A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

GAO: Tactical Aircraft: Changing Conditions Drive Need for New F/A-22 Business Case"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 17th 04, 07:40 PM
WaltBJ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Screw the GAO. They're assuming our pilots will never have to face
SU27s, etc. I have dealt with those blinder-equipped savants before.
You can't discuss anything with them because their minds are already
made up. They've already 'modeled' the situation and they are never
wrong. They haven't a clue what it is like up at the sharp end. Face
it - a non-stealthy combat aircraft is obsolete.
Walt BJ
  #2  
Old March 17th 04, 10:02 PM
BUFDRVR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Face
it - a non-stealthy combat aircraft is obsolete.


I think you may be over stating that point a bit Walt. There's still years and
years of play for non-stealth (and in the case of the BUFF, anti-stealth)
aircraft. In fact, the addition of the F/A-22 ensures that.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"
  #3  
Old March 17th 04, 10:06 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
Face
it - a non-stealthy combat aircraft is obsolete.


I think you may be over stating that point a bit Walt. There's still years

and
years of play for non-stealth (and in the case of the BUFF, anti-stealth)
aircraft. In fact, the addition of the F/A-22 ensures that.


An F-15 life extension is a near certainty now.


  #4  
Old March 18th 04, 04:52 AM
WaltBJ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Non-stealthy aircraft were pigeons back in the 60s. That's when our
F102s were skin-painting Buffs at 75 to 125 miles. And with the IR the
EWO hadn't a clue we were sneaking up on them, because we didn't lock
on with our radar, we just intercepted them by eyeballing the rate of
change of range and azimuth. Even the Forbes RB47Es with their cute
gadgets were toast. All the jamming ever did was shout out real loud
'here I am!' Now, with look-down radar, even getting down in the weeds
isn't a sure-fire way to survive. As for out over the water - lots of
luck, GI. And at night - stealth's the only way to go. I've said
before that at night the non-stealthy airplane might as well have all
his lights on bright flash. Granted, stealthy airplane can be seen on
radar - but way before he is detected he's already picked up and
maneuvered to attack the non-stealthy bird. Just like way back when we
had radar and the day fighters did not.
Walt BJ - BT,DT
  #7  
Old March 18th 04, 07:42 PM
Guy Alcala
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Buzzer" wrote in message
...


snip

In th 60s skin-painting Buffs at 75 to 125 miles while they were down
at 250 ft.?


I don't believe the B-52's were typically down in the weeds during the
sixties, when the force still included a lot of C, D, and F models--they
were still doing a lot of higher altitude work. Like in Vietnam.


SAC certainly would have been down in the weeds in the '60s when feet dry
over the FSU if executing the SIOP (or training for it), which is what Buzzer
was referring to. But I'm sure Walt was referring to ranges on them during
enroute high altitude cruise.

Guy

  #8  
Old March 18th 04, 10:19 PM
BUFDRVR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I don't believe the B-52's were typically down in the weeds during the
sixties, when the force still included a lot of C, D, and F models--they
were still doing a lot of higher altitude work. Like in Vietnam.


The terrain avoidance radar was not installed until early 1970's (1973??). This
is not to say you couldn't fly low visually, but I don't believe low level was
a common practice until the 70s.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"
  #9  
Old March 18th 04, 10:18 PM
BUFDRVR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Non-stealthy aircraft were pigeons back in the 60s. That's when our
F102s were skin-painting Buffs at 75 to 125 miles. And with the IR the
EWO hadn't a clue we were sneaking up on them, because we didn't lock
on with our radar, we just intercepted them by eyeballing the rate of
change of range and azimuth. Even the Forbes RB47Es with their cute
gadgets were toast. All the jamming ever did was shout out real loud
'here I am!' Now, with look-down radar, even getting down in the weeds
isn't a sure-fire way to survive. As for out over the water - lots of
luck, GI. And at night - stealth's the only way to go. I've said
before that at night the non-stealthy airplane might as well have all
his lights on bright flash. Granted, stealthy airplane can be seen on
radar - but way before he is detected he's already picked up and
maneuvered to attack the non-stealthy bird. Just like way back when we
had radar and the day fighters did not.
Walt BJ - BT,DT



Walt, if it were that easy to pop non-stealth aircraft, surely we would have
lost more than we have (by an order of magnitude) since '91. The grand champion
RCS of all time has suffered exactly zero losses and only 1 damaged in well
over 1,000 missions over Iraq x 2 and Yugoslavia. In fact, more stealth
aircraft have been downed than B-52s.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"
  #10  
Old March 19th 04, 01:42 AM
Henry J Cobb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

BUFDRVR wrote:
Walt, if it were that easy to pop non-stealth aircraft, surely we would have
lost more than we have (by an order of magnitude) since '91. The grand champion
RCS of all time has suffered exactly zero losses and only 1 damaged in well
over 1,000 missions over Iraq x 2 and Yugoslavia. In fact, more stealth
aircraft have been downed than B-52s.


SEAD has gotten a lot better since Vietnam?

-HJC

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 40 October 3rd 08 03:13 PM
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 0 October 1st 04 02:31 PM
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 0 September 2nd 04 05:15 AM
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 0 May 1st 04 07:29 PM
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently-Asked Questions (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 0 July 4th 03 04:50 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.