Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 1/10/2006 8:34:06 PM EDT
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.

In a Dec. 20 internal budget document, Pentagon Comptroller Tina Jonas approved significant spending changes between fiscal years 2007 and 2011 that were proposed by the Air Force. The moves, which affect the service's procurement and personnel accounts, are designed to realign resources to produce a more lethal, agile and streamlined force, it states.

The document, program budget decision 720, carries the imprimatur of the Defense Department leadership and reflects decisions made in the nearly complete Quadrennial Defense Review, according to these sources.

The decisions, however, will require more than support from Pentagon officials; the Air Force will have to convince Congress, which has rejected recent Air Force proposals to retire major aircraft types early, according to defense analysts.

“The Air Force is looking to get rid of what they call ‘tired iron,'” said Christopher Bolkcom, an aviation expert at the Congressional Research Service. “Congress in the past has not allowed them to retire airplanes.”

Similar attempts in recent years -- including moves to stand down B-1B bombers, KC-135E aerial refueling aircraft, and the F-117 -- have met stiff resistance on Capitol Hill. But this time around, the Pentagon appears to be taking a new approach in proposing to retire three programs at once.

“Now they're going for the whole enchilada,” Bolkcom said. “You can see that they seem to be launching a frontal assault.”

Underscoring the difficulty that the Air Force may face in selling this plan to Congress, the fiscal year 2006 defense appropriations bill, signed Dec. 30 by President Bush, includes $9.4 billion to maintain the fleet of 52 F-117s.

“The conferees believe it is premature to retire any F-117 aircraft at this time,” lawmakers wrote in the conference report accompanying the final spending bill. “The F-117 provides a unique capability to the combatant commanders and remains the only tactical stealth aircraft capable of delivering certain types of precision munitions.”

The fiscal maneuvers detailed in the 14-page PBD would allow the Air Force to inject an additional $1 billion into its prized F-22A program, stretching production through fiscal year 2010 -- two years longer than previously planned -- and raising total acquisition numbers from 179 aircraft to 183.

To that end, the PBD trims $3.3 billion from the F-22A program in fiscal years 2007 and 2008 and provides $4.4 billion in fiscal years 2009 and 2010.

The Pentagon also plans to terminate the B-52 Stand-off Jammer System, an electronic attack capability, saving $1.1 billion across the five-year spending plan, according to the PBD.

Cuts to the long-range B-52 bomber fleet would reduce the inventory from 94 aircraft to 56, a move that would not affect any international treaties, the document states. The Air Force is banking on $4.6 billion in savings with this early retirement: $680 million in the procurement accounts and $3.9 billion in personnel reductions associated with a smaller B-52 fleet.

The 33-plane fleet of high-altitude U-2 reconnaissance aircraft would be retired by 2011, according to the budget decision, in a move that garners $1 billion in savings from the procurement accounts and $3.3 billion in manpower reductions. United Press International first reported details of the U-2 cut last week.

Cuts to the stealthy F-117A Nighthawk, which played a prominent role in the open salvos of the 1991 war with Iraq but has seen limited duty more recently, produced $6.2 billion in savings -- $1.1 billion from the procurement accounts and $5.1 billion from associated manpower accounts.

In addition to these decrements, the Air Force plans to slash its fleet of C-21 jets from 76 to 38 aircraft. C-21s are used to ferry Pentagon executives, cargo and execute medical missions.

“There are some pretty sound operational reasons” for the Air Force's move to retire these aircraft early, said Rebecca Grant, vice president for defense at Defense Forecast International, a Washington-based consulting firm. “What you see is an attempt to get down to the right force structure that's more manageable and sustainable.”


Link Posted: 1/10/2006 8:35:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Da_Bunny:

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.............
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 8:43:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:

Originally Posted By Da_Bunny:

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.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 9:16:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Da_Bunny:
... “The Air Force is looking to get rid of what they call ‘tired iron,'” ...


Nice in theory, but I don’t see how a F-22A is going to replace a B-52, U-2 or KC-135.

If this happens, next year they’ll be getting rid of the A-10’s!!

Is it possible the Air Force still hasn’t got the word on the collapse of the Soviet Union?

Link Posted: 1/10/2006 9:21:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/10/2006 9:21:50 PM EDT by LonePathfinder]

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:

Originally Posted By Da_Bunny:

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.............





F-22 can do what the F-117 can do more a less.

