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

"monkey" wrote in message
om...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...
"monkey" wrote in message
om...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...
"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it - a non-stealthy combat aircraft is obsolete.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.

A lot of people will be crying into their beer after an F-15 lifex -
that is just not an effective plan these days. We did that with our
Hornets, and even with centre barrel replacement there are TONS of
serviceability problems.

There aren't enough F-22s to replace the F-15 and the F-35 is sliding
further away. The options are to life extend the F-15, or have the USAF
buy
F/A-18Es. If we wait until the F-15s start falling out of the sky, then
they will all be gounded.

Besides that, the F-18 life extension doubled the usable life of the
F/A-18As.

I agree with the fact that something has to be done...however in my
experience flying military jets "life extension" is a huge misnomer.
Yes, the life of the airframe is "extended." But the fact of the
matter is that our older "life extended" jets have a very low fatigue
tolerance and as such have a very low g limit, as well as severe store
carriage limitations. Yes, the jets are still flying, but you'll find
that a lot of them are useless for anything except ifr training and
cross countries. But hey, what can an air force do-until the new jets
come on line or they get more money, they will have to stick with
flying older aircraft less, and restricting the mission types.

If only the F-22 had been cancelled in '98 ...

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

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"

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"

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

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."

Buzzer wrote:

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."

What the man said. BUFDRVR, pull out your copy of Boyne and look up "Advanced
Capability Radar" in the index. Boyne says the Hs got them first, but they were
backfit to the D, F and G.

Guy

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 15:19:53 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

The point was that Walt's comment about acquiring
the B-52's was valid.

Only if he knew what their location would be within 125 miles before
he took off.G

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
Buzzer wrote:

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."

What the man said. BUFDRVR, pull out your copy of Boyne and look up
"Advanced
Capability Radar" in the index. Boyne says the Hs got them first, but
they were
backfit to the D, F and G.

Actually, Guy, the man said the C models also got it. FAS as a source is not
infallible, though in this case it remains unclear a sto which models got it
and when they actually got it. If the aircraft did start getting T/A radars
in 1961, it would have taken some time to outfit the remainder of the fleet,
which IIRC was pretty darned big at that time. Your list also does not
include the E models, which continued in service until the '69-70 timeframe.
Another interesting item is the fact that throughout the sixties a large
number of B-52's retained the silver upper/anti-flash white lower finishes,
which was hardly a very good scheme for a low altitude penetrator. This all
leads me to suspect that the "everything went to low level at the beginning
of the sixties" bit may be another case similar to the old "all the B-29's
stripped their armament per LeMay's orders" story--only partly correct, in
other words.

Brooks

Guy