Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Ouch! No love indeed for the Bone! I understand ELP, what you said about capability B-52 V B-1, and cost, thanks for that.
The Buff fleet down to 50 planes... seems an awfully low number, but you only deploy what you can afford right? To make money available for other areas it might NEED to happen. Looks as though their are going to be some tough decisions ahead.

F-117 is first gen` stealth and maybe is not needed so much in 2006 as it was in 1991. The BIG difference is the capability of today`s weapons which are a quantum leap over yester-years stuff. Ie, stand -off ranges have increased, accuracy much improved.

Guess if the air force says it can do without the F-117, B1, and B52 and STILL keep all bases covered then go for it.

F-16.net Sponsor

Enthusiast Joined: Nov 21, 2005 - 12:24 AM Posts: 65

IMHO, before critic the Bone, you must to review its performande on the Iraqui Freedom Op., the Bone dropped the first JDAM over baghdad and only 3 Bone droped over iraq more bombs than the B-2s,B-52s,F-16s,F-15 -all together- and any other thing fliying or diving.

The major issues on the Bone are due the avionics (specially it radar an AWG-9 derivate), that's because the pentagon plans to "upgrade" it by repalcing all the current avionics with the avionics developed for the F-16 bk60 (despite the B-1R, that's underway for current Bone's),

The real problem here is that we don't have any large bomber fleet. We have 50 or so B-52s, 90 something BONEs (I believe, it may be more like 60), and 21 B-2s. That is our long range bomber fleet AFAIK. I think if we were to get the JSF, we could eliminate at least one of those (not the B2, that bloody thing better fly for another 60 years to make up for the costs). The JSF would make for a much more flexible, but shorter range, system than the others. I believe only the C-130 or C-17 can drop the MOAB though. Anyway, that's why I like the JSF, it can take over the role a lot of our aging stuff is already doing. If the government and companies would pull their heads out of their butts it wouldn't be so bad. Unfortunately, the stuff has to be evaluated and tested and ARGH we'll never get it soon enough. I understand elps concerns about the JSF, but I think something else could be cut in its place. Oh well, just my Two Cents

.

Enthusiast Joined: Nov 21, 2005 - 12:24 AM Posts: 65

Is well known that the C-17 and the C-130 and some civilian jets (asthe 747), may be adapted to drop JDAM munnitions, also they can drop very high a small UAV to safely find targets, so there's no real need for the B-52's and Bone fleets on the Air Strike missions. IMHO again, If I where the USAF fleet manager, I 'll retire ALL THE B-52 flying relics now, and buy as many BC-17 or C-130 (or A400M built under license) and few ex-civilian 767s, with the saved money, and I'll order to build about 150 JDAM/UAV droping kits for those planes and I'll keep operative a small number of Bones (or ALL 67 remainiing Bones, If I solve the AVIONICS issues), for certain speciall mission, but upto the B-3 or the FB-22 is ready. And Forget the Heavy Bombers Shortage.

I'll save FUEL, Flight hours, and also will solve the high usage issue, that suffer the MAC, due the heavy usage of the C-17.

Define cost. When a B-52 goes out it has the ability to take out numerous targets far far away. It's paid for and will fly to 2030 or 40. The sustainment dollars to keep it going aren't all that much considering all of the other dumb stuff we are willing to buy on an ill advised whim. There is really almost NO new money for airframes now. They are still trying to use a Ouija Board to get funds for some kind of tanker program. We have moron lobbyists campaigning for more C-17s. ( News flash, not all theater cargo is roll on roll off ) conventional airliner style aircraft can do a lot of work for getting basic supplies in theater and let the roll on roll off special cargo aircraft do the rest.

No matter. The pentagon budget office is never the final word on cuts. After the moron politicians put in their enlightened bought and paid for influence, there will always be another PowerPoint flavor-of-the-month topic that will have fuzzy-source numbers that are different. Watching some of these ever important offices in the Pentagram put out press releases on weapon systems programs is like watching some voodoo witch doctor babble. Everyone thinks they know what he said and kinda goes along with it until it rains, or snows or there are a flock of locusts to change overall outlook on things.

Enthusiast Joined: Nov 21, 2005 - 12:24 AM Posts: 65

Really the COST, is the a key factor, another choice would be to re-configure the B-52s as tanker (KB-52), whatever, the B-52 requires to be re-engined (not so cheap) to still flying, plus avionics upgrades, the few points a favor the B-52 is the huge parts inventory remanent of the original fleet (700~), and the nuclear attack clearance of the B-52, as they ability to launch ALCMs, but the B-52 is a VERY EASY TO FIND TARGET; yes, now we have DIRCM, and towed decoys, but that means the B-52 only can be used in a 2nd stage in a war, after the air tread's supression, the Bone has 1/100 RCS of the B-52, also removing the B-52s fleet (or converting it to tankers) the Bones again could have ALCMs (the Bone was axed to conventional roles due the START II agreement).

The cost is a key issue, but CAPABILITIES is another ISSUE, and 50yr old ariframes, don't have "space" for more updates.