No LGB w/o a non-stealthy laser designator pod, but JDAMs are nearly as good. F-117 is a one trick poney with first gen stealth technology and only packing two munitions at best. F-22 can do that as well as the air to air role and limited EW missions.

B-52's ARE getting old, and I can see the wisdom and only maintaining the lower houred birds.

KC-135E's arnt these the ones still with turbojets??? OLD birds, let them retire.

U-2's are rapidly being replaced defacto by the Global Hawk.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 3:58:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By LonePathfinder:

F-22 can do what the F-117 can do more a less.

No LGB w/o a non-stealthy laser designator pod, but JDAMs are nearly as good. F-117 is a one trick poney with first gen stealth technology and only packing two munitions at best. F-22 can do that as well as the air to air role and limited EW missions.



Comparing the capabilities of the two, I'd say the 22 can do much more.


B-52's ARE getting old, and I can see the wisdom and only maintaining the lower houred birds.


There are pilots flying BUFFs that their grandfathers flew.


KC-135E's arnt these the ones still with turbojets??? OLD birds, let them retire.


You're thinking A's (water burners). The Es have turbofans (still not nearly as efficient as the R).


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


This is the direction the next generation of combat aircraft is expected to go.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 4:24:30 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 4:27:09 AM EDT
the Airforce has airplanes?
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 11:05:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Let the fucking professionals decide.
Congressmen have no business telling the air force what frames they need to do their mission.
F-117 was cool, now its old. B-2s have a small radar profile and carry a lot more munitions.

B-52s are old and how much carpet bombing do you plan on doing?
KC-135s are freakin ancient. They were designed to support the old bomber fleets.
50 year old air frames are ridiculous.
Unmanned recon is the future, deal with it. (hell, its the future of strategic strike if they would stop pussyfooting around)

The USAF is right and congress should shut the fuck up and deal with it.
They don't have to maintain those fleets.



+1
I love the plethora of people who hold to (relatively) ancient technology because they "like" it and "hate to see it go."

Every last one of you are fighting the last war. The next war will be no picnic like Desert Storm I & 2.
Matt
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 11:23:04 AM EDT
Link Please
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 11:24:54 AM EDT
B-2s have their own problems, such as their mission ready rate of about 30%.

As for cutting the U-2, it's already a high demand low density asset, so unless the plan is to replace the fleet with global hawks I'm not sure how that's going to work.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 11:26:40 AM EDT
Interesting.

In your opinion the next war is with whom and against what equipment? Just curious.

Iran
Syria
North Korea
China
Urban (werever)



Originally Posted By valheru21:

Every last one of you are fighting the last war. The next war will be no picnic like Desert Storm I & 2.
Matt

Link Posted: 1/11/2006 11:28:49 AM EDT
Well...clearly the "Fighter Mafia" still rules the USAF.

Fucking morons...
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 11:31:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By valheru21:

Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Let the fucking professionals decide.
Congressmen have no business telling the air force what frames they need to do their mission.
F-117 was cool, now its old. B-2s have a small radar profile and carry a lot more munitions.

B-52s are old and how much carpet bombing do you plan on doing?
KC-135s are freakin ancient. They were designed to support the old bomber fleets.
50 year old air frames are ridiculous.
Unmanned recon is the future, deal with it. (hell, its the future of strategic strike if they would stop pussyfooting around)

The USAF is right and congress should shut the fuck up and deal with it.
They don't have to maintain those fleets.



+1
I love the plethora of people who hold to (relatively) ancient technology because they "like" it and "hate to see it go."

Every last one of you are fighting the last war. The next war will be no picnic like Desert Storm I & 2.
Matt



People hang onto military systems because it dates them.
When they retire your system, it mean's you are old.
And nobody wants to face that.

F-22 and F-35 present the future.
Low and slow are NOT the way to survive in a truly hostile environment.
In the era of PGMs, you don't need an assload of iron bombs.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 11:35:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By toddlerp:
Interesting.

In your opinion the next war is with whom and against what equipment? Just curious.

Iran
Syria
North Korea
China
Urban (werever)



Originally Posted By valheru21:

Every last one of you are fighting the last war. The next war will be no picnic like Desert Storm I & 2.
Matt




Personally, I'd say, in order:
Iran
Syria
China

That is based on my own personal speculation and no classafied intel.
Matt
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 11:41:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/11/2006 11:47:52 AM EDT by valheru21]

Originally Posted By LWilde:
Well...clearly the "Fighter Mafia" still rules the USAF.

