THE CASE FOR LONG-RANGE STRIKE: 21ST CENTURY SCENARIOS.

[mike]

THE CASE FOR LONG-RANGE STRIKE: 21ST CENTURY SCENARIOS.
http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/PubLibrary/R.20090203.The_Case_for_Long-/R.20090203.The_Case_for_Long-.pdf

[hcobb]

FB-22 "Hustler II" firing a long range ramjet missile can be in
service by 2020 if The Force starts now.

Three more years of F-22 production to keep the line warm then restart
production with FB-22s and every city on Earth will be hostage to
prompt stealth strike from existing USAF bases.

Of course this would require long range planning and initiative on the
part of The Force, so don't hold your breath.

-HJC

[dott.Piergiorgio]

hcobb ha scritto:
> FB-22 "Hustler II" firing a long range ramjet missile can be in
> service by 2020 if The Force starts now.
>
> Three more years of F-22 production to keep the line warm then restart
> production with FB-22s and every city on Earth will be hostage to
> prompt stealth strike from existing USAF bases.

I'm wrong or there's a serious mission overlapping between this FB-22
and the B-1 & 2 ?

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

[hcobb]

On Feb 9, 2:19 am, "dott.Piergiorgio"
> wrote:
> hcobb ha scritto:
> > FB-22 "Hustler II" firing a long range ramjet missile can be in
> > service by 2020 if The Force starts now.
>
> I'm wrong or there's a serious mission overlapping between this FB-22
> and the B-1 & 2 ?

The FB-22 would have an innate air to air combat ability that the
B-1/2s lack.

The FB-22 would be much faster than the B-1 and so able to get in and
out of trouble faster.

The FB-22 would be much more stealthy than the B-2 and so able to
sneak in and out of dangerous places better.

And finally the FB-22 would have much more range than the F-22 and so
able to reach places that would otherwise require tanker support in
harm's way.

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.

-HJC

[Jack Linthicum]

On Feb 9, 8:28*am, hcobb > wrote:
> On Feb 9, 2:19 am, "dott.Piergiorgio"
>
> > wrote:
> > hcobb ha scritto:
> > > FB-22 "Hustler II" firing a long range ramjet missile can be in
> > > service by 2020 if The Force starts now.
>
> > I'm wrong or there's a serious mission overlapping between this FB-22
> > and the B-1 & 2 ?
>
> The FB-22 would have an innate air to air combat ability that the
> B-1/2s lack.
>
> The FB-22 would be much faster than the B-1 and so able to get in and
> out of trouble faster.
>
> The FB-22 would be much more stealthy than the B-2 and so able to
> sneak in and out of dangerous places better.
>
> And finally the FB-22 would have much more range than the F-22 and so
> able to reach places that would otherwise require tanker support in
> harm's way.
>
> 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.
>
> -HJC

Who do we know that has the properties that an FB-22 would attack?
That a Peacekeeper or Trident (if that's the latest nomenclature)
would not hit? The new dispensation seems to be reduction of the
"strategic" arms in favor of the theater or tactical arms. This seems
like a system looking for a target.

[hcobb]

On Feb 9, 5:40 am, Jack Linthicum > wrote:
> Who do we know that has the properties that an FB-22 would attack?
> That a Peacekeeper or Trident (if that's the latest nomenclature)
> would not hit? The new dispensation seems to be reduction of the
> "strategic" arms in favor of the theater or tactical arms. This seems
> like a system looking for a target.

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.

-HJC

[[email protected]]

In article
>,
(hcobb) wrote:

> The FB-22 would be much faster than the B-1 and so able to get in and
> out of trouble faster.
>
> The FB-22 would be much more stealthy than the B-2 and so able to
> sneak in and out of dangerous places better.

Err, do you mean much faster than the B-2 (slow and stealthy) and much
stealthier than the B-1 (fast, but not stealthy)?

--
John Dallman, , HTML mail is treated as probable spam.

[David E. Powell]

On Feb 7, 12:44*am, hcobb > wrote:
> FB-22 "Hustler II" firing a long range ramjet missile can be in
> service by 2020 if The Force starts now.
>
> Three more years of F-22 production to keep the line warm then restart
> production with FB-22s and every city on Earth will be hostage to
> prompt stealth strike from existing USAF bases.
>
> Of course this would require long range planning and initiative on the
> part of The Force, so don't hold your breath.
>
> -HJC

We already have the B-1B. That aircraft can fire missiles. Attack mode
can be added to F-22s, but the B-1B is already up and running.

