missions than 200 F-22s and 50 weasles and 50 escort jamming a/c. Figure you lose the 100 a/c by starting a entirely new program that ends up with only marginal better performance anyway. And even then you don't really need weasles anyway and not for the forseable future.

Budgets and wishlists do not exsist in a vacum, and there have to be trade offs. No dedicated sead/dead a/c is a acceptable loss given our current technology and current and likely adversaries.

Should we build a 8 engine bomber to replace the B-52? Of course not, money can be better spent and such a a/c would only marginally increase capibilities given what current assets are able of doing.

Posted: 1/12/2006 8:26:05 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The B-52 is an amazing aircraft. I expect them to be kept somewhere where they can be brought back if needed but the B-2 is and should be our main bomber.

The problem with the B-2 is that if you lose one you lost a whole lot of money. Aside from the fact that it is slow as hell and (I think) has less payload than other bombers.

I put my money on the B-1 being the go to bomber for many years to come (at least it should be).

B-52's are really where it is at though. They are not fast, nor stealthy, or sexy. But they are one hell of a bomber (best carpet bomber we have) and thank God that we have had them for all these years.

Wrong. The B-1B is where it's at and it should be our "go-to" heavy bomber. Don't know how the $$$ figures between the two, but I'm pretty sure new unit vs. new unit the B-1B would be 1/3 the cost.

If we even have the plans anymore.

Posted: 1/12/2006 8:38:58 AM EDT

[#20]

B-52 only good for carpet bombing? I think not. The Buff can carry any GPS guided munition, such as CALCM, JDAM, JSOW, JASSM, and WCMD. She can also now self designate laser guided munitions. But what do I know. I only worked on them for 6 years.

Litening II pod for B-52

Posted: 1/12/2006 8:42:31 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The B-52 is an amazing aircraft. I expect them to be kept somewhere where they can be brought back if needed but the B-2 is and should be our main bomber.

The problem with the B-2 is that if you lose one you lost a whole lot of money. Aside from the fact that it is slow as hell and (I think) has less payload than other bombers.

I put my money on the B-1 being the go to bomber for many years to come (at least it should be).

B-52's are really where it is at though. They are not fast, nor stealthy, or sexy. But they are one hell of a bomber (best carpet bomber we have) and thank God that we have had them for all these years.

Wrong. The B-1B is where it's at and it should be our "go-to" heavy bomber. Don't know how the $$$ figures between the two, but I'm pretty sure new unit vs. new unit the B-1B would be 1/3 the cost.

If we even have the plans anymore.

I think I was a little misunderstood there. I agree, the B-1 is by far our best bomber. But the Buff still has alot of value left in it. It is a better carpet bomber than the B-1 and if we lose one in combat the equipment cost as compared to a newer bomber would not be as high.

B-1 is far superior though.

Posted: 1/12/2006 8:42:43 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Yeah but how many roles does the F22 fill of the aircraft theyre phasing out in conjunction with stealth technology.

I am not an aviation expert, but I do know that there is no way the F-22 can carry as many bombs as the B-52, which can carry literally tons and tons of dumb bombs and up to 12 JDAMS. A reduction in the need for dropping that kind of tonnage might be a good reason to get rid of a few.

Posted: 1/12/2006 8:44:08 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
B-52 only good for carpet bombing? I think not. The Buff can carry any GPS guided munition, such as CALCM, JDAM, JSOW, JASSM, and WCMD. She can also now self designate laser guided munitions. But what do I know. I only worked on them for 6 years.

Litening II pod for B-52

I did not say that. I said it is the best carpet bomber we have. I can also carry anything else, as you know. I think that the B-1 can carry more JDAMs though.

eta. My point is that I think the B-1 and B-52s are much better bombers than the B-2, but there is no reason that we should not keep all three.

Posted: 1/12/2006 8:46:45 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Yeah but how many roles does the F22 fill of the aircraft theyre phasing out in conjunction with stealth technology.

I am not an aviation expert, but I do know that there is no way the F-22 can carry as many bombs as the B-52, which can carry literally tons and tons of dumb bombs and up to 12 laser guided JDAMs.

First, The F-22 was never designed to replace the B-52. The B-1 and B-2 are designed to fill the strategic bomber role. The F-22 is a Strike fighter.

Second, I have never heard of a laser guided JDAM

Matt

Posted: 1/12/2006 8:47:39 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yeah but how many roles does the F22 fill of the aircraft theyre phasing out in conjunction with stealth technology.