Fucking morons...



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.

Adding the attack role to the F-22 simply allows it to replace the 20 year old and severely limited Nighthawk.

The B-52 is ancient and needs to be retired simply because it has far outlived its usefulness. It was designed to deliver a massive amount of ungided munitions. that is no longer how we fight - because technology has evolved . The B-2 combined with autonomous precision guided munitions (read JDAM and JSOW) makes it a far more effectivve and lethal platform than the carpet bombing buff of the Vietnam era.

As for the U-2. Satellites, the Global Hawk and whatever other nifty shit skunk works has dreamed up to replace the U-2 and SR-71 are probably picking up the slack.

The "fighter mafia" does not rule the chair force - common sense (in this case) does. Air supperiorty is the thread from which our ENTIRE battle strategy hangs. If we do not have that, our fancy, decentralized methods of waging war become severely encumbered if not completely negated.

If there is ONE thing that you cannot leave to chance on the modern battlefield, it is air superiority.
Matt
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 11:46:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Let the fucking professionals decide.
Congressmen have no business telling the air force what frames they need to do their mission.
F-117 was cool, now its old. B-2s have a small radar profile and carry a lot more munitions.

B-52s are old and how much carpet bombing do you plan on doing?
The BUFFs are great platforms for the JDAM, even being employed in the CAS role.

KC-135s are freakin ancient. They were designed to support the old bomber fleets.
The US military needs tankers. (notice the period) While they were designed to increase the capabilities of intercontinental bombers they are necessary for every part of our war. The cargo jets need tankers to carry their full load, bombers the same, and without tankers Navy jets wouldn't have made it to the fight in Afghanistan.
No-one Kicks Ass Without Tanker Gas


50 year old air frames are ridiculous.
But they're what we've got. What's going to replace almost 500 KC-135s? 100 KC-767s, in ten years.

What's going to replace the 52? Perpetually broken B-2s.


Unmanned recon is the future, deal with it. (hell, its the future of strategic strike if they would stop pussyfooting around)

The USAF is right and congress should shut the fuck up and deal with it.
They don't have to maintain those fleets.

Link Posted: 1/11/2006 11:46:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By valheru21:

Originally Posted By LWilde:
Well...clearly the "Fighter Mafia" still rules the USAF.

Fucking morons...



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.



The answer is unmanned planes that can pull FAR harder G's, and carry an extra missile or two instead of the weight of the pilot, seat, displays, etc.

Just my unqualified opinion. We should be pumping FAR more money into the unmanned fighter concept.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 11:47:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Let the fucking professionals decide.
Congressmen have no business telling the air force what frames they need to do their mission.



a case can be made either way.

congress was responsible for the tfx/f111 fiasco.

otoh, if the AF had had their way, there would have never been an a10 in the inventory.

i know a bunch of lightfighters who are glad that the air force had the warthog program forced down their collective throat.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 11:50:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By valheru21:

Originally Posted By LWilde:
Well...clearly the "Fighter Mafia" still rules the USAF.

Fucking morons...



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.



The answer is unmanned planes that can pull FAR harder G's, and carry an extra missile or two instead of the weight of the pilot, seat, displays, etc.

Just my unqualified opinion. We should be pumping FAR more money into the unmanned fighter concept.



Not quite yet. While I agree with your sentiment and part of your reasoning, I disagree that the pulling of G's is a decisive advantage in most of the near-future ariel engagements.

I like the UCAV idea, and I agree that, eventually, we will have to adopt them into our warfighting strategy. I do not, however, think that such a time is upon us.

That said, I am obviously biased
Matt
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 11:52:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By LWilde:
Well...clearly the "Fighter Mafia" still rules the USAF.

Fucking morons...


+1.

Sure, we need the F-22, but suggesting the money spent on B-52s and B-1Bs is better spent on the Raptor is insane.

Maybe the F-117 can go, because we have other aircraft that do the same job and are newer (B-2, maybe a variant of the Raptor), but how the frick is the Raptor supposed to replace A HEAVY BOMBER?

Link Posted: 1/11/2006 11:54:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/11/2006 11:57:37 AM EDT by valheru21]

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Originally Posted By LWilde:
Well...clearly the "Fighter Mafia" still rules the USAF.

Fucking morons...


+1.

Sure, we need the F-22, but suggesting the money spent on B-52s and B-1Bs is better spent on the Raptor is insane.

