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

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it - a non-stealthy combat aircraft is obsolete.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

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it - a non-stealthy combat aircraft is obsolete.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

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

On 17 Mar 2004 20:52:58 -0800, (WaltBJ) wrote:

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

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

"Buzzer" wrote in message
...
On 17 Mar 2004 20:52:58 -0800, (WaltBJ) wrote:

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

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.

Brooks

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

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
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.

Depends on when in the sixties, AFAIK. I ran across one former B-52 pilot's
comments that the transition to the lower level profile, at least in his
case, happened during the "early sixties"; FAS indicates it happened earlier
than that, but then again FAS folks were not flying them... :-) Of course a
lot of the B-52 force during the sixties were lugging Hound Dogs, which
would have been launched from altitude in most cases and did not require a
low-altitude penetration. The point was that Walt's comment about acquiring
the B-52's was valid.

Brooks


Guy

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"

On 18 Mar 2004 22:19:52 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

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.

Bomb-nav maintainer might disagree with you about when the TA was
installed. (This is just the earliest date I could find..)
http://www.bombnav.org/guestbook.html
"Did infinite T/A alignment long first then 24hrs short method Dec
1962 Carswell AFB TX."

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-52_hist.htm
"Although the new low level requirement would apply to the other SAC
bombers, it would have its greatest impact upon the B-52. To fly the
new attack profile, the B-52C through H models were modified with a
new terrain avoidance radar, an improved radar altimeter, increased
cooling capacity for sustained low altitude operations, modified
equipment mounts, and a general strengthening of the aircraft's
secondary structures. The goal was to permit reliable, all-weather
operation at 500 feet, to avoid detection, and to minimize encounters
with enemy defenses. Low level training for SAC bomber crews began in
the late 1950's, with actual aircraft modification beginning in 1961."

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"