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

Henry J Cobb wrote:
What will the Air Force do when they run out of heavy bombers?

Build new ones, most likely. The Air Force has already said it plans a new
bomber development program, although they sdon't use the word bomber for
various reasons.

But the need is not pressing, since the current fleets will run until the
2030s at least.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Henry J Cobb wrote:
What will the Air Force do when they run out of heavy bombers?

Build new ones, most likely. The Air Force has already said it plans a
new
bomber development program, although they sdon't use the word bomber for
various reasons.

But the need is not pressing, since the current fleets will run until the
2030s at least.

Could have swore I saw something just a few days back indicating they are
actually now looking at bringing forward the new program a few years in
hopes of shortening the B-52's currently programmed lifespan.

Brooks


--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

Kevin Brooks wrote:
Could have swore I saw something just a few days back indicating they are
actually now looking at bringing forward the new program a few years in
hopes of shortening the B-52's currently programmed lifespan.

There are some hints out there.

http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingsta...-03bolkcom.pdf
What characteristics should a next-generation bomber have?
Among the factors to be considered are range, payload, speed, unit
cost, stealth, and whether the aircraft will be manned or unmanned.
Reportedly, Air Combat Command (ACC) is examining four options:
• The B-3: an upgraded version of the B-2 that has greater payload and
range along with better stealth and communications.
• Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle (HCV): An aircraft that would operate in
the upper atmosphere at “hypersonic” speeds (Mach 12). It would be
virtually invulnerable to enemy defenses because of its speed and
altitude and could reach east Asia from the continental United States
in less than two hours.
• A high-altitude, low-cost unmanned combat aerial vehicle (UCAV) with
a range of 17,000 nautical miles and a payload of 4,000 lbs.
• A lower-flying, stealthy UCAV.

-HJC

http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingsta...-03bolkcom.pdf

I've got a question about the chart on page 8 of this report that
compares the F-35 and F/A-22 as bombers.

Can the F-35 really carry three times the payload of the F/A-22 for a
longer distance?

-HJC

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?

I'd seen that sign up, but I always liked the quote I heard
about a speech given by a commander, whose name I didn't recall
even just after hearing the story...

"Peace is not our profession. War is our profession. Peace
is our product..."


Mike

Henry J Cobb wrote:

http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingsta...8thcongress/04
-03-03bolkcom.pdf

I've got a question about the chart on page 8 of this report that
compares the F-35 and F/A-22 as bombers.

Can the F-35 really carry three times the payload of the F/A-22 for a
longer distance?

Those numbers are pretty much non-comparable, I fear. The 633 mile figure
is the usual radius quoted for the F-35A, but that's with internal loads
only. The 14,600 pound payload for the F-35 is max external load, which
seriously changes combat radius. The F/A-22's combat radius figure is the
one usually quoted for air-to-air missions (despite the caption). For
air-to-air it apparently includes some significant but unspecified time on
station in the CAP mission. The max load cited is probably external, but
not terribly helpful as that plane that is not configured to carry heavy
external warloads. Etc.

In short, that table is basically worthless.
--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

Could have swore I saw something just a few days back indicating they are
actually now looking at bringing forward the new program a few years in
hopes of shortening the B-52's currently programmed lifespan.

Congress is leaning on the Air Force to get their (our) butts in gear. Congress
is pushing this not to shorten the projected BUFF lifespan (projected to 2038,
beyond the B-1B), but simply to get the Air Force moving. Between 2018 and 2038
we will retire 97% of our existing bombers, I think congress is concerned that
the Air Force will be forced into "crisis acquisition" if they (us) don't get
moving *now*.


BUFDRVR

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

I thought Peace was their Profession?

I'd seen that sign up, but I always liked the quote I heard
about a speech given by a commander, whose name I didn't recall
even just after hearing the story...

"Peace is not our profession. War is our profession. Peace
is our product..."


I've seen and heard the more cynical (yet comical) "Peace is our profession,
war is our hobby"


BUFDRVR

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

(BUFDRVR) wrote:

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

Sure, they think that you're a large CB cell
--

-Gord.

"BUFDRVR" wrote

Congress is leaning on the Air Force to get their (our) butts in gear. Congress
is pushing this not to shorten the projected BUFF lifespan (projected to 2038,
beyond the B-1B), but simply to get the Air Force moving. Between 2018 and 2038
we will retire 97% of our existing bombers, I think congress is concerned that
the Air Force will be forced into "crisis acquisition" if they (us) don't get
moving *now*.

I'd like to see two future bombers. The first would be a long range bomber that
never crosses the FEBA (stand-off) and just drops cruise missiles from the Med,
Sea of China, etc. I picture a C-17 derivative.

The second bomber should be stealthy, and able to loiter. This bomber will do
what the B-1, B-2, and B-52 do now (at least those that cross the FEBA). It
should have a C-17 cockpit design, with the addition of a receive-only JTIDS
terminal. Probably a B-2 radar to do bombing under heavy ECM.

I don't think the B-2 is going to last another 10 years. It is already falling apart,
and Northrop-Grumman is basically re-manufacturing them on a monthly basis.
The USAF who is supposed to be maintaining it, are basically unable to keep-up
with the non-TO engineering changes.

"All I want to know, is why are the prisoners at Gitmo still alive?"--Dick Cheney