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

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.

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

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 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.

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