I am not an aviation expert, but I do know that there is no way the F-22 can carry as many bombs as the B-52, which can carry literally tons and tons of dumb bombs and up to 12 laser guided JDAMs.

First, The F-22 was never designed to replace the B-52. The B-1 and B-2 are designed to fill the strategic bomber role. The F-22 is a Strike fighter.

Second, I have never heard of a laser guided JDAM
Matt

You caught me before my revisions....

Posted: 1/12/2006 8:50:39 AM EDT

[#26]

tag

Posted: 1/12/2006 8:52:22 AM EDT

[#27]

I also think some of you are missing the point here. Fighter pilots (especially chair force pilots) are required to know A LOT of classafied intel regarding current and probable threats.

They know what kind of weapons we face and what kind of war we'll be fighting. They also know what kind of weapons will be required to meet that threat in order to assure air superiority and subsequently provide support to the groud troops.

Those far removed from warfighting and internet commandos are not exactly the people we should be looking to when considering which weapons systems to buy. We should be asking the pilots (I am, of course, biased). In that respect, the "fighter mafia" should be getting exactly what they ask for.
Matt

Posted: 1/12/2006 8:54:29 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yeah but how many roles does the F22 fill of the aircraft theyre phasing out in conjunction with stealth technology.

I am not an aviation expert, but I do know that there is no way the F-22 can carry as many bombs as the B-52, which can carry literally tons and tons of dumb bombs and up to 12 laser guided JDAMs.

First, The F-22 was never designed to replace the B-52. The B-1 and B-2 are designed to fill the strategic bomber role. The F-22 is a Strike fighter.

Second, I have never heard of a laser guided JDAM
Matt

You caught me before my revisions....

sorry - I just thought it was funny

I knew what you meant. That said, I can carry 4 JDAMS while maintaining my air-to-air capability. 12 without ANY air-to-air capability isn't that much of an improvement, in my opinion.
Matt

Posted: 1/12/2006 9:27:19 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
I also think some of you are missing the point here. Fighter pilots (especially chair force pilots) are required to know A LOT of classafied intel regarding current and probable threats.

It's not like the fighter guys are the only ones with intel (or intelligence).

Being on the airlift side of the fence, I saw the fighter mentality in the upper echelons.

Folgelman was a good Chief of Staff, but I met him shortly after he was appointed to head Air Mobility Command. He was a fighter jock and didn't know anything about airlift. How was a fighter pilot put in charge of our airlift command? One would think somebody with a background in that field would be a better choice.

Note: None of this is a slam at Fogelman. He was a good man, especially when it came to fixing the McAirforce debacle.

Posted: 1/12/2006 9:39:53 AM EDT

[#30]

Next war -

A tossup between Iran and Venzuala. I'm fairly sure we are preparing to make strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Unforeseen events could raise Syria to the top of the list; at any rate, it could be Syria and Iran simultaneously.

North Korea is a distant 3rd.

Lots of other places could blow up with the right combination of events -
Venzuela plus Bolivia,
The Philipines,
Maylasia,
Egypt, Lybia, and Morocco
India,
Pakistan,
Afghanistan plus Pakistan,
an so on.

The Balkans or other former Soviet Russia satellites if Putin gets to feeling his oats.

Posted: 1/12/2006 9:46:09 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Next war -

A tossup between Iran and Venzuala. I'm fairly sure we are preparing to make strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Unforeseen events could raise Syria to the top of the list; at any rate, it could be Syria and Iran simultaneously.

North Korea is a distant 3rd.

Lots of other places could blow up with the right combination of events -
Venzuela plus Bolivia,
The Philipines,
Maylasia,
Egypt, Lybia, and Morocco
India,
Pakistan,
Afghanistan plus Pakistan,
an so on.

The Balkans or other former Soviet Russia satellites if Putin gets to feeling his oats.

Looks like a busy list.

Posted: 1/12/2006 9:56:05 AM EDT

[#32]

Since we've obviously develed into fantasy, I want to play.

My fantasy air forces would have the following:
F-22 as the high end fighters
F-22 two seat for strike perhaps with buldged weapons doors, nothing fancy like the FB-22, just a two place model like a F-15D or E is to a F-15C, will perform recon, strike, sead/dead
F-35 for the low end fighters

Build a few more B-2's, maybe up to ~30 and build B-1BC's to supplement B-1Bs.

