USAF, What should the focus on?

[Wicked Pilot]

Me - North Korea has nothing that Iraq didnt have in the Gulf War. Both of them have holdovers from the Soviet era with very few new aircraft.

North Korea still has a good integrated air defense system. Plus they have many more fighters in the region than we do. The skill level of their pilots is questionable, but numbers can make up for that, especially in a suprise preemptive attack.

Me - To My knowledge, there is no plan to convert Boeing 767 aircraft to a tanker role.

Supposidly Boeing will be leasing KC-767s to the Air Force. This will increase our tanker force, and help Boeing out of it's post 9-11 slump.

Me - Why keep producing B-2s when it has been shown that stealth technology is currently being shown not to be foolproof.

Only one stealth aircraft has ever been shot down, after thousands of sorties against the heaviest defended targets in the world. Plus the incident was probably due to an unusual circumstance.

I think we ought to use the B-52s and B-1s

B-52 yes, B-1 no. The B-1 has a shit load of problems with it, and is extremely costly to build, operate, and maintain. That is why the Air Force is currently cutting the fleet size by a third.

The B-2s are what we need, they are able to attack heavily defended cities like Bagdad and P'yougyang with almost impunity. They are a good replacement for the aging F-117. B-52s will be delegated to attacking enemy positions at high altitude, and using standoff weapons against fixed targets.

[TrailerParkJawa]

I agree the B-1 has problems. Probably better to retire than risk loosing crews.

I think NK is overated as a threat. They are falling apart at the seams, Id be willing to bet that relations between North and South continue to improve.

[Azeron]

Well the Osprey has been expensive to develope, 9 billion, but I think its worth it, its truely a new type of transport that is sorely needed. we have nothing new to replace our current helicopter fleet, and the osprey even with its faults is by far our best options. Give it time, they will work the kinks out.

[Sea Skimmer]

Keep in mind for all its expense, the B-2 can effectively deliver more bombs to the target then F/A-18E's could, the most modern strike fighter currently in US production. This assumes the 500 million dollar cost of new B-2's BTW.

It may look costly, but in the end it's cheaper for the effect, and far less likely to be brought down flying alone then normal aircraft are with SEAD and Jammer support.

We need more B-2's! We also need at least 400 F-22's. The F-15C is still world class, but within the next ten years it ill be badly outclassed. And wehn more and more nations buy or building AEW aircraft, the biggest USAF advantage is getting smaller.

[Wicked Pilot]

Give it time, they will work the kinks out.

The same arguement was used to support the Harrier. Decades later, look back at how valuable that aircraft has been.

[Azeron]

Big problem with the B2 si that only US facilities can house the craft. needs to be mantained in a rather chilly trempeture, and it can't fluctuate. ts not really practical even if we expanded the bomber fleet. Its will take hald a day to get accross the planet to hit the targets we need to hit.

we need are a somewhat smaller craft, but can be stored at more rugged facilites, and a new all purpose non stealth heavy/bomber transport that can operate on poor airfields and shot take offs and landings for when we operate in primitive countries

[TrailerParkJawa]

We need more B-2's! We also need at least 400 F-22's. The F-15C is still world class, but within the next ten years it ill be badly outclassed. And wehn more and more nations buy or building AEW aircraft, the biggest USAF advantage is getting smaller.

Badly outclased by who? Not Iraq, Iran, or NK. The european nations mabye but are we gonna fight them?

[Azeron]

he is thinking small, I say order 1200 of those f22's and forward deploy them. tha will keep the chinese/arabs in line for the next 20 years.

[Sea Skimmer]

We need more B-2's! We also need at least 400 F-22's. The F-15C is still world class, but within the next ten years it ill be badly outclassed. And wehn more and more nations buy or building AEW aircraft, the biggest USAF advantage is getting smaller.

Badly outclased by who? Not Iraq, Iran, or NK. The european nations mabye but are we gonna fight them?

Anyone who purchases both the Su-30Mk and AA-12, assuming the Russians ever get around to delivering the later. Against that the F-15C is marginal, its going to be a 50/50 battle, not something acceptable for the USAF.

Currently two nations already have aircraft building and want to license produce them, and seven more are negotiating contracts. Most of those nations also either have or are buying or build AEW as well.

Anyone who buys the Typhoon or Rafael would also have a fair advantage, and Europe is offering such to most anyone. Though it seems no one wants Rafael.

[Sea Skimmer]

Big problem with the B2 si that only US facilities can house the craft. needs to be mantained in a rather chilly trempeture, and it can't fluctuate. ts not really practical even if we expanded the bomber fleet. Its will take hald a day to get accross the planet to hit the targets we need to hit.

we need are a somewhat smaller craft, but can be stored at more rugged facilites, and a new all purpose non stealth heavy/bomber transport that can operate on poor airfields and shot take offs and landings for when we operate in primitive countries

True, but It's not that hard to build the shelters. Actually, currently a half dozen are being built on Diego Garcia to allow forward deployment of B-2s for the attack on Iraq. Anyway, the plane has sufficient range that only a couple refueling are needed to reach targets flying from the US

It appears that the F-35 and possibly the production F-22s will not need specially shelters however, they will be fine in normal hangers, though leaving them outdoors is still not a great idea for long periods.

