F-16.net

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 02, 2006 Posts: 1003 Status: Offline

swanee wrote:

checksixx wrote:

swanee wrote:

There is no, and probably will never be, any more money to develop a multiengine cold war era heavy bomber. It's probably cheaper to keep the BUFF fleet going rather than to build new ones or R&D a completely new airplane. Think on par with the A-10.

The Air Force disagree's with you. ACC received funding for a new bomber early last year...Check

Really? Damn. That surprises me. Thanks for the correction.

There may not be as liberal a spending policy on these things, but if they are needed they will still be developed albiet with a longer cycle time and perhaps with less ambitious specifications.

The B-52 is not particularly cheap to operate because of their age and the obsolescence of the components that it uses. If it is Buff payload and range that is the primary goal, it'll be cheaper to replace the Buff with a commercial airliner derived design. Maybe a B777 with bomb bays and practically twice the B-52's payload, a 17,000km range and a maintenance free dispatch reliability that can only be dreamt of in military circles.

F-16.net Sponsor

We must remember, too, that the last few conflicts have not nessecitated the involvement of "payload" bombers, i.e. bomb trucks. We are seeing more and more smart bombs used and less conventional weapons used. This is a time in history where our enemies have hidden within the fabric of their own innocent people, and this has forced our leaders to rely on high tech, pinpoint weapons to minimize collateral damage while still getting the bad guys. I personally think the era of slow, high payload conventional bombers is coming to a close, and the next bomber will fly higher and faster and will have stealth - the idea is for the bomber to add to the munition's stand-off range.

Getting back to the original topic, it's a shame the F-117 will be retired next year. God forbid, but I think the Air Force might come to regret that decision.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 20, 2005 Posts: 1035 Status: Offline

Tinito_16 wrote:

We must remember, too, that the last few conflicts have not nessecitated the involvement of "payload" bombers, i.e. bomb trucks.

Getting back to the original topic, it's a shame the F-117 will be retired next year. God forbid, but I think the Air Force might come to regret that decision.

Yes, in fact they've been used heavily during the last few conflicts....the AF won't regret retiring the 117's. The Raptor can do everything the 117 can but better and even legacy jets can carry the largest bombs the 117 could.

Elite 3K Joined: May 10, 2004 Posts: 3098 Status: Offline

Just remember - if we need a stealth jet to drop 2000 pounders, there's always the B-2 option Wink

. Send in the Spirits along with the Raptors (and later on the Lightnings), and you've got a bad first night for the other guy Smile

Quote:

Yes, in fact they've been used heavily during the last few conflicts....the AF won't regret retiring the 117's. The Raptor can do everything the 117 can but better and even legacy jets can carry the largest bombs the 117 could.

The only thing that I keep wondering about is how soon the AF will really be willing to "risk" their million dollar baby in actual combat. Granted, we've got stuff flying "over there" that is significantly more expensive, such as the B-1, B-2, AWACS, etc, but they don't spend much time at all doing low-level CAS stuff. I may be wrong but I just can't believe the F-22 would be sent to war and restricted to high-level bombing operations. I also don't believe the AF is willing to risk the F-22 to be lost to a lucky shot, or a mistake that puts a jet in the ground. Now, I know the F-117 never operated in low-level CAS either, but it wasn't designed to. The F-22 is expected to do ground attack missions as part of its multirole mission. Thoughts?

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 01, 2006 Posts: 1003 Status: Offline

VPRGUY wrote:

Quote:

Yes, in fact they've been used heavily during the last few conflicts....the AF won't regret retiring the 117's. The Raptor can do everything the 117 can but better and even legacy jets can carry the largest bombs the 117 could.

The only thing that I keep wondering about is how soon the AF will really be willing to "risk" their million dollar baby in actual combat. Granted, we've got stuff flying "over there" that is significantly more expensive, such as the B-1, B-2, AWACS, etc, but they don't spend much time at all doing low-level CAS stuff. I may be wrong but I just can't believe the F-22 would be sent to war and restricted to high-level bombing operations. I also don't believe the AF is willing to risk the F-22 to be lost to a lucky shot, or a mistake that puts a jet in the ground. Now, I know the F-117 never operated in low-level CAS either, but it wasn't designed to. The F-22 is expected to do ground attack missions as part of its multirole mission. Thoughts?

I don't think the F-22 will do CAS. It'll do precision deep strikes (ala F-117) albiet at a higher speed and with a greater range of effective altitudes. There is a BIG difference between precision strike and CAS. This is until the F-35 becomes available that is. The F-35 will have better range and payload for these missions as well as comparable stealth.

In the ground attack role, the F-22 currently lacks some features that limits its effectiveness -- no IRST, no laser ranger/targeter, no synthethic aperture ground attack mode for the APG-77, no integrated night vision, etc.

Enthusiast Joined: Mar 13, 2007 Posts: 98 Status: Offline

dwightlooi wrote:

In the ground attack role, the F-22 currently lacks some features that limits its effectiveness -- no IRST, no laser ranger/targeter, no synthethic aperture ground attack mode for the APG-77, no integrated night vision, etc.

With you it always cannot be done. Will not a sniper pod (or another) fit within the confines of any of the F-22's 3 weapons bays? Presto, precision strike airplane with capabilities far and away beyond the chunky butt F-35.
Put a pod in one of the aim-9 bays, and you still have room to fill up the central bay to brim with all kinds of nasty little things for precision all weather day/night strike roles.

Quit making easy things so hard.

So the F-22 doesn't have "built in" IRST and focal planes and CCD's and "lasers"... you got 2 bays on the sides that when emptied of the missiles have all kinds of room, for lasers, and irst, and anything else you can put in there.