767 as the common refueler, AWAC/JSTARS, Strategic ELINT/SIGINT

C-17's as common airlifter

Look into a replacement for C-5 and couple with KC-10 replacement with common airframe, possibly a BWB

A400 for C-130 replacement or possible ditch a replacement and use C-17's for intra theater as well, just buy more, let army units use their own airlift.

Navy would make do with the super bug and F-35 models and revive the common support A/C, and buy enough a/c to fill the decks to capacity again.

On my chopping block are:
KC-135
KC-10
C-5
S-3
EA-6
B-52
F-15
F-16
C-130
and more

Posted: 1/12/2006 9:59:39 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Stealth technology

...will eventually be defeated. I have no doubt that stealth will eventually be all but useless.

ETA: Again, putting all our eggs in the stealth basket. Technology is nice but like the Russians and CHinese believe, quantity can have a quality all its own (in many situations).

A quantity of radar sites that are talking to each other can reduce the effectiveness of low RCS, particularly if they are arrayed in rows across the front.

However, a bistatic radar can hardly be made to track a target, let alone getting multiple receivers timed correctly. With the right target, all of the receivers are still detecting occasional glints, so a boat load of statistical work has to be completed to develop a reliable track, which is everything.

Low observables are still in their infancy, maybe crawling, certainly not toddling. Walking will start when we get some more processing speed in our 'puters. Meanwhile, RCS is not the only phenomenon being worked.

Mean while, there is the F-15, which given just a little alignment of the stars, is going to be around for several more years.

I wonder how an F-22 will fare against an ESA equipped F-15.

Posted: 1/12/2006 11:37:08 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Stealth technology

...will eventually be defeated. I have no doubt that stealth will eventually be all but useless.

from a purely RCS perspective, yes, but low observables go a long way past that. i've said before that air combat is going to come to resemble submarine operations. while local air ops will continue in their recognizeable forms, air superiority assets will behave more and more like SSNs--passive during detection and prosecution, and only lighting up for final target solution and the kill. LO for aircraft will remain just as important as noise suppression in submarines and camo for the infantryman.

with that in mind, it is an awfully big sky, and detection will always be a problem for an opponent who has lost the initiative in the EW battlespace. RCS reduction will drive the search for tracking alternatives, such as EO staring arrays coupled with stadiametric ranging and/or shorter wavelength tracking radars. (after all, if one has an airborne hotspot that gives a very low return, one can be reasonably certain what it is.) but the point of LO is to increase the threat's problem of coming to a firing solution, and in this vein, it is here to stay.

Posted: 1/12/2006 11:39:46 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Since we've obviously develed into fantasy, I want to play.

My fantasy air forces would have the following:
F-22 as the high end fighters
F-22 two seat for strike perhaps with buldged weapons doors, nothing fancy like the FB-22, just a two place model like a F-15D or E is to a F-15C, will perform recon, strike, sead/dead
F-35 for the low end fighters

Build a few more B-2's, maybe up to ~30 and build B-1BC's to supplement B-1Bs.

Are we still building B-2s?

How long has it been since we built B-1Bs? Do we still have the plans and tooling for it?

If we are still building B-2s (which I wll assume for the moment we are), then I think another 20, max, would be sufficient. I will make a safe assumption that we haven't built any B-1Bs in atleast 15-20 years, but also assume we still have the plans and tooling. Given these assumptions, I'd like to see us build 50 B-1Cs with modern technology. These aircraft would get us to the end of the 21st century when manned bombers will be obsolete anyway. Also, if my assumptions are correct, we will be working with existing blueprints and tooling for both the B-2 and B-1B, which is a critical factor in cost at this point.

Posted: 1/12/2006 11:42:45 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Since we've obviously develed into fantasy, I want to play.

My fantasy air forces would have the following:
F-22 as the high end fighters
F-22 two seat for strike perhaps with buldged weapons doors, nothing fancy like the FB-22, just a two place model like a F-15D or E is to a F-15C, will perform recon, strike, sead/dead
F-35 for the low end fighters

Build a few more B-2's, maybe up to ~30 and build B-1BC's to supplement B-1Bs.

Are we still building B-2s?

How long has it been since we built B-1Bs? Do we still have the plans and tooling for it?

