cheap office furniture

kayak sport fishing

alaska

ncaa basketball betting

Find more on lorazepam 1163762452

We have invested a lot in the F-22 and should build a meaningful force, to maintain that edge in the first week or so of a conflict when air superiority is first obtained, but an F-22 is not cheap and the notion that it is really desirable as an anti-tank weapon doesn’t hold up. A-10s and AC-130s can remain airborne for far longer than an F-22 (critical for a CAS role), and the touted and expensive stealth and supersonic capabilities of an F-22 aren’t very useful against targets that have visual identification of you and are moving at 40-50 mph in any case. The F-22 can also drop bombs, but a B-2 or B-1 or B-52 can drop a heck of a lot more, faster, from a more distance base.

The reality though, it that air superiority is not the #1 weakness of the U.S. military and we can buy of lot to address our real weaknesses for the cost of a squadron of F-22s, so making a conservatively small sized buy makes good sense. It isn’t as if the F-15 can be flown forever either. Old planes wear out and have to be replaced and the replacement may as well be new technology instead of old technology. But, the F-22 and F-35 may well be the last manned fighters the U.S. ever buys and unmanned combat vehicles replace them.

Also, it is worth noting that with the CAS debate, the real fight should be between Apaches and A-10s (or successors in its image), not between A-10s and F-22s. The Iraq War (and some prior conflicts such as the first Gulf War and the slow deployment in the Kosovo conflict of Apaches) showed that A-10s, despite being Vietnam era technology, kill more enemy tanks, are more reliable, and are less vunerable to kills themselves than Apaches. Basically this is a Keep It Simple Stupid situation. An A-10 is a simple and robust tool for the CAS problem, something never true of any helicopter. Unfortunately, arbitrary jurisdictional boundaries created when the air force and army were seperated have lead to undue army reliance on helicopters which it can command, instead of fixed wing aircraft which are better suited for the job. (A problem which has also come up with an air force inclination to unbuy transport aircraft). I think there is real reason to revisit the question of whether splitting the Army and the Air Force was a good idea.

Oh, yes. It can certainly do that.

And the H model (currently the only one in service) can keep going all the way up more than 70,000 pounds of total ordnance payload.

The reference to the B-17 is confusing to me: the B-52 utterly dwarfs its grandfather from the Boeing production lines, and I’m not sure why we might be talking about a smaller airplane, which would necessarily imply a smaller payload.

BTW — in reviewing its capabilites, I see that the H-model BUFF’s can do 50,000 feet, too.

B-52 just about fits those criteria, now. “50,000 feet” is over-the-top for a BUFF, but the rest of it is no sweat.
“”

I believe the B-52 can carry 10 tons of bombs. I had something the size of a B-17 in mind with a bit more ability to fly high.

I don’t dispute the value of CAS or interdiction strike. I argue against throwing the V-8 out with the oil-change: it is just as unwise to argue against air-to-air in favor of strike as vice-versa. There will always be a need for strike forces to be able fight their way in and out of the target area, on their own.

At least two facts conspire against manifesting this integration of philosophy in the hardware: the very delicate business of balancing requirements when it comes to drafting airplane designs (perhaps the most exacting exercise in compromise in the world), and the politics with which procurement is suffused.

I would also point out that this country has not engaged a seriously competent enemy in the air in a long, long time. (This can be a very deep and subtle argument. The North Vietnamese air order of battle was always very small, but it could not be ignored, and — again — it forced a drastic reconsideration of Cold War air doctrine.) Just because it hasn’t happened lately is no rational reason to bet that it never will again.

I’d never advocate giving up the dogfighters. It is indisuptuable that the need is less. The Fighter is more glamourous than the CAS mission so that way go the dollars.

If its going to be muti-role I want it to be muti-role. If its just a fighter, then why do we need so many?

At least that’s the view from (below)ground level.

Operation SECRET SQUIRREL launched from Barksdale AFB (Shreveport, La.) and attacked Baghdad with Air-Launched Cruise Missiles on the first day of the war in 1991. (596th Bomb Squadron, 2nd Bomb Wing.) These airplanes flew 34 hours round trip, tanking twice each way. It was the longest single combat mission in history, to date. (I believe that record has since been superceded by B-2′s.)

This was the very first combat launch of the war: these airplanes were in the air before anyone else.

The mighty ’52 can definitely hang.

That’s not true. The USAF and Navy learned this lesson the hard way in Vietnam, which is how and why the Navy’s Fighter Weapons School (aka “Top Gun”) was instituted (1969, I believe). America’s air forces have gone through lapses of ACM (“Air Combat Manuevering”) skills for various reasons, most notably the dependence on Air Intercept Missiles, presuming the obsolescence of ACM doctrine. It’s a damned curious thing, though: how the furball-fight turns up when it’s least expected in combat.

It is not a smart thing to discount “dogfighting”. That sort of fight is not where one wants to be, but those skills are not to be missed when it happens. We’ve seen that film before, and it’s not good.

Larry — “Basicly a bomb platform that can loiter over an area for long periods of time till its needed. Something that can fly up at 50,000 or so feet. carry 2-5 tons of JDAMS (and whatever they call that standoff gliding bomb???). and stay up there for 12+ hours.”

B-52 just about fits those criteria, now. “50,000 feet” is over-the-top for a BUFF, but the rest of it is no sweat.

Given that the need for dogfighting has declined drmatically in every engagement since WWII and the need for Close Air Support (CAS) has increased, can the F-22 perform the CAS role? If not, why are we pouring all the money into this fighter of limited utility.

Does the F-22 have significanly better capablilites than the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. If not, why buy the 22 when the 35 costs a fraction per copy? And the F-35 does do CAS.

However, I’d prefer the idea F/A-22s that had been built as UCAVs to halve the cost …

P.S. Ignore the spam comments on my blog.

P.P.S. Larry Conley, I think that that’s what the USAF is looking for as well! Probably manned, but a heavy bomber designed for loitering …

Well If I was planning to go into air to air combat I wouldn’t want to do so after a 4+ hour flight..
-
“”I just want to point out that it is quite ridiculous to “consider more B-52′s”. That is never, ever going to happen. At this point, cranking up that sort of effort would just about equal the effort of beginning with a whole new design from scratch. “”

Ok.. I’ll buy that, it is not my field of expertse. Actually for what I was thinking of a UAV of a larger sort might be the way to go. Basicly a bomb platform that can loiter over an area for long periods of time till its needed.
Something that can fly up at 50,000 or so feet. carry 2-5 tons of JDAMS (and whatever they call that standoff gliding bomb???). and stay up there for 12+ hours.

–