I dont think we need rough strip heavy bombers, along with the big payload comes a large range. It would likely be cheeper just to get some 777's converted to tankers

[TrailerParkJawa]

Anyone who purchases both the Su-30Mk and AA-12, assuming the Russians ever get around to delivering the later. Against that the F-15C is marginal, its going to be a 50/50 battle, not something acceptable for the USAF.

Currently two nations already have aircraft building and want to license produce them, and seven more are negotiating contracts. Most of those nations also either have or are buying or build AEW as well.

Anyone who buys the Typhoon or Rafael would also have a fair advantage, and Europe is offering such to most anyone. Though it seems no one wants Rafael.

What bout against the JSF ?

I dont see the most likely coutries we would fight purchasing advanced aircraft. Not to mention that even when they do, they seldom have a clue how to use them. ie ( most arab states )

[Azeron]

what I am adovcating is a heavy tenasport that can be used for heavy bombing based forward, maybe a few hundred miles behind enemy lines. So we can shorten the return trip and keep up the offensive, or use it to keep logistics up. rough Sturdy, maybe a percision high powered gun turret on the bottom for some ground support at 10k feet.

[TrailerParkJawa]

Its really hard to see any details at 10,000 feet. Especially in some place like Kosovo where its forested.

It will be interesting to see if UCAV's are eventually capable of providing limited CAS.


Not sure how that would work though. Are they controlled by the ground units or by USAF units in support of the ground units. Thoughts ?

[Sea Skimmer]

Anyone who purchases both the Su-30Mk and AA-12, assuming the Russians ever get around to delivering the later. Against that the F-15C is marginal, its going to be a 50/50 battle, not something acceptable for the USAF.

Currently two nations already have aircraft building and want to license produce them, and seven more are negotiating contracts. Most of those nations also either have or are buying or build AEW as well.

Anyone who buys the Typhoon or Rafael would also have a fair advantage, and Europe is offering such to most anyone. Though it seems no one wants Rafael.

What bout against the JSF ?

I dont see the most likely coutries we would fight purchasing advanced aircraft. Not to mention that even when they do, they seldom have a clue how to use them. ie ( most arab states )

Since the F-35 is American, I have less concern about it being sold to nations, which are a potentional enemy. Europe places fewer restrictions on who its sells to, so there's a much greater chance of facing there fighters.

Don’t underestimate the Arab and Muslim air forces; The First Gulf War had some very skilled use of airpower, and Arab operations in 1973 where actually quite good. Despite what Israel claims, quite a few F-4's and A-4's where brought down by MiGs in that conflict.

Nations which could afford advanced fighters and we might fight are quite numerous, but I don’t feel like making a list. Suffice to say, more then ten.

[TrailerParkJawa]

Since the F-35 is American, I have less concern about it being sold to nations, which are a potentional enemy. Europe places fewer restrictions on who its sells to, so there's a much greater chance of facing there fighters.

I meant what do think of the F-35's capability as fighter on our side?

[Sea Skimmer]

Its really hard to see any details at 10,000 feet. Especially in some place like Kosovo where its forested.

It will be interesting to see if UCAV's are eventually capable of providing limited CAS.


Not sure how that would work though. Are they controlled by the ground units or by USAF units in support of the ground units. Thoughts ?

CAS is the most demanding of missions, and is done in an environment where the jamming of the needed radio links is most likely. CAS is one of the last places we will see UCAV's replacing manned aircraft. IFF and need for greater situation awareness really requires a pilot.

However, striking fixed targets like airfields or command and control bunkers with JDAM's would be easy enough to use a UCAV's for, heck you could do it with a aircraft that’s a complete drone today, though few would trust the tech. Basically a recoverable cruise missile in the end.

[Nathan F]

B-52 yes, B-1 no. The B-1 has a shit load of problems with it, and is extremely costly to build, operate, and maintain. That is why the Air Force is currently cutting the fleet size by a third.

The B-2s are what we need, they are able to attack heavily defended cities like Bagdad and P'yougyang with almost impunity. They are a good replacement for the aging F-117. B-52s will be delegated to attacking enemy positions at high altitude, and using standoff weapons against fixed targets.

As for B-1s, they have a small amount of stealth, can carry a very substantial bomb load, and are fast as a jackrabbit with a lit match stuck up its rear end. What exactly are the problems with the B-1? They are certainly not any more problem prone than the B-2, and its not any more expensive to build, operate, and maintain, than the B-2. In fact, its substanitally smaller (A B-1 Costs around $200 mil, while a single B-2 costs around $2.1 BILLION).

As for the B-2s, Dont overestimate stealth. It is only a matter of time before someone comes out with a countermeasuer to stealth technology. You must remember that B-2s are using almost 25 year old technology, so that time couldnt be far off.

[RayCav of ASVS]

I think it should focus on the second option

[Sea Skimmer]

B-52 yes, B-1 no. The B-1 has a shit load of problems with it, and is extremely costly to build, operate, and maintain. That is why the Air Force is currently cutting the fleet size by a third.