If we are still building B-2s (which I wll assume for the moment we are), then I think another 20, max, would be sufficient. I will make a safe assumption that we haven't built any B-1Bs in atleast 15-20 years, but also assume we still have the plans and tooling. Given these assumptions, I'd like to see us build 50 B-1Cs with modern technology. These aircraft would get us to the end of the 21st century when manned bombers will be obsolete anyway. Also, if my assumptions are correct, we will be working with existing blueprints and tooling for both the B-2 and B-1B, which is a critical factor in cost at this point.

We bought what we bought. Haven't rolled any new ones in a few years. Although NG has said they could reopen the line.

ETA: The last airframe arrived at Whiteman 10 Nov, 1997.

Posted: 1/12/2006 11:44:19 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Stealth technology

...will eventually be defeated. I have no doubt that stealth will eventually be all but useless.

My post was missing a quote, that comment came from Armed Aggie's post on page 3. If you read the rest of mine, you will see my comments about daylight to dark signature reduction.

Posted: 1/12/2006 11:50:52 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Since we've obviously develed into fantasy, I want to play.

My fantasy air forces would have the following:
F-22 as the high end fighters
F-22 two seat for strike perhaps with buldged weapons doors, nothing fancy like the FB-22, just a two place model like a F-15D or E is to a F-15C, will perform recon, strike, sead/dead
F-35 for the low end fighters

Build a few more B-2's, maybe up to ~30 and build B-1BC's to supplement B-1Bs.

Are we still building B-2s?

How long has it been since we built B-1Bs? Do we still have the plans and tooling for it?

If we are still building B-2s (which I wll assume for the moment we are), then I think another 20, max, would be sufficient. I will make a safe assumption that we haven't built any B-1Bs in atleast 15-20 years, but also assume we still have the plans and tooling. Given these assumptions, I'd like to see us build 50 B-1Cs with modern technology. These aircraft would get us to the end of the 21st century when manned bombers will be obsolete anyway. Also, if my assumptions are correct, we will be working with existing blueprints and tooling for both the B-2 and B-1B, which is a critical factor in cost at this point.

We bought 20 or 21 B-2's. There will be no more, at least not built in the original tooling. The price would be so large that it would never get through Congress this time.

Besides, they carry obsolete technology.

Posted: 1/12/2006 12:07:02 PM EDT

[#39]

As bitchin as the F22 is - I think its better to have a bunch of proven work horses, vs a new plane that has too many gadgets to jack up and iron out.

And I love the U2 and F117.

And I just saw the B52 episode on Mail Call. Ugly - but damn - they are cool.

Posted: 1/12/2006 12:10:02 PM EDT

[#40]

Retire whatever they want... just get us a new CSAR-x platform. [clearing throat] MH47 [/clear throat]

~Dg84

Posted: 1/12/2006 12:15:28 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
As bitchin as the F22 is - I think its better to have a bunch of proven work horses, vs a new plane that has too many gadgets to jack up and iron out.

And I love the U2 and F117.

And I just saw the B52 episode on Mail Call. Ugly - but damn - they are cool.

Saw that same episode, very cool.

Posted: 1/12/2006 12:39:16 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

How long has it been since we built B-1Bs? Do we still have the plans and tooling for it?

If we are still building B-2s (which I wll assume for the moment we are), then I think another 20, max, would be sufficient. I will make a safe assumption that we haven't built any B-1Bs in atleast 15-20 years, but also assume we still have the plans and tooling. Given these assumptions, I'd like to see us build 50 B-1Cs with modern technology. These aircraft would get us to the end of the 21st century when manned bombers will be obsolete anyway. Also, if my assumptions are correct, we will be working with existing blueprints and tooling for both the B-2 and B-1B, which is a critical factor in cost at this point.

To restart the B-1 line, it would be a huge undertaking. A lot of companies that made parts shut down when Boeing outsourced their work to Asia.

I made several parts for the B1-B, myself. We made 100 sets of parts and that was that. None of us who made those parts still work for the company. The company had to move into low end production when Boeing shipped all their work overseas. The CNC mills were replaced with smaller and lighter machines. They froze wages for at least five years and everybody left. Anybody still working will be busy with F-22 and F-35 work.

We might have to get China to build them for us.

Posted: 1/12/2006 12:42:55 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
Let the fucking professionals decide.

I worked in the defense industry for 17 years............those words don't mean too much for some who have seen the inside of that industry.
I loved the work........but some of those "professionals" couldn't locate their buttocks with both hands!