But no, the F-22 should never be used as CAS with 183 airframes...... Now then, if you want to dart inside Iran, lay down some iron on some nuke sites, and get out faster than anything else can... Then you go with the F-22.

checksixx wrote:

Tinito_16 wrote:

We must remember, too, that the last few conflicts have not nessecitated the involvement of "payload" bombers, i.e. bomb trucks.

Getting back to the original topic, it's a shame the F-117 will be retired next year. God forbid, but I think the Air Force might come to regret that decision.

Yes, in fact they've been used heavily during the last few conflicts....the AF won't regret retiring the 117's. The Raptor can do everything the 117 can but better and even legacy jets can carry the largest bombs the 117 could.

Question is, how much more life can we breathe into those bombers? And, well you're right about the F-22 vs F-117, I just think the whole fleet shouldn't be retired so darn quickly.

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 01, 2006 Posts: 1003 Status: Offline

fox100 wrote:

dwightlooi wrote:

In the ground attack role, the F-22 currently lacks some features that limits its effectiveness -- no IRST, no laser ranger/targeter, no synthethic aperture ground attack mode for the APG-77, no integrated night vision, etc.

With you it always cannot be done. Will not a sniper pod (or another) fit within the confines of any of the F-22's 3 weapons bays? Presto, precision strike airplane with capabilities far and away beyond the chunky butt F-35.
Put a pod in one of the aim-9 bays, and you still have room to fill up the central bay to brim with all kinds of nasty little things for precision all weather day/night strike roles.

Quit making easy things so hard.

So the F-22 doesn't have "built in" IRST and focal planes and CCD's and "lasers"... you got 2 bays on the sides that when emptied of the missiles have all kinds of room, for lasers, and irst, and anything else you can put in there.

But no, the F-22 should never be used as CAS with 183 airframes...... Now then, if you want to dart inside Iran, lay down some iron on some nuke sites, and get out faster than anything else can... Then you go with the F-22.

Oh, it can be done. It is just that the F-22 is not currently outfitted with these things and at this point there is no plans for it to. So you are missing a number of things which the F-117 had and even legacies like the F-15E has.

Newbie Joined: Jan 07, 2005 Posts: 10 Status: Offline

The "Cockroach" may be old and difficult to maintain, but the Laser/GBU-27/BLU-109 combination gives PRECISION hard target kill capability, something the F-22/MK-83/JDAM GUIDED weapon combination cannot match--neither can the B-2 although it has BLU-109 (and BLU-113) capability. There are lots of targets out there that demand the precision of laser guidance and although JDAMs of all varieties are performing extremely well, they were not designed (or really capable) of being truly precise. In terms of hard target ability for the MK 83 JDAM, I can't remember if there is a penetrator version of the warhead for the Raptor to use.

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 01, 2006 Posts: 1003 Status: Offline

ruderamronbo wrote:

The "Cockroach" may be old and difficult to maintain, but the Laser/GBU-27/BLU-109 combination gives PRECISION hard target kill capability, something the F-22/MK-83/JDAM GUIDED weapon combination cannot match--neither can the B-2 although it has BLU-109 (and BLU-113) capability. There are lots of targets out there that demand the precision of laser guidance and although JDAMs of all varieties are performing extremely well, they were not designed (or really capable) of being truly precise. In terms of hard target ability for the MK 83 JDAM, I can't remember if there is a penetrator version of the warhead for the Raptor to use.

Oh, there is a laser guided version of the JDAM. Actually, it is both GPS and laser guided. It uses the same tail kit as the regular GPS JDAM, but adds a laser spot tracker in the nose and new software. This has been available since 2004. The problem is that the F-22 is not currently equipped to utilize a Laser Guided weapon without a guy on the ground or another aircraft doing the designation.

will the JSF have such a built in capability? (i.e. onboard laser designator)

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 01, 2006 Posts: 1003 Status: Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:

will the JSF have such a built in capability? (i.e. onboard laser designator)

Yes. The EOTS rig under the nose provides long range A2A as well as A2G IRST and targeting. Integrated into the rig is a laser range finder and designator. To support self-designation, the EOTS can actually look and designate backwards about 50 degrees.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/1232.pdf

Enthusiast Joined: Jul 27, 2004 Posts: 90 Status: Offline

fox100 wrote:

With you it always cannot be done. Will not a sniper pod (or another) fit within the confines of any of the F-22's 3 weapons bays? Presto, precision strike airplane with capabilities far and away beyond the chunky butt F-35.
Put a pod in one of the aim-9 bays, and you still have room to fill up the central bay to brim with all kinds of nasty little things for precision all weather day/night strike roles.

Quit making easy things so hard.

So the F-22 doesn't have "built in" IRST and focal planes and CCD's and "lasers"... you got 2 bays on the sides that when emptied of the missiles have all kinds of room, for lasers, and irst, and anything else you can put in there.

That's not fair, Dwightlooi was pointing out actual limitations, not potential. I had no idea it was so simple to hang a targeting pod inside the side bay of a Raptor! I guess there aren't any issues with field of view or system integration, you know, all that stuff that takes months and millions of dollars to sort out. I'm not sure but the targeting pods I've seen seem to have a greater diameter than a sidewinder too.

Of course it's possible to rig something together but what would be the point? Are IADS really that big a problem in either theatre? Are there significant air threats?

'Can't be done' and 'isn't practical to do' are two different issues.

Mike

back on to the main subject, I read somewhere that the F-117 has the RCS of a ball bearing. If true, it's comparable to the Raptor's marble size RCS. Unfortunately, the source of this is not available. I have a question though: what is the AF going to do with the planes it retires? Are they going to be kept in refurbishable condition so they can be flown again?

F-16.net

Forum: F-22A Raptor

F-117 stealth tech obsolete compared to F-22 stealth tech