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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
THE CASE FOR LONG-RANGE STRIKE: 21ST CENTURY SCENARIOS.
On Feb 9, 2:35 pm, frank wrote:
Put your comic books away. There hasn't been any air to air combat with strategic bombers of any consequence since WWII. If there's any probablity of offense, you send in tac air with the strike package. or use standoff weapons. Much cheaper to build standoff than a goofy ramjet FB-22. Which has limited the strategic bombers to the reach of carrier air. The USAF has become a bomb truck service for the USN. It's gotten so bad that stealth strikes against active defenses require Navy jammers or they just don't go into harm's way. If The Force wants to go deep inside Russia and China and attack high value fleeting targets then they need a new capability. Otherwise the future of deep strike excludes the manned bomber. -HJC |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
THE CASE FOR LONG-RANGE STRIKE: 21ST CENTURY SCENARIOS.
hcobb ha scritto:
So there is a gap in capability that the FB-22 would cover, but it would not be a replacement for the missions currently covered by the B-2s or B-1s. However the best mission for the Hustler II would be to open the way for the big bombers with a hunt and destroy of air defenses. hm ? As I understand the US conventional strategic bombing framework the B-2 has the role of SEAD, then the B-1 hit the major targets in the hostile command chains (comm centers, HQ etc, and then came the "heavy punch" of the good ol' B-52. An excellent triad, I guess. A stealth bomber for the elimination of the hostile's major sensors, a fast penetration bomber for disrupting the nerve system of the enemy defense and the heavy payload carried by the real workhorse of the bombing fleet. In my very humble opinion in areonautical field there's no "one size fits all" Best regards from Italy, Dott. Piergiorgio. *DISCLAIMER: I'm posting from sci.military.naval and I'm definitively "black shoes"* |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
THE CASE FOR LONG-RANGE STRIKE: 21ST CENTURY SCENARIOS.
hcobb ha scritto:
Next generation integrated mobile air defenses. High level terrorists. Mobile cruise missile launchers with WMD warheads. The targets the Hustler II hunts are mobile, low profile and high value. The FB-22's sensors (being the next step past the B-2, F-22 and F-35) are as important as its weapons. These are things you can't spot from space and you can't wait for an ICBM to get to the last known GPS grid, but you probably do not want to start a nuclear war over. *ahem* you're now shifting the underlying logic from vectors to payloads.... Best regards from Italy, Dott. Piergiorgio. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
THE CASE FOR LONG-RANGE STRIKE: 21ST CENTURY SCENARIOS.
hcobb ha scritto:
On Feb 9, 2:35 pm, frank wrote: Put your comic books away. There hasn't been any air to air combat with strategic bombers of any consequence since WWII. If there's any probablity of offense, you send in tac air with the strike package. or use standoff weapons. Much cheaper to build standoff than a goofy ramjet FB-22. Which has limited the strategic bombers to the reach of carrier air. The USAF has become a bomb truck service for the USN. *ahem* the B-52 *IS* a bomb truck; the role of the other two bombers is paving the way for the truckload to be delivered.... If The Force wants to go deep inside Russia and China and attack high value fleeting targets then they need a new capability. Whose means the global thermonuclear war... OK I have got the issue you have: *STOP playing Fallout 3 NOW, please* :P Dott. Piergiorgio. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
THE CASE FOR LONG-RANGE STRIKE: 21ST CENTURY SCENARIOS.
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:57:53 +0100, "dott.Piergiorgio"
wrote: The targets the Hustler II hunts are mobile, low profile and high value. The original Hustler was still around when I was in the USAF. Delta wing, four engines suspended below the wings in the usual fashion. Supersonic. Had a big pod with fuel and the H-bomb. Good looking plane. [Hard to believe the Concorde could carry enough fuel to cross the Atlantic at mach two.] Both planes were predicated on ten cent jet fuel. Oil was two bucks a barrel. Those days paperback books, magazines, cigs, gas, six packs, were all a quarter. The consumer price index has gone up a third as much as the above. Lying sacks of ****. Loaf of bread, quart of milk, a dime. I don't know what milk is today, wife buys it, but its probably cheap since they have always overproduced it. But I digress. Casady |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
THE CASE FOR LONG-RANGE STRIKE: 21ST CENTURY SCENARIOS.
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:02:34 +0100, "dott.Piergiorgio"
wrote: The USAF has become a bomb truck service for the USN. *ahem* the B-52 *IS* a bomb truck; the role of the other two bombers is paving the way for the truckload to be delivered.... The main function of an air force is to deliver bombs and prevent the enemy from doing so. There is gun spotting, the first military use of planes, before they had either guns or bombs. Planes don't do artillery spotting today, and there are the satellites for recon, but there is no substitute for lots of bombers, and enough fighters to let them do their job. Sometimes you can pretend to use the same planes for both. That leads to BS like retiring the SLUF.[A-7] The A-10 has eleven stations for bombs, to go with the gun. Get rid of it, with it's gun that can easily kill a hundred tanks with one thousand round ammo load. Rudel only carried ten rounds of 37mm, and he would get a couple of tanks with them. Our Stuka II is an even hundred times better, and they want to retire it. And the A-10s are paid for. A proper fighter better not get in front of that gun. Don't they know about old but good. Well sometimes. The sidewinder dates to the fifties. Casady |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
THE CASE FOR LONG-RANGE STRIKE: 21ST CENTURY SCENARIOS.