Is the F-22 as stealthy as the F-117? If not, bad move to retire the F-117.

I remember that the U-2 was used as an relay station and on station surveillance aircraft during OIF. The USAF is hammering on time critical targeting. How the hell are they gonna get that if you don't know where the target is.. Satellites do have to battle the weather. Only a few places on earth are sunny and sandy. And even during the Gulf War and OIF bad weather prevented targeting..

In hugely related news:

Army May End Lockheed Spy Plane Contract

Quote:

The Army is expected to cancel a Lockheed Martin Corp. contract to build a new spy plane, according to industry and
Pentagon officials, despite efforts by the defense contractor to solve problems that include lightening the plane's weight.

The Army was scheduled to announce Thursday afternoon its decision to end funding for the Aerial Common Sensor, according to an industry insider with knowledge of the contract and a senior Pentagon official, both of whom asked not to be identified by name because the formal announcement had not been made.

Lockheed has an $879 million contract to develop the plane, but the program could have eventually been worth $8 billion if it reached full-rate production.

The possibility that the program would be cancelled was reported in Thursday's editions of The Wall Street Journal.

Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the Lexington Institute, said the Pentagon's 2007 fiscal year budget request was changed to delete $1.9 billion from the spy plane program, a sign it was in trouble.

"Most people see that as a pretty powerful tipoff for what will happen with ACS," he said.

The contract, awarded to Lockheed in August 2004 over a bid from Northrop Grumman Corp., was meant to create a plane for the Army and Navy. But Thompson said both branches had different wishes for its capabilities, making it hard to keep the program in line with its original intent.

Lockheed struggled to keep the plane's weight down while trying to meet the requirements of both branches. The company originally proposed using a plane built by the Brazilian company Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica SA, but later proposed switching to a larger Empresa jet or one made by Canadian company Bombardier Inc.

However, the Army issued a 90-day stop work order in September while it reviewed the program. That order was later extended another 30 days.

Thompson said the different missions envisioned by the Army and Navy were partly to blame for the plane's troubles. The Navy, for example, wanted to use it to intercept Chinese communications while flying off that country's coast. The Army sought a plane that could perform specific missions such as locating a radio transmission on a battlefield.

"The government should never have tried to develop one system to meet the very different needs of the Army and Navy," he said. "It would have produced a flying albatross."

The Pentagon official said the Army will continue to use other unmanned aircraft and radar planes to conduct surveillance. However, the decision does not preclude the Army from developing future high tech spy planes, the official said.

Lockheed shares rose 12 cents to $66.38 in afternoon trading on the
New York Stock Exchange. It has traded in range of $54.24 to $66.35 over the past 52 weeks.

I believe the 22 is more stealthy than the 117. I would hope after what 20 or 30 years of stealth development. Does the B1 have the sort of reduced RCS like the SH? It's not much saying something has less RCS than the B-52, it's effectively HUGE almost ridiculously big.

I think that it's a good idea with the exception of the U2. You can't win a war without aerial superiority. If we must have a bomber then we should reopen the B2 line. I think the B1 would be more survivable against a strong IADS then the B52.

Roscoe wrote:

Most of the F-117 mission can be done by the B-2 and eventually the F-22.

AND the F-35. Granted, it is still another 6 years, or so, away, but here are the advantages I have mentioned from time to time of the F-35 over the 117.

Younger airframe: The operational 117 is now 24 years old. It will be about 30 before the 35 is in service

Newer technology: Advances in technology have improved the F-35's RCS over the 117's

Faster: The F-35 can fly supersonic. The 117 can't.

Armament: The F-35 can carry a heavy payload, with various PGMs and has defensive weapons including AA missiles and a cannon if it needs to dogfight. The 117 can only carry two bombs, and lacks AA capability.

Diversity: The 35's various models will be able to deploy from conventional, foward, and unimproved airstrips; as well as CVNs and LHAs. The 117 can only be deployed from a conventional airstrip, and at that, far from the action.

The F-117 was an effective weapon system, and will continue to be, but its time is coming. If the AF axed the 117 to provide more funding for the Raptor and the JSF, it would be a wise move.

The B-1 and B-52's numbers could both be trimmed by a few more aircraft. Not a total elimination for either airframe, but enough to put a greater amount of money into each aircraft. This would increase both airframes' economic viability.

I agree with those who say the U-2's time is coming. The Global Hawk can do the U-2's job with no risk to a crewmember, quicker turnaround time, ease of maintenance, and a wider variety of areas from which it can be deployed.

Sierra-can the MV-22. An explanation needn't be necessary. Wink

Here's one as of yet not mentioned: How about retiring the 75 C-5As in order to put more money into the 50 C-5Bs? The C-5 has always been overly expensive. Granted, the C-17 can't do everything the Galaxy can do, but it is effective in its own right, and eliminating the older A model C-5s can allow more money to be put into the existing B model fleet.

