Forum: Program and politics

If that were true then nobody would be worried when a CSG rolls into town.

F-16.net Sponsor

But what about the circling empty tankers overhead with nowhere to land over said same foreign territory?

You create a tanker bridge....its been done before. Tac fighters doing 12+ hour missions. It just depends on what is out there. I doubt guam is lightly defended by patriots right now. You are of course putting your a/r tracks outside of the max effective range of the double digit sams. Fighters race in and then back out again to tank before they go home.

deadseal wrote:

You create a tanker bridge....its been done before. Tac fighters doing 12+ hour missions. It just depends on what is out there. I doubt guam is lightly defended by patriots right now. You are of course putting your a/r tracks outside of the max effective range of the double digit sams. Fighters race in and then back out again to tank before they go home.

The new tankers can be refueled (E-2D / KC-46A). Sounds like a circus.

Tanker bridge supporting land-based fighters would mean one sortie a day (maybe) as opposed to several (3-4) a day for CV based F-35Cs.

alloycowboy wrote:

southernphantom wrote:

handyman wrote:

And the next paragraph...

Quote:

Technically, that’s not true. Besides Lockheed’s F-35 assembly line in Ft. Worth, the U.S. has three other fighter factories building upgraded models of the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 — and Lockheed’s F-22 line is still in the process of shutting down following 15 years of production. What Donley meant is that there isn’t another new, fully stealthy fighter that the Pentagon can bring into service within the next few years.

We want the bestest toys money can buy damn it!

Exactly why F-22B production in the next decade wouldn't surprise me a bit. And keep in mind the new construction out at Groom Lake...

@ Southernphantom, I disgree on the F-22B, but I do think your close. I think there is a four F-119 engine strike aircraft out there with a mach 1.8 cruise speed. Why mach 1.8? I think that is the thermodynamic limit for radar absorbent material before they start to degrade. A while back there were rumors that Northrop might develop the YF-23 into a bomber or strike aircraft but it didn't sound like they won.

I think some thing close to this won:

Also check out the other possibilities.

http://www.yf-23.net/galleries/ATFconceptart.html

I'm partial to these sketches myself Wink

As for plausibility of denial, remember that the B-2 was kept under wraps for quite a while. Of course you get the UFO stories, but nobody knows quite what the aircraft DOES besides exist and fly. I would be unsurprised if an FB-X was unveiled around 2020.

SpudmanWP wrote:

Tanker bridge supporting land-based fighters would mean one sortie a day (maybe) as opposed to several (3-4) a day for CV based F-35Cs.

100% correct. It just depends on the tgt area.

Or just use the future LRS-B aircraft ~5,000nm unrefueled range, payload 14-28,000 lbs., can carry larger weapons than tactical fighters. Could be in service by 2020.

LRS-B don't do CAS, A2A, etc. They also do not exist yet, will have bandwidth problems in larger numbers, etc.

SpudmanWP wrote:

LRS-B don't do CAS, A2A, etc. They also do not exist yet, will have bandwidth problems in larger numbers, etc.

OR, you could man it Wink

I'm partial to long-range strike myself- Beagles, FB-23s, heavies, etc.

IDK, B-1's w/ Snipers have doing CAS of late (although along w/ F-35s, can't shoot Mavericks,) can't say the same for A2A. The point is they will have the range to make operations in the western Pacific less carrier / tanker dependent. And coming online only a few years after F-35 enters IOC.... that in itself could be an incentive to reduce buys of F-35 in the out years.

F-35s don't shoot Mavericks because they will shoot Brimstone/JAGMs instead. B-1s can't do CAS in a contested environments, can't do gun runs, no JAGMs, sniper pod is laptop based (eg non networked), defend itself (A2A), communicate efficiently while still in EMCON (no MADL), etc.

southernphantom wrote:

SpudmanWP wrote:

LRS-B don't do CAS, A2A, etc. They also do not exist yet, will have bandwidth problems in larger numbers, etc.

OR, you could man it Wink

I'm partial to long-range strike myself- Beagles, FB-23s, heavies, etc.

I don't really know what came of the F/B-22 or its competitors the B-1R and F/B-23. They could have gone black for all we know considering they were "officially" cancelled but until more evidence of these projects' surface I'm afraid we just have LRS-B to rely on.

@Spudman LRS-B is to be optionally manned so bandwidth shouldn't be an issue unless there are a huge boatload of them carrying out long-persistence COIN ops at any given time.

Wink

Did not know LRS-B was optionally manned, thanks.

SpudmanWP wrote:

F-35s don't shoot Mavericks because they will shoot Brimstone/JAGMs instead. B-1s can't do CAS in a contested environments, can't do gun runs, no JAGMs, sniper pod is laptop based (eg non networked), defend itself (A2A), communicate efficiently while still in EMCON (no MADL), etc.

Yea, JAGM will eventually replace Maverick, even then it is not a direct replacement. Maverick is a heavy missile, JAGM is more like a Hellfire. But JAGM is slated to replace several families of AGM on many different platforms, so there is an economy to be had. The B-1 was an example of a bomber platform performing a traditionally tactical mission; there is no reason to doubt that a LRS-B could not do the same using technology contemporary with F-35.

Forum: Program and politics

‘Simply put, there is no alternative to the F-35 program’