"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 17:57:02 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Michael Kelly" wrote in message
. com...
Tarver Engineering wrote:
Emmanuel would have been correct in what he wrote two years ago, but
the
bone has lit up.

Two years ago the Bone was well into its 3rd rotation in support of OEF
and was a very in demand weapons system. 7 BW Bones were routinely
dropping large numbers of JDAM's in support of ANACONDA this time last
year and flew 301 of 301 sorties in support of it, quite impressive.

You'd have to go back at least five years for the original statement to
be true. In all fairness, the Bone was in the middle of the block D
upgrades and availability on any platform in the middle of an upgrade
program is usually pretty poor.

Getting the Bone to work is a major setback for any F/A-22.


Hardly, now the FB-22 proposal is a different story, but that has a
shorter range and much smaller weapons load. Add SBD's to the Bone and
you're talking about 96 to almost 200 weapons carried.

I don't see a need for additional A/G airborn weapons platforms now that
we
are not going to cut up the Bones.

Same problem as always- they aren't going to last forever. If ANY
weapon system in the pipeline is an indicator, if we started a clean
sheet replacement for the B-1 it would be decades before we saw
anything in service.

I don't see another manned bomber being built ever.

Come to think of it though, ISTR the arguement
for the FB-22 as being as a follow on to the Strike Eagle. I've only
heard it mentioned in the same breath as the B-1 once. Even with the
stretch, an FB-22 wouldn't have the range of a B-1 so I don't think
it's an apples/apples comparison.

When the Bone was looking at being scrap there was a possible need for
additional bomber fleet, as the B-52 is old. Now that the bone is looking
at bringing back additional aircraft I don't see spending money on more bomb
truck capability as a sound investment.

Both Northrop and Lockheed have
kicked around full sized bomber designs in the last four or five years
though. I think things are so much in flux these days that nobody is
sure WHAT they want.

X-45 UCAV.

You see a supercruising bomber design from
Northrop one day, another from Lockheed a couple years later, then
back to Northrop with a Quiet Supersonic large, long ranged bombing
UCAV. Then toss in things like that Hypersoar that LLNL was doing a
study on and it's anybody's guess as to what we might see. I think
the Air Force figures it has to start *somewhere* though and they know
that at some point the Strike Eagles will have to be replaced and
building an FB-22 along side the F-22 would help them get back some of
those research dollars they invested vs. going with something entirely
new and that's why the FB-22 is even being talked about.

I don't see replacing Stike Eagles as a plan at all, as they were an interm
solution while the Bone sucked. Same as the C-130J was designed to manage
risk in case the C-17 program failed to fix their problems.