Posted: 3/9/2009 10:54:11 PM EDT
|
I was wondering with the F-22's wifi capability this thought:
If a F-22 locked on to lets say 20 Chinese J-11's off in the distance and fired it's missiles off, could a B-2 drop down and release air to air missiles that received their targets from the F-22's fire control system? ...Could the B-2 carry and release what the F-22 needed for weapons by the 2 aircraft systems communication target locks? Just a crazy thought I had. If so a lone F-22 and a B-2 could annihilate an entire country. I just wonder if it's possible. |
|
Can't seem the find the aritcle, but that has already been proposed and is still a possibility. They'd use B-1's with boosted amraams though. F-22's link to B-1s, B1's launch from very long range at supersonic speed, the amraams have booster that fire, drop that stage, normal stage fires and kill. B-1's then turn and burn out of there. F-22's mop up.
ETA: The proposal is called the B-1R, now google away. |
|
The concept was/is the B-1R...
B-1R The B-1R is a proposed replacement for the B-1B fleet.[39] Boeing's director of global strike integration, Rich Parke, was first quoted about the "B-1R" bomber in Air Force Magazine.[40] Parke said the B-1R (R stands for "regional") would be a Lancer with advanced radars, air-to-air missiles, and Pratt & Whitney F119 engines (originally developed for the F-22 Raptor).[40] Its new top speed of Mach 2.2 would be purchased at the price of a 20% reduction of the B-1B's combat range. This proposal would involve modifying existing aircraft. The FB-22 and YF-23-based design are alternative proposals. Boeing's proposal appears to modify the B-1B into a design able to serve these two purposes. For the bomb-truck role Boeing proposes the modification of existing external hardpoints to allow them to carry multiple conventional warheads, dramatically improving overall warload. For the air-to-air role, both defensive and offensive, they propose to add active electronically-scanned array radar and allow some of the hardpoints to carry anti-aircraft missiles. Even with its somewhat reduced range as compared to the original B-1B, its fuel capacity remains quite large. This would allow it to escape from unfavorable air-to-air encounters by simply running away; there are few enough aircraft capable of Mach 2+ performance in general, and those that are deployed can maintain these speeds for only very short periods of time.[39] In general terms the B-1R most closely resembles the original F-111 concept, as opposed to a pure bomber role. However, it would be able to carry out these missions at ranges even greater than the F-111. |
|
Yup. Got one. 
|
|
I BELIEVE that our front line combat aircraft include a data link that allows for distributed targeting. Any plane in the combat group can designate targets and whatever one is in the best position with regard to weapons inventory and firing position is the one that fires it.
If I could think of this, I'm SURE that other people in the defense industry thought of it and tried it out. It's really a case of "When you fight me, you're fighting my whole family!'. I can't prove that, I have no evidence of it, but I believe it. It's extremely plausible. CJ |
|
Quoted:
I BELIEVE that our front line combat aircraft include a data link that allows for distributed targeting. Any plane in the combat group can designate targets and whatever one is in the best position with regard to weapons inventory and firing position is the one that fires it. If I could think of this, I'm SURE that other people in the defense industry thought of it and tried it out. It's really a case of "When you fight me, you're fighting my whole family!'. I can't prove that, I have no evidence of it, but I believe it. It's extremely plausible. CJ My understanding is that this is exactly how they operate. That way, only one aircraft radiates making detection that much harder for the other side. I really don't see why they can't do that, though I don't like the idea of losing the standard B1 capability. I would rather just build new ones. Not that any of this will happen with Obama and the Demotards at the helm. -K |
|
Quoted:
Pity you couldn't get a drone with a nice radar package to be the "go active" unit that paints targets. Something cheap and disposable being the only high visibility target,rather than an F-22,IOW. Then every man in a cockpit is essentially staying stealthy. Its funny because I've been harping on this as the future of air combat in all the "fighters are obselete" threads for years now. There will always be a man in the loop, and for the foreseeable future that man will be in a fighter aircraft. What we will see is UCAV's acting as "Squire" to the fighter jocks. The UCAV would have its own radar and would irradiate from a safe distance, and it would carry additional missilles for the fighter pilot. It wouldn't be beyond our means to make them plot an intercept course to any hostile missilles as well while the fighter pilot evades (because we'd much rather lose a drone then a fighter), would probably be doable to put in a panic mode for dogfighting where they will fire on anything in the vicinity not sending IFF. |