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

In article ,
on 17 Mar 2004 22:02:39 GMT,
BUFDRVR attempted to say .....

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it - a non-stealthy combat aircraft is obsolete.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

You might be on to something there.
A radar signature so massive that radar operators disregard it because
they know nothing that huge could fly.....




--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

On 19 Mar 2004 22:45:18 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

I go back to the B-52H and here comes a new, fancy interceptor jammer
called the ALQ-117. It has an EWO controlled switch for training and
war. The EWOs complain that the training mode for our interceptors is
worse than the system it replaced. Almost like it had been
deliberately "dumbed down"

Current software on some BUFF ECM gear has that same "train/war" mode. When the
training software is loaded, *some* "enemy" fighters simply get a "J-Code" on
their radar telling them they're being jammed. Newer fighter radars don't even
show the "J-Code", they simply see no ECM effect. I flew a NORAD exercise where
they specified they wanted realistic ECM, we loaded the real stuff and were
never engaged BVR.

Amazing. That was just a dream back in the 70s.
SAC was just starting to break away from the blast them with watts
jamming and starting to go with a little smarter stuff when SAC
captured me again in the 70s. ALQ-117, ALQ-122, ALQ-155 with empty
slots in the receiver for "further expansion, and then just before I
retired in 1982 the ALQ-153. Of course everyone knew the plane was
going to be replaced by something newer and faster.G

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 02:27:33 GMT, Buzzer wrote:

Of course everyone knew the plane was
going to be replaced by something newer and faster.G

Any decade now...

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 01:40:36 GMT, Tank Fixer
wrote:

In article ,
on 17 Mar 2004 22:02:39 GMT,
BUFDRVR attempted to say .....

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it - a non-stealthy combat aircraft is obsolete.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

You might be on to something there.
A radar signature so massive that radar operators disregard it because
they know nothing that huge could fly.....

And just think if a B-52 could generate large numbers of those massive
radar signatures it would completely blank out the radar operators
scope!
Or instead of one massive flying barn coming at you it would look like
hundreds of flying barns were headed your way from all directions....

"Buzzer" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 09:36:48 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

Baugher seems to indicate the C's continued in operational service until
as
late as 1966 with the 99th BW out of Westover in MA
(http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b52_8.html ). IAPR (Spring 2003 issue)
indicates that "some" C models ended up receiving the TA radar, but it is
unclear as to when the last C gave up its SIOP mission. Baugher indicates
that the development and fielding of the TA radar was apparently
problematic, but goes into no detail on that subject.

Baugher indicates the E's had the improved Doppler radar for use in low
level navigation, but not the terrain avoidance radar. It appears that
different sources are (again) providing somewhat different pictures of
what
was included, with IAPR, in its Summer 2003 issue, including a list of
low
level nav aids that were included in the original production (and
apparently
were so unreliable the system had to be completely rebuilt, a task that
took
until 1964 to complete) which does not include the TA radar. But IAPR
also
says the E was the first model that was intended from the start to be a
low
level operator, so the TA may have been included and the sources just
failed
to mention it.

Baugher had/has some problems with dates and such on B-52D ECM so
there might be some problems with other systems. I think the page has
been changed and the material deleted, but it went along something
like a piece of ECM equipment on the D wasn't installed until 1967
when in fact I had worked on that piece of equipment in 1963 and it
had been there long before I was there. Trying to keep track of just
ECM mods on B-52s from the 60s onward would probably take a book a
foot thick.

As far as my post to Walt it is the old ECM - defence game. Something
I never figured out how an EWO could get credit for getting the plane
through the defences and the defense/interceptors could get credit for
shooting the plane down,

Walt mentioned the Forbes RB47Es. I worked on something of the
equivalent EB-57s at Forbes, previously Holloman Det 1 4677th DSES, in
the mid 70s. The main interceptor jammer was basically "dumbed down"
for training. A toggle switch on the front of the transmitter safety
wired in what you might say was the safe for training mode.

I go back to the B-52H and here comes a new, fancy interceptor jammer
called the ALQ-117. It has an EWO controlled switch for training and
war. The EWOs complain that the training mode for our interceptors is
worse than the system it replaced. Almost like it had been
deliberately "dumbed down" for training purposes.

As far as using the interceptor IR mode to track a B-52? About all I
can say about that is first you have to know what part of the sky that
big old plane is in. Might not be easy "IF" ECM gets to use everything
they have available. The ten or so years I spent in SAC everything was
never used. One time I thought it was a go, but when the planes got to
the staging base for the excercise they went out and changed one thing
back to training. Oh, well...

OK. I'll definitely defer to your first-hand knowledge regarding this
subject, and thanks for the explanation. I guess in summary, what I am left
with are still a couple of unanswered questions (and which may not get
answered-- I'd imagine that given a B-52 fleet the size of the one that
existed in the mid-sixties (up to 600 plus), there was likely some variation
across the board as to who operated how and with what specific models and
what specific modifications, so there may very well not be any single
answers): a) Did all of the C's that remained active in a SIOP role until
retired in 1970 have the TA system; b) Were all B-52 penetrations throughout
the sixties to be at low altitude in the SIOP role, and when exactly did
that become "law" (ignoring the oft-reported 1959 date, because we know that
at least one B-52 crewmember has indicated that he did not transition to the
low altitude approach until "the early sixties"), or was it a gradual
process that was effected across the fleet and if so when was it effective
for the last implementers; and c) How did Hound Dog affect the penetration
plan (presuming that most Hound Dogs would have been launched from higher
altitude, as a low altitude launch ate rather significantly into the max
rang capability), or were the Dogs supposed to be launched pre-penetration,
followed by descent to a lower altitude for penetration to deliver the
free-fall weapons carried internally? ISTR there used to be another B-52
type pilot (predating Buffdrvr's experience) who has contributed here rather
recently who might be able to shed some light on some of those areas.