Maybe the F-117 can go, because we have other aircraft that do the same job and are newer (B-2, maybe a variant of the Raptor), but how the frick is the Raptor supposed to replace A HEAVY BOMBER?




You're putting the cart before the horse, my friend.

While strike wins the war, B-52s cannot do so without air supperiority.

You have to have absolute air supperiority before you can use a buff.
Matt
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 11:57:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
The answer is unmanned planes that can pull FAR harder G's, and carry an extra missile or two instead of the weight of the pilot, seat, displays, etc.

Just my unqualified opinion. We should be pumping FAR more money into the unmanned fighter concept.


Who says we're not?

Link Posted: 1/11/2006 12:17:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By valheru21:

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Originally Posted By LWilde:
Well...clearly the "Fighter Mafia" still rules the USAF.

Fucking morons...


+1.

Sure, we need the F-22, but suggesting the money spent on B-52s and B-1Bs is better spent on the Raptor is insane.

Maybe the F-117 can go, because we have other aircraft that do the same job and are newer (B-2, maybe a variant of the Raptor), but how the frick is the Raptor supposed to replace A HEAVY BOMBER?




You're putting the cart before the horse, my friend.

While strike wins the war, B-52s cannot do so without air supperiority.

You have to have absolute air supperiority before you can use a buff.
Matt



As I have stated in other threads, your youthful lack of military knowledge is shining through like a beacon.

We are in a war now. This war does not require us to obtain aerial (Please note the correct spelling.) superiority. We already have it and have had it since the very first day. What we need in this war are bomb trucks...lots of them. What we also need in this war is tankers...lots of them as well.

In your argument for the Raptor, apparently you are assuming that the United States will one day fight a war against a foe that has SU-30s in its inventory. For the record, I share that view...and my sources are far better than yours. That said, our current inventory of fighter/attack aircraft are perfectly capable of gaining and maintaining air superiority (Again, please note the correct spelling.).

Finally, although I have serious doubts as to whether or not some of our fighter attack aircraft can out-dogfight an SU-30 or a MiG-29, I have NO doubt that in any conflict in which our forces were faced with those planes in the hands of enemy pilots, our COMBINED ARMS forces would be more than adequate to deal with the limited numbers of these planes that currently populate the inventories of any possible enemy of ours.

Warfare is MUCH more than simply going eyeball-to-eyeball in a dogfight.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 12:19:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By valheru21:

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Originally Posted By LWilde:
Well...clearly the "Fighter Mafia" still rules the USAF.

Fucking morons...


+1.

Sure, we need the F-22, but suggesting the money spent on B-52s and B-1Bs is better spent on the Raptor is insane.

Maybe the F-117 can go, because we have other aircraft that do the same job and are newer (B-2, maybe a variant of the Raptor), but how the frick is the Raptor supposed to replace A HEAVY BOMBER?




You're putting the cart before the horse, my friend.

While strike wins the war, B-52s cannot do so without air supperiority.

You have to have absolute air supperiority before you can use a buff.
Matt



Each BUFF can carry 20 ALCMs. You don't have to drive downtown to use them.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 12:32:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Originally Posted By valheru21:

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Originally Posted By LWilde:
Well...clearly the "Fighter Mafia" still rules the USAF.

Fucking morons...


+1.

Sure, we need the F-22, but suggesting the money spent on B-52s and B-1Bs is better spent on the Raptor is insane.

Maybe the F-117 can go, because we have other aircraft that do the same job and are newer (B-2, maybe a variant of the Raptor), but how the frick is the Raptor supposed to replace A HEAVY BOMBER?




You're putting the cart before the horse, my friend.

While strike wins the war, B-52s cannot do so without air supperiority.

You have to have absolute air supperiority before you can use a buff.
Matt



Each BUFF can carry 20 ALCMs. You don't have to drive downtown to use them.



ALCMs are a poor (and expensive) substitute for GPS/Laser guided bombs.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 12:37:42 PM EDT

Seems like a sensible plan overall.

As far as the 'keeping up with the Jones'' statements, it would be foolish to stand still technology wise.

Remember others are NOT sitting still, then one day, bang, caught with pants down.


I believe that has happened in the past, like say, WW2, e.g. tanks.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 2:45:45 PM EDT
I can see most of the plan....


But... WTF is with getting rid of Tanker aircraft? How are we going to refuel all our new F22s?
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 2:52:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By OregonShooter:
I can see most of the plan....


