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

THE CASE FOR LONG-RANGE STRIKE: 21ST CENTURY SCENARIOS.
http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publicati..._for_Long-.pdf

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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?