GAO: Tactical Aircraft: Changing Conditions Drive Need for New F/A-22 Business Case"

Tactical Aircraft: Changing Conditions Drive Need for New F/A-22
Business Case. GAO-04-391, March 15
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04391.pdf

Screw the GAO. They're assuming our pilots will never have to face
SU27s, etc. I have dealt with those blinder-equipped savants before.
You can't discuss anything with them because their minds are already
made up. They've already 'modeled' the situation and they are never
wrong. They haven't a clue what it is like up at the sharp end. Face
it - a non-stealthy combat aircraft is obsolete.
Walt BJ

Face
it - a non-stealthy combat aircraft is obsolete.

I think you may be over stating that point a bit Walt. There's still years and
years of play for non-stealth (and in the case of the BUFF, anti-stealth)
aircraft. In fact, the addition of the F/A-22 ensures that.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
Face
it - a non-stealthy combat aircraft is obsolete.

I think you may be over stating that point a bit Walt. There's still years
and
years of play for non-stealth (and in the case of the BUFF, anti-stealth)
aircraft. In fact, the addition of the F/A-22 ensures that.

An F-15 life extension is a near certainty now.

Non-stealthy aircraft were pigeons back in the 60s. That's when our
F102s were skin-painting Buffs at 75 to 125 miles. And with the IR the
EWO hadn't a clue we were sneaking up on them, because we didn't lock
on with our radar, we just intercepted them by eyeballing the rate of
change of range and azimuth. Even the Forbes RB47Es with their cute
gadgets were toast. All the jamming ever did was shout out real loud
'here I am!' Now, with look-down radar, even getting down in the weeds
isn't a sure-fire way to survive. As for out over the water - lots of
luck, GI. And at night - stealth's the only way to go. I've said
before that at night the non-stealthy airplane might as well have all
his lights on bright flash. Granted, stealthy airplane can be seen on
radar - but way before he is detected he's already picked up and
maneuvered to attack the non-stealthy bird. Just like way back when we
had radar and the day fighters did not.
Walt BJ - BT,DT

On 17 Mar 2004 20:52:58 -0800, (WaltBJ) wrote:

Non-stealthy aircraft were pigeons back in the 60s. That's when our
F102s were skin-painting Buffs at 75 to 125 miles. And with the IR the
EWO hadn't a clue we were sneaking up on them, because we didn't lock
on with our radar, we just intercepted them by eyeballing the rate of
change of range and azimuth. Even the Forbes RB47Es with their cute
gadgets were toast. All the jamming ever did was shout out real loud
'here I am!' Now, with look-down radar, even getting down in the weeds
isn't a sure-fire way to survive. As for out over the water - lots of
luck, GI. And at night - stealth's the only way to go. I've said
before that at night the non-stealthy airplane might as well have all
his lights on bright flash. Granted, stealthy airplane can be seen on
radar - but way before he is detected he's already picked up and
maneuvered to attack the non-stealthy bird. Just like way back when we
had radar and the day fighters did not.
Walt BJ - BT,DT

In th 60s skin-painting Buffs at 75 to 125 miles while they were down
at 250 ft.?

"Buzzer" wrote in message
...
On 17 Mar 2004 20:52:58 -0800, (WaltBJ) wrote:

Non-stealthy aircraft were pigeons back in the 60s. That's when our
F102s were skin-painting Buffs at 75 to 125 miles. And with the IR the
EWO hadn't a clue we were sneaking up on them, because we didn't lock
on with our radar, we just intercepted them by eyeballing the rate of
change of range and azimuth. Even the Forbes RB47Es with their cute
gadgets were toast. All the jamming ever did was shout out real loud
'here I am!' Now, with look-down radar, even getting down in the weeds
isn't a sure-fire way to survive. As for out over the water - lots of
luck, GI. And at night - stealth's the only way to go. I've said
before that at night the non-stealthy airplane might as well have all
his lights on bright flash. Granted, stealthy airplane can be seen on
radar - but way before he is detected he's already picked up and
maneuvered to attack the non-stealthy bird. Just like way back when we
had radar and the day fighters did not.
Walt BJ - BT,DT

In th 60s skin-painting Buffs at 75 to 125 miles while they were down
at 250 ft.?

I don't believe the B-52's were typically down in the weeds during the
sixties, when the force still included a lot of C, D, and F models--they
were still doing a lot of higher altitude work. Like in Vietnam.

Brooks

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...
"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
Face
it - a non-stealthy combat aircraft is obsolete.

I think you may be over stating that point a bit Walt. There's still years
and
years of play for non-stealth (and in the case of the BUFF, anti-stealth)
aircraft. In fact, the addition of the F/A-22 ensures that.

An F-15 life extension is a near certainty now.

A lot of people will be crying into their beer after an F-15 lifex -
that is just not an effective plan these days. We did that with our
Hornets, and even with centre barrel replacement there are TONS of
serviceability problems.

"monkey" wrote in message
om...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...
"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
Face
it - a non-stealthy combat aircraft is obsolete.

I think you may be over stating that point a bit Walt. There's still
years
and
years of play for non-stealth (and in the case of the BUFF,
anti-stealth)
aircraft. In fact, the addition of the F/A-22 ensures that.

An F-15 life extension is a near certainty now.

A lot of people will be crying into their beer after an F-15 lifex -
that is just not an effective plan these days. We did that with our
Hornets, and even with centre barrel replacement there are TONS of
serviceability problems.

There aren't enough F-22s to replace the F-15 and the F-35 is sliding
further away. The options are to life extend the F-15, or have the USAF buy
F/A-18Es. If we wait until the F-15s start falling out of the sky, then
they will all be gounded.

Besides that, the F-18 life extension doubled the usable life of the
F/A-18As.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...
"monkey" wrote in message
om...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...
"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
Face
it - a non-stealthy combat aircraft is obsolete.

I think you may be over stating that point a bit Walt. There's still
years
and
years of play for non-stealth (and in the case of the BUFF,
anti-stealth)
aircraft. In fact, the addition of the F/A-22 ensures that.

An F-15 life extension is a near certainty now.

A lot of people will be crying into their beer after an F-15 lifex -
that is just not an effective plan these days. We did that with our
Hornets, and even with centre barrel replacement there are TONS of
serviceability problems.

There aren't enough F-22s to replace the F-15 and the F-35 is sliding
further away. The options are to life extend the F-15, or have the USAF buy
F/A-18Es. If we wait until the F-15s start falling out of the sky, then
they will all be gounded.

Besides that, the F-18 life extension doubled the usable life of the
F/A-18As.

I agree with the fact that something has to be done...however in my
experience flying military jets "life extension" is a huge misnomer.
Yes, the life of the airframe is "extended." But the fact of the
matter is that our older "life extended" jets have a very low fatigue
tolerance and as such have a very low g limit, as well as severe store
carriage limitations. Yes, the jets are still flying, but you'll find
that a lot of them are useless for anything except ifr training and
cross countries. But hey, what can an air force do-until the new jets
come on line or they get more money, they will have to stick with
flying older aircraft less, and restricting the mission types.