On Feb 10, 10:32 am, Ed Rasimus wrote:
Stealth operations don't require jammers. Larger packages might, but not the stealth platforms. When was the last stealth attack against active defenses made without jammer support? -HJC Yeah, I could tell you, but then I'd have to shoot you so what good is that? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
THE CASE FOR LONG-RANGE STRIKE: 21ST CENTURY SCENARIOS.
hcobb wrote:
On Feb 10, 10:32 am, Ed Rasimus wrote: Stealth operations don't require jammers. Larger packages might, but not the stealth platforms. When was the last stealth attack against active defenses made without jammer support? -HJC Yeah, I could tell you, but then I'd have to shoot you so what good is that? In other words you don't have an intelligent answer. Ops normal for cobb. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
THE CASE FOR LONG-RANGE STRIKE: 21ST CENTURY SCENARIOS.
In message , Richard Casady
writes That leads to BS like retiring the SLUF.[A-7] One key reason the SLUF was retired was that it was short of survivability if there was a significant threat. It could jettison weapons (meaning, mission kill) and evade the first attack: then, it was lower and slower and needed to light burner to get back up to... oh, no afterburner. Excellent aircraft if the air defences have been beaten down, but less survivable than - say - a F-16. More haulage, but with PGMs that's become less of an issue. The A-10 has eleven stations for bombs, to go with the gun. Get rid of it, with it's gun that can easily kill a hundred tanks with one thousand round ammo load. You'll find that's really, really not likely. You get about ten bursts, and you might get one tank per burst - assuming you've found real tanks, assuming you're not shooting up already-wrecked hulks (a massive problem in Iraq in 1991) and assuming the enemy isn't interfering with a 250-knot aircraft trundling in and out for repeated strafing passes. (For reference, in 1982 over the Falklands, every single "second pass" attack by RAF Harriers from 1 Squadron resulted in battle damage: from relatively minor damage up to aircraft lost. The first pass tells them where you are and makes them angry, the second one lets them shoot back) Rudel only carried ten rounds of 37mm, and he would get a couple of tanks with them. Thirty rounds: each 37 had a fifteen-round magazine and they fired at what was effectively a semi-automatic rate (about 160rpm cyclic). Our Stuka II is an even hundred times better, and they want to retire it. And the A-10s are paid for. They're also elderly and short of energy, which makes them less survivable against any significant threat. The A-10 is a classic case of designing for today's problem: it was intended to stand up to optically-aimed AAA and first-generation MANPADS, but the threat moved on rapidly. Do not try to take A-10s for gun runs through an area defended by something like a 2S6 or a SA-15 - you'll have a lot of "We deeply regret..." letters to write. A proper fighter better not get in front of that gun. Why would a proper fighter have any need to? And how would an A-10 ever force one to? Don't they know about old but good. Yes. "They" also know about old and "excellent for its day, but that was a while ago". Well sometimes. The sidewinder dates to the fifties. And the AIM-9A and AIM-9B were just short of useless for manoeuvring combat against enemy fighters, even with no countermeasures at all: the improvement process has gone on to the point that they're currently flying with the AIM-9X. (What happens for the third iteration on from there?) -- The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools. -Thucydides pauldotjdotadam[at]googlemail{dot}.com |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
THE CASE FOR LONG-RANGE STRIKE: 21ST CENTURY SCENARIOS.
On Feb 11, 2:41*pm, "Paul J. Adam" wrote:
They're also elderly and short of energy, which makes them less survivable against any significant threat. The A-10 is a classic case of designing for today's problem: it was intended to stand up to optically-aimed AAA and first-generation MANPADS, but the threat moved on rapidly. A-10's weren't really survivable against Iraq in 1991. 144 were sent and five were lost (another OA-10 was lost too) making it the Allied airframe that was shot down the most in Desert Storm. 249 F-16's deployed, and only three were lost. Oh, and the A-10 couldn't use its gun for most of the war- USAF aircraft were for the most part ordered to stay above 10k feet, because of the threat of Iraqi air defenses. For a few days the USAF let up on that requirement, but extensive losses of A-10's forced the USAF to put that requirement back in place. Chris Manteuffel |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How to build a 21st century Stuka??? | Victor Smootbank | Piloting | 7 | August 30th 07 01:45 AM |
PRATT & WHITNEY PROPOSES F-22A ENGINE VARIANT FOR LONG-RANGE STRIKE | Mike[_7_] | Naval Aviation | 0 | May 30th 07 02:44 PM |
Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century | [email protected] | Soaring | 6 | September 5th 06 08:16 AM |
Is there a place for Traditional CAS in the 21st century? | Charles Gray | Military Aviation | 87 | March 20th 04 07:05 AM |
"Missile Defense for the 21st Century" | Mike | Military Aviation | 0 | March 8th 04 08:35 PM |