But... WTF is with getting rid of Tanker aircraft? How are we going to refuel all our new F22s?



They'll be upgraded with solar panels as part of the savings from the F117 cuts.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 2:53:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By OregonShooter:
I can see most of the plan....

But... WTF is with getting rid of Tanker aircraft? How are we going to refuel all our new F22s?


It's the possibility of our B-1Bs going away that scares me more than either the '52 or the '135s.

The Lancer is, IMO, the best bomb truck we have in our inventory. Yes, even better than the B-2.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 2:58:04 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 3:06:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/11/2006 3:17:41 PM EDT by LonePathfinder]
They are not talking about all the tankers just the KC-135 Echos, with the older engines that were never upgraded.

In the next ten fifteen years all the 707 based a/c will need replacing. We need to start phasing in something now to replace them. A C-17 type program for the refueling/electronic missions and command missions.

I to would rather they ax all the B-52's and bring back the ~30 B-1B's they retired.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 3:11:25 PM EDT
IBTBP............in before the British Perspective............
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 3:16:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LonePathfinder:
I to would rather they ax all the B-52's and bring back the ~30 B-1's they retired.


Not sure about the "B-1," but if you are talking about true "B-1Bs," I agree with you.

IMO, it'd be nice if we could build more NEW B-1...Cs (), but I think all the plans were scrapped.



Hopefully somebody will come along and say I'm wrong. Just imagine the possibility of a large number of (relatively) cheap heavy bombers with new technology and avionics sprinkled throughout the already proven B-1B design that will augment the small numbers of B-2s in our inventory.

Sadly, this is just a pipe dream.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 3:18:02 PM EDT
I love the B-1B as well (aside from my opinion it's one of the sexiest aircraft ever built) but why do you feel the B1 is superior to the B2?

From what I remember the B1 is fairly stealthy...though not to B2 standards. Capacity surpasses the B-52 from what I remember.


Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Originally Posted By OregonShooter:
I can see most of the plan....

But... WTF is with getting rid of Tanker aircraft? How are we going to refuel all our new F22s?


It's the possibility of our B-1Bs going away that scares me more than either the '52 or the '135s.

The Lancer is, IMO, the best bomb truck we have in our inventory. Yes, even better than the B-2.

Link Posted: 1/11/2006 3:19:05 PM EDT
B-1B is superior to both the B-52 and B-2 in payload.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 3:20:09 PM EDT
This is a political play by the USAF. It's an implied threat. If they don't get more funding then they'll have to lose serious capabilities. It's an attempt to get Congress to fund the F-22 and existing platforms.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 3:20:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zippy_The_Wonderdog:
I love the B-1B as well (aside from my opinion it's one of the sexiest aircraft ever built) but why do you feel the B1 is superior to the B2?

From what I remember the B1 is fairly stealthy...though not to B2 standards. Capacity surpasses the B-52 from what I remember.


IIRC, the B-1B has the highest payload, is already stealthy (but not as much as the B-2 Spirit), is less maintenance intensive, and because of this, there are always more Lancers ready to roll than Spirits.

An aircraft isn't worth diddly if it's on the ground or in the hangar.

And the Lancers are cheaper (another dream of building new ones).
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 3:23:37 PM EDT
Another question here. How does the F-22 compare to F-117 in terms of stealthiness?
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 3:39:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:
This is a political play by the USAF. It's an implied threat. If they don't get more funding then they'll have to lose serious capabilities. It's an attempt to get Congress to fund the F-22 and existing platforms.



I agree. And in the debating, they'll turn it into funding for replacements for the obviously overaged parts of the inventory since they'll make a compelling case for the cheaper to replace than maintain aspect.

But they do still want to downsize the force, make it leaner, meaner, higher average IQ. that'd be a part of this; "cheaper to employ a better paid smart person than two lesser paid non-smart persons"
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 3:47:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zippy_The_Wonderdog:
Another question here. How does the F-22 compare to F-117 in terms of stealthiness?


The F-117 is 1970s technology. The F-22 is 1990s technology.

Link Posted: 1/11/2006 3:59:37 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 4:02:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Originally Posted By valheru21:

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Originally Posted By LWilde:
Well...clearly the "Fighter Mafia" still rules the USAF.

Fucking morons...


+1.

Sure, we need the F-22, but suggesting the money spent on B-52s and B-1Bs is better spent on the Raptor is insane.