Brooks

"Buzzer" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 09:15:45 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

In 1961 there were some 571 B-52's in service (
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab7.asp ), and by the following year
that had climbed to some 673; I doubt that any major program such as the
addition of a TA radar was completed in a period of less than three or
four
years at best for a force of that size (just based upon the '61 size);
doing
it in two years would have required a modification rate of nearly one
aircraft per day, sevven days a week, fifty-two weeks a year.

IF E forward came out with TA then the D is the only one that needed
the mod, and maybe the C...

Most sources seem to indicate the C's, or some of them, did get them. As to
E. I don't know--neither source I checked (Baugher and IAPR) specifically
indicated they were in the aircrraft as they were delivered. Both of those
sources are hardly infallible (as you pointed out with Baugher earlier, and
I noted in IAPR that they mistakenly indicated that the Hound Dog brought
the first thermonuclear warhead to the B-52 warload, when in fact they had
already been carrying freefall TN devices). But I find Baugher's indication
that there were some development/integration problems with the TA radar at
least believable (that would have been sort of cutting edge stuff during
that period), so whether or not the E's had them on delivery is a valid
question.


There was also an airframe
modification program initiated to strengthen the structure so that it
could
absorb the increasedfatigue loads of low altitude work--I have not seen
any
indication of when that effort was completed, either, or whether it ever
addressed either the C or E models.

Some of our D models at Glasgow 64 or so had the stress gauges on them
for the study of the structure mod. Only reason I knew about them at
the time was they were obvious on the inside skin in the tail section
when we loaded chaff. I think the B-52 that crashed in 65 during low
level had them because the Boeing engineers were "reading the tapes"
from a recorder on the aircraft in our maintenance office. I always
figured the recorder was the one that monitored the stress gauges and
other aircraft data. Not positive but the structure mod was probably
during Big Belly. Or not done at all on the Vietnam birds since they
would only be flying high?

I believe your last sentence is the correct one, from what I have been
reading. I am not sure that either the C's or D's ever got those mods; I
think the E's and F's already had them "factory installed", so to speak.


In a maintenance debriefing once there was a discussion about the 2000
hr design life of the B-52D and our planes were at something like
1500/1600 hrs. I'm about 19 years old and a flunky two striper
thinking what a waste of money designing an aircraft for only 2000
hrs. Click and the clock hits 2000 and off to the junkyard. And then
along comes Vietnam...

I wish the Army had designed their trucks that way...in 1993, when I gave up
company command, we still had some of the old "multi-fuel" series five ton
trucks in hand, and they were still wheezing along five or six years later
when the Army announced they were no longer going to carry the repair parts
lines for them. They were not as old as the Buff's, but they were beat all
to hell. How many commercial operators plan to use the same trucks for
twenty-five years or so?

Brooks

Buzzer wrote:
Amazing. That was just a dream back in the 70s.
SAC was just starting to break away from the blast them with watts
jamming and starting to go with a little smarter stuff when SAC
captured me again in the 70s. ALQ-117, ALQ-122, ALQ-155 with empty
slots in the receiver for "further expansion, and then just before I
retired in 1982 the ALQ-153. Of course everyone knew the plane was
going to be replaced by something newer and faster.G

What will the Air Force do when they run out of heavy bombers?

Switch to FB-22s?

http://globalsecurity.org/military/s...raft/fb-22.htm

-HJC

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 22:22:19 -0800, Henry J Cobb wrote:

Buzzer wrote:
Amazing. That was just a dream back in the 70s.
SAC was just starting to break away from the blast them with watts
jamming and starting to go with a little smarter stuff when SAC
captured me again in the 70s. ALQ-117, ALQ-122, ALQ-155 with empty
slots in the receiver for "further expansion, and then just before I
retired in 1982 the ALQ-153. Of course everyone knew the plane was
going to be replaced by something newer and faster.G

What will the Air Force do when they run out of heavy bombers?

Maybe when the last B-52 is flown to the boneyard the nations of the
world will live in peace and harmony?

Switch to FB-22s?

http://globalsecurity.org/military/s...raft/fb-22.htm

-HJC

Buzzer wrote:
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 22:22:19 -0800, Henry J Cobb wrote:
What will the Air Force do when they run out of heavy bombers?

Maybe when the last B-52 is flown to the boneyard the nations of the
world will live in peace and harmony?

I thought Peace was their Profession?

Will we ever see another big manned bomber in the Air Force?

If so will it be another big flying wing or will they go supercruise or
hypersonic?

-HJC

You might be on to something there.
A radar signature so massive that radar operators disregard it because
they know nothing that huge could fly.....

I like to call it "anti-stealth"...I think I should patent that....


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"