The B-2s are what we need, they are able to attack heavily defended cities like Bagdad and P'yougyang with almost impunity. They are a good replacement for the aging F-117. B-52s will be delegated to attacking enemy positions at high altitude, and using standoff weapons against fixed targets.

As for B-1s, they have a small amount of stealth, can carry a very substantial bomb load, and are fast as a jackrabbit with a lit match stuck up its rear end. What exactly are the problems with the B-1? They are certainly not any more problem prone than the B-2, and its not any more expensive to build, operate, and maintain, than the B-2. In fact, its substanitally smaller (A B-1 Costs around $200 mil, while a single B-2 costs around $2.1 BILLION).

As for the B-2s, Dont overestimate stealth. It is only a matter of time before someone comes out with a countermeasuer to stealth technology. You must remember that B-2s are using almost 25 year old technology, so that time couldnt be far off.

The B-1 has massive maintenance requires, there actually greater then those of the B-2. The result is very few B-1 are ever available for missions, and that they cost a huge amount of money. It also has short legs with a large conventional load so it needs a lot of tanker support, plus of course SEAD and CAP support. The B-2 flying from the same base would need about half the tankers, and no support.

There stealth is theoretical for the most part, it works okay against fighter radars looking down, but not against ground-based radars looking up, which is the greater threat. The maximum bomb load is 50,000 pounds, however in reality it's not over 24,000. That’s not very much for the cost of the plane, and its venerability. The B-2 can always transport 32,000 pounds of smart weapons or 40,000 pounds of iron or cluster stores to its max range. No need to fil one bomb bay with a fuel tank.


The original production run of the B-2 resulted in a 2.1 billion dollar cost. However an additional batch of 20 would have a unit cost of about 500 million, under 500 if over 20 where to be bought.

The B-2's stealth is effectively 15-year-old technology; computers didn't exist 25 years ago to calculate the number of RCS needed to evaluate its shape. That’s why the F-117 had to use the multi faceted design rather then smooth curves.

Any defense, which can cope with stealth attack, will have a field day with conventional aircraft.

[Nathan F]

I know that the B-2 was created about 15 years ago. Im just saying that the basic technology of it is about 25 years old (or older).

[Sea Skimmer]

I know that the B-2 was created about 15 years ago. Im just saying that the basic technology of it is about 25 years old (or older).

The basis of stealth technoloy that made the F-117 possibul is about 25 years old, however what made the B-2 possibul is less then 20. Anyway I fail to see why this is even relevant, advanced weapon systems take a very long time to bring into service. Heck the AIM-120 took ten years from the first test firing to first operational deployment. Not supring that somthing 10 time more complex takes much longer.


Any you have still yet to present an actual argument against the B-2.

[phongn]

We need more B-2's! We also need at least 400 F-22's. The F-15C is still world class, but within the next ten years it ill be badly outclassed. And wehn more and more nations buy or building AEW aircraft, the biggest USAF advantage is getting smaller.

Badly outclased by who? Not Iraq, Iran, or NK. The european nations mabye but are we gonna fight them?

Anyone who purchases both the Su-30Mk and AA-12, assuming the Russians ever get around to delivering the later. Against that the F-15C is marginal, its going to be a 50/50 battle, not something acceptable for the USAF.

I hear the Russians are moving away from R-77 development - those funky control surfaces aren't living up to expectations. IIRC, they're continuing development in the R-27 series.

[phongn]

Oh, heres an absolutely GREAT website containing info on military weapons systems and such. Take a look, as it is incredibly comprehensive.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/index.html

Gah! Be careful about FAS - I've not heard very good things about their accuracy.

[Nathan F]

Any you have still yet to present an actual argument against the B-2.

Im not necessarily against the B-2, I think it is necessary in some cases. I just dont think that the Air Force should rely heavily on stealth technology because ultimately it will be defeated, and then we should have a strong non stealth force of fast and heavy bombers to fall in its place. They all have a place in the modern Air Force.

Oh, and possibul is not spelled that way, it is Possible

[Sea Skimmer]

Any you have still yet to present an actual argument against the B-2.

Im not necessarily against the B-2, I think it is necessary in some cases. I just dont think that the Air Force should rely heavily on stealth technology because ultimately it will be defeated, and then we should have a strong non stealth force of fast and heavy bombers to fall in its place. They all have a place in the modern Air Force.

Oh, and possibul is not spelled that way, it is Possible

Okay..

That’s a strong argument for the F-22 and FB-22. Both would still be insanely effective without their added stealth and until someone comes with an actual way to beat it, they will rule the skies without question. Mach 1.2 plus 60,000 feet=you had better have a SA-20 if you want to have a chance of hitting one.

I hear the Russians are moving away from R-77 development - those funky control surfaces aren't living up to expectations. IIRC, they're continuing development in the R-27 series.

What I hear is that the R-77 production is being delayed in favor of an improved and revised version, while training rounds and equipment are being delivered to those nations which signed contracts, and to the Russian airforce.

I also read a while back that the next R-27's may have the R-77's seeker, making them AMRAAM lights basically.