Maybe the F-117 can go, because we have other aircraft that do the same job and are newer (B-2, maybe a variant of the Raptor), but how the frick is the Raptor supposed to replace A HEAVY BOMBER?




You're putting the cart before the horse, my friend.

While strike wins the war, B-52s cannot do so without air supperiority.

You have to have absolute air supperiority before you can use a buff.
Matt



Each BUFF can carry 20 ALCMs. You don't have to drive downtown to use them.



ALCMs are a poor (and expensive) substitute for GPS/Laser guided bombs.



ALCM are never a substitute for GPS/Laser guided munitions. ALCM are reserved for nuclear strikes.

CALCM on the other hand (which happen to be guided by GPS for the past several years) are expensive (not to mention limited in quantity) and reserved for very specific targets. It depends on the target. That's referred to as force packaging.

And you do not have to launch within theater to use the CALCM due to it's (classified) range.

Generally speaking though, you would want a certain degree of air superiority before launching CALCM. You don't want one to be shot down and recovered by enemy forces. America's air superiority in recent conflict has been gained very quickly and maintained as long as needed.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 4:48:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/11/2006 4:49:44 PM EDT by LWilde]

Originally Posted By Zippy_The_Wonderdog:
Another question here. How does the F-22 compare to F-117 in terms of stealthiness?



At LEAST an order of magnitude.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 4:51:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BoreSighted:

Originally Posted By dport:
This is a political play by the USAF. It's an implied threat. If they don't get more funding then they'll have to lose serious capabilities. It's an attempt to get Congress to fund the F-22 and existing platforms.



I agree. And in the debating, they'll turn it into funding for replacements for the obviously overaged parts of the inventory since they'll make a compelling case for the cheaper to replace than maintain aspect.

But they do still want to downsize the force, make it leaner, meaner, higher average IQ. that'd be a part of this; "cheaper to employ a better paid smart person than two lesser paid non-smart persons"


+++++ To both of you.

This move is a combination of cuts that make sense (do we really need all those B-52s in inventory), cuts to prove a point (hey Congress, the KC-135s are getting old, guys, we need something newer), and cuts to scare Congress (look, unless you give us more money we can't do everything we need to do). There's been more than one time where one of the branches threatened some cut saying "we don't have money for both x and y" and Congress caved and gave them money for ... you guessed it ... both x and y.

This is especially true when there is pork at stake. For new systems there are always congressmen who represent states/districts where production occurs/will occur. For old systems, there's always congressmen who represent states/districts where a base would be closed or downsized, where spare parts production occurs, etc. And of course congressmen make deals among themselves -- "I'll agree to support this new system that's manufactured in your state if you support this old system that keeps one of the bases in my state open." Ironically, the Pentagon has found that if it threatens the right spending cut, it can actually end up with spending increases.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 4:53:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/11/2006 5:04:52 PM EDT by NimmerMehr]

B-52's ARE getting old, and I can see the wisdom and only maintaining the lower houred birds.


AF has more B-1s than B-52s anyway, so its not like.. like something.


Another question here. How does the F-22 compare to F-117 in terms of stealthiness?


Assuming the website is accurate:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/electronics/q0168.shtml

FRom same website: B-52 carries 51 mk82s and the B-1B can carry 84.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 5:09:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NimmerMehr:

B-52's ARE getting old, and I can see the wisdom and only maintaining the lower houred birds.


AF has more B-1s than B-52s anyway, so its not like.. like something.


Another question here. How does the F-22 compare to F-117 in terms of stealthiness?


Assuming the website is accurate:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/electronics/q0168.shtml

FRom same website: B-52 carries 51 mk82s and the B-1B can carry 84.



AF retired something like 30 of the ~99 B-1Bs a year or so ago to save money. I thought the BUFF fleet was still around ~90 a/c
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 6:05:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/11/2006 7:27:48 PM EDT by valheru21]
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
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 5:51:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By valheru21:
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



Well...since you asked:

I am a retired naval officer. I spent twenty eight years in the service. I toted a rifle for five years and served in seven ships. I'll 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.

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.

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 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?

OBTW...you need to reduce your hubris. You immaturity continues to show through. I am not at all uncomfortable posting here...and you are such as easy target.

Now go forth and learn well... Pay close attention to your betters and lose some of that ego you so easily expose.
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 6:09:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/12/2006 6:20:25 AM EDT by jimtash9]

Originally Posted By valheru21:
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.
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 6:13:15 AM EDT
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.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top