If the DoD and Congress both use their heads (which won't happen) there are several ways they can save money, eliminate some dead wood, and still have a viable fleet of aircraft.

Beers and MiGs were made to be pounded!

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002079.html
Killer Drone, Dead; New Bomber Lives

Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems -- the shared Air Force and Navy program to develop a killer drone -- has been cancelled, Inside Defense is reporting. "Instead, the Defense Department will begin work this year on a next-generation long-range strike aircraft, accelerating its bomber modernization plans by nearly two decades in an effort to quickly enhance the Air Force’s effectiveness across the Asia-Pacific region."

J-UCAS was supposed to produce an armed drone that could knock out enemy air defenses, conduct surveillance, jam enemy radars. On the side, it might do some strike missions. But it would mainly pave the way for manned aircraft.

This new project would focus more directly on taking the enemy out, Inside Defense says.

"The action to accelerate work on a new bomber tracks closely with a recommendation last fall for a new, long-range strike aircraft program made by Andrew Marshall, the Pentagon’s director of net assessment, who called for developing capabilities necessary to deter China."

That means striking at targets thousands of miles from any U.S. bases, Robert Work, with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, noted in a recent presentation. "Reach — the combination of range and persistence — is especially important in the Pacific theater of operations."

"U.S. Strategic Command, which has responsibility for an evolving concept dubbed 'global strike,' strongly advocated the need for a new bomber" to obtain that reach, according to Inside Defense.

Here's how Globalsecurity.org describes the concept:

The new capabilities ensure that the Air Force can strike a variety of targets, including hardened or deeply buried targets (HDBTs) as required in non-permissive environments... Capabilities should provide the ability to operate at extended distances from the theater of conflict with an effective and flexible payload (e.g., nuclear and conventional precision/non-precision munitions). Desired attributes for GS capabilities are responsiveness, persistence, survivability (including lethal self-protection), lethality, connectivity, and affordability... A new/modernized bomber aircraft may satisfy the proposed capability. Currently, all milestones for the program are tentative, but for planning purposes, a development effort could start as early as 2006 with an Initial Operational Capability (IOC) in 2015 and Full Operational Capability (FOC) in 2020.

At first glance, it sounds like an updated version of Cold War doctrine -- with this new plane standing in for ICBMs or for the B-52 fleet (which, incidentally, j just got cut in half). But this time around, those global strikers could still wind up being robotic, Inside Defense notes.

Three capabilities are expected to be essential for the Next Generation Long Range Strike Aircraft program: the ability to remain airborne for many, many hours; the means to fly very long distances; and the ability to carry significant numbers of bombs. The importance of these factors is expected to make the case for an unmanned system.

For the last several years, Pentagon fringe-science arm Darpa has been working on a program somewhat along these lines. The Falcon, or Force Application and Launch from the Continental United States, project aims to fire a bunker-busting bomb into near-space, and then send it crashing into a target more than 3,000 miles away, at four times the speed of sound.

It may be nostalgia 'cause the B-52 is one awesome monster, but why cut (even in half) the fleet of one of your MOST reliable and versatile aircraft? If they can do all that elp claims, and I have no doubt they can, hold some of your horses on the Raptors and keep the B-52's. Cutting B-52 personnel (3.9 billion? - whoa!) is a bad idea.

Could this be a ressurection of FALCON Project????? Hypersonic plane? I don`t think so, a mega J-Dam cannon! Wow!

As much as I say move forward with more technology, I think they want to purge older systems faster then they can replenish them. There is a huge gap that a lot of people are not looking at here. Yhere are capapbility shortfalls and gaps in the AF order of Battle. And some have been higlighted during the recent combat operations. None have yet prevented U.S. Success, but future successes may be threatened, and victory might be more difficult or more costly to achieve. SEAD capabilities have been hurt, Not to say the F-16CJ is a bad weasel, but it does lack some of the capabilities that the F-4G did, and the retirement of the EF-11A Raven has hampered in the capability that leaves non-stealthy offensive platforms in greater danger from enemy air defenses. The Navy has an ageing EA-6B Prowler fleet, and are considerably overstretched. There had been some proposals to convert a number of B-52 Bombers to undertake Electronic warfare and jamming missions (not sure how acurate that is). Tactical reconnaissance also has a gap since the RF-4s were retired. With only a few Air Guard Viper units equiped with TARs (I think two) I believe that we are far less suited for this mission. The shortfalll in recce assets saw the U.S. relying heavily on the U.K.s old Canberra PR.Mk 9s during operation enduring freedom. Britian also provided Elint Mimrods to augment the USAF's small RC-135V "Rivot joints" and RAF Tornados helped with the "Tac R" gap in Iraq. I am not saying that the F-4s should still be here. But I think with hastely rushing into programs, (And also having pencil pushers axing programs.) it is leaving large gaps in capabilities. War is expensive. And I don't think we are going to see war's go away anytime soon. And we will probably see aggression highten in the next two decades. But I don't think we are ahead of the game as a lot of people tell us we are.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

B-52's U-2's and F-117's axed for more Raptors