[frank]

On Feb 9, 7:28*am, hcobb > wrote:
> On Feb 9, 2:19 am, "dott.Piergiorgio"
>
> > wrote:
> > hcobb ha scritto:
> > > FB-22 "Hustler II" firing a long range ramjet missile can be in
> > > service by 2020 if The Force starts now.
>
> > I'm wrong or there's a serious mission overlapping between this FB-22
> > and the B-1 & 2 ?
>
> The FB-22 would have an innate air to air combat ability that the
> B-1/2s lack.
>
> The FB-22 would be much faster than the B-1 and so able to get in and
> out of trouble faster.
>
> The FB-22 would be much more stealthy than the B-2 and so able to
> sneak in and out of dangerous places better.
>
> And finally the FB-22 would have much more range than the F-22 and so
> able to reach places that would otherwise require tanker support in
> harm's way.
>
> 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.
>
> -HJC

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.

[frank]

On Feb 9, 3:32*pm, hcobb > wrote:
> On Feb 9, 5:40 am, Jack Linthicum > wrote:
>
> > Who do we know that has the properties that an FB-22 would attack?
> > That a Peacekeeper or Trident (if that's the latest nomenclature)
> > would not hit? The new dispensation seems to be reduction of the
> > "strategic" arms in favor of the theater or tactical arms. This seems
> > like a system looking for a target.
>
> 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.
>
> -HJC

Yeah, we did so well against mobile SCUDs in DS/DS. Dream on.

Who has the money to build integrated air defenses? We negated
everything we went up against. Remember Libya, Iraq? All those great
places we managed to put iron on target. Or are you gunning for that
job?

[hcobb]

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

[dott.Piergiorgio]

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"*

[dott.Piergiorgio]

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.

[dott.Piergiorgio]

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.

[Richard Casady]

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

[Richard Casady]

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

[hcobb]

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?

[Dan[_12_]]

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

[Paul J. Adam]

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


paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

[[email protected]]

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

[David E. Powell]

On Feb 11, 3:55*pm, wrote:
> 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.

They were also flying close support and going low. So they were
getting in close to the antiaircraft threats.

Countermeasures against new SAMs etc. have surely advanced since
1991.

> Chris Manteuffel

[[email protected]]

On Feb 11, 5:07*pm, "David E. Powell" >
wrote:

> They were also flying close support and going low. So they were
> getting in close to the antiaircraft threats.

Yep. Which is a good way to get shot down. As The Revolt of the Majors
[1] argues, medium altitude high tech PGM droppers get the job done
and are survivable, while Sprey/Boyd style armored cheap dumb bomb
droppers aren't.

> Countermeasures against new SAMs etc. have surely advanced since
> 1991.

It's a queen of hearts race. Both sides advance. My point is that
against the IADS of the Iraqis in 1991, the A-10 was not able to use
its GAU-30, because its armor was found to be insufficient. It's
armor hasn't changed much in the 18 years since, certainly by nowhere
near as much as AA weapons have. The ECM is better, but it's not like
the Iraqi's were using the best Soviet stuff in 1991; what would
facing that have been like? Do you have any reason to suppose that ECM
has improved faster than ECCM has?

[1]: http://web.mit.edu/ssp/seminars/wed_archives_05spring/michel.htm

Chris Manteuffel

[Paul J. Adam]

In message
>,
David E. Powell > writes
>They were also flying close support and going low. So they were
>getting in close to the antiaircraft threats.

So were the F-16s and Harriers, with much lower loss rates.
>
>Countermeasures against new SAMs etc. have surely advanced since
>1991.

Sure, but they still work better on faster platforms that can contribute
more manoeuvre to the DAS's best efforts.

--
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


paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

[Jack Linthicum]

On Feb 11, 6:16*pm, "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
> In message
> >,
> David E. Powell > writes
>
> >They were also flying close support and going low. So they were
> >getting in close to the antiaircraft threats.
>
> So were the F-16s and Harriers, with much lower loss rates.
>
>
>
> >Countermeasures against new SAMs etc. have surely advanced since
> >1991.
>
> Sure, but they still work better on faster platforms that can contribute
> more manoeuvre to the DAS's best efforts.
>
> --
> 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
>
> paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

as long as they understand that the idea is to perform the mission,
not fly fast and do fancy maneuvers.