Posted: 1/12/2006 12:55:51 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Let the fucking professionals decide.

I worked in the defense industry for 17 years............those words don't mean too much for some who have seen the inside of that industry.
I loved the work........but some of those "professionals" couldn't locate their buttocks if they started with both hands in their back pockets!

Fixed.

Posted: 1/12/2006 12:57:27 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
IBTBP............in before the British Perspective............

The USAF won in WWII by having vast numbers of 'good' to 'excellent' planes. Quantity has a quality all of it's own. Now the USAF is mortgaging the farm to buy a small number of 'super fighters'.

Almost no development stretch has been applied to the F-15 airframe since the 80's. It's still an awesome fighter/bomber. It can take bigger engines, a bigger wing, even thrust vectoring if need be. Look at the improvements that were possible with the F-18E. A large multi- thousand fleet of 'excellent' fighters can be in all places at all times. A small force of 'super fighters' cannot.

The USN/USMC seems contented enough to field a large number of 'excellent' F-18's (and eventually F-35's) and does not see the need for a new 'super fighter' to carry the day.

Who is the USAF preparing to fight? China or the Emperor Palpatines Forces?

ANdy

Posted: 1/12/2006 1:05:52 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
LWilde,
This is getting tiresome...
What do you do in or for the military? If you are uncomfortable posting it on the forum (I have no idea why you would be uncomfortable doing so since you posted conclusions drawn from what you claim is sensitive classified information) IM me. If you are STILL uncomfortable with it, I'll provide you an e-mail address.

Until such time as you qualify your arrogance, I'm really done responding to your diatribes on why you are "the man."

Really, I am a reasonable person and will listen to a well-defined position, but your posts test the limit of my patience.
Matt

I wasn't aware anyone gave a rat's ass whether this valheru guy was getting tired of anything. Did I miss a fucking memo again? Talk about an arrogant post.

If you are tired of it then go away, really.

Posted: 1/12/2006 1:07:14 PM EDT

[#47]

Why don't we just up the military budget instead? We can make up the difference in budgets by ending welfare/medicare/medicade, etc. We can also save dollars by refusing any and all public assistance to illegal immigrants.

With the money we will be saving we won't have to retire airframes that can still serve a useful purpose. We could even build more so we can actually meet a two major theater war requirement.

-K

Posted: 1/12/2006 1:07:31 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Stealth technology

...will eventually be defeated. I have no doubt that stealth will eventually be all but useless.

ETA: Again, putting all our eggs in the stealth basket. Technology is nice but like the Russians and CHinese believe, quantity can have a quality all its own (in many situations).

It already has been compromised. All the Euro and Russian Fighters have or are moving to IRST systems.. the F35 will have EOTS, the F-22 also will be getting it. Much of the current stuff is getting SNIPER pods...

ANdy

Posted: 1/12/2006 1:11:42 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Stealth technology

...will eventually be defeated. I have no doubt that stealth will eventually be all but useless.

ETA: Again, putting all our eggs in the stealth basket. Technology is nice but like the Russians and CHinese believe, quantity can have a quality all its own (in many situations).

It already has been compromised. All the Euro and Russian Fighters have or are moving to IRST systems.. the F35 will have EOTS, the F-22 also will be getting it. Much of the current stuff is getting SNIPER pods...

ANdy

I have no doubt that the Chinese have access to every detail of the F-22 and F-35. It sure makes it a helluva lot easier to find a weakness when you have the plans in hand. They sell to anyone be it North Korea, Israel, or Wal-Mart.

Posted: 1/12/2006 1:18:18 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
Quoted:
LWilde,
This is getting tiresome...
What do you do in or for the military? If you are uncomfortable posting it on the forum (I have no idea why you would be uncomfortable doing so since you posted conclusions drawn from what you claim is sensitive classified information) IM me. If you are STILL uncomfortable with it, I'll provide you an e-mail address.

Until such time as you qualify your arrogance, I'm really done responding to your diatribes on why you are "the man."

Really, I am a reasonable person and will listen to a well-defined position, but your posts test the limit of my patience.
Matt

I wasn't aware anyone gave a rat's ass whether this valheru guy was getting tired of anything. Did I miss a fucking memo again? Talk about an arrogant post.

If you are tired of it then go away, really.

Ok, everyone (including you) is arrogant - can we all agree on that, at least?

Matt

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Air Force worries about both of it's airplanes. (Page 2 of 3)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us