Posted on 01/20/2006 9:00:29 AM PST by Bender2
Air Force Slates F-117 And B-52 For Cuts F-22 Raptors
The Air Force wants to retire the entire F-117 stealth fighter fleet by 2008 and cut the fleet of B-52 bombers in half, but increase the buy of its cherished F-22 fighter from 179 to 183 aircraft.
Program Budget Decision 720, the "Air Force Transformation Flight Plan," outlines the service's plan to save more than $21 billion between 2007 and 2011 and direct that money into programs that make the Air Force a "more lethal, more agile, streamlined force with an increased emphasis on the warfighter."
(Excerpt) Read more at spacedaily.com ...
http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Dec2005/051220-F-5964B-161.jpg
How about these?
Is that part of the fleet that took Clinton to India so he can get that billion dollar deal for Enron?
And the BUFF (B-52) is a 55 year old design. New engines (but now quite old and should be replaced), slight airframe mods, and lots of new avionics (several generations of new in fact) have kept the B-52 viable. The -117 design doesn't lend itself to many such improvements, although I believe there have been upgrades to the avionics, such as the FLIR/DLIR fire control system.
Love it, Warthog doing what they do best. (Please don't send them 'Downtown' though.)
The sad sight is seeing one of them under the guillotine.
Keep in mind that the F-22 was designed for air superiority, not ground attack. The F-35 was designed for that roll.
The lasers you are talking about are mounted externally with the only exception possibly being the F35. Stealthiness will override the external laser mounting to current and future stealth platforms. The possibility of exposing the aircraft to hostile fire is not one planners like to think about if they can avoid it.
The impact of mounting an item externally to a stealthy aircraft is enormous. The B52 doesn't fall into the stealth category obviously and I am not qualified to speak to the BUFF's capabilities. The F16 has/had external targeting pods, but, again, it's not stealthy.
How many of those aircraft can go into hostile airspace, essentially alone, and put a 2K bomb within inches of its intended target?
The F22 would be forced to compromise its stealthiness by mounting bombs externally. The F35 is the proposed F15/16, A10, F18, etc. replacement. Again, mounting bombs externally still compromises its stealthiness, hence the aircraft's ability to survive.
Keep in mind that modernization efforts are always ongoing on current AF aircraft. They are always finding ways of beating the enemies mousetraps. The F117 is no exception.
Besides, if I seem a bit prejudiced towards the Nighthawk, I am. I've worked on it for near 15 years.
I apologize to anyone who may have taken offense at my previous post, but from what I had read, folks were lacking a bit in understanding the aircraft and its capabilities.
Very interesting comments and posts btw.
Cheers,
SZ
Actually not, a plan has long been in place to keep 'em flying until 2040. Some still will, just not all of the -H models, the -G models having gone to the boneyard a decade or so ago. Reducing the numbers actually makes them more expensive to maintain on a per plane basis, because you still need all the tools and tooling at the depot, you still need all the trainers, especially maintenance trainers, at the school house, as well as still needing the schoolhouse units themselves, even if you are only flying a single squadron.
I think the 747-400 could do that job just as well. Think about a 22 hour mission in a B-52 loitering over some 3rd world rat hole. Then think of a 747 with a contract crew of 6 plus about 8 'weapons specialists' dropping 500/1000/2000 lb JDAMS or LGBs on demand and with the comfort of a nice flying dormatory. I have no experience flying a BUFF but having seen the inside of a couple I believe after 22 hours you're toast. Anyone with experience tell me if you need a warplane to fly these 3rd world support missions.
Add a nice ELINT/SIGINT package and a satellite uplink and I think NSA/CIA might scrape together some funds to help make this a reality.
They better be.
I'm not an Air Force guy, but the B-52, in all of it's variants, has served this country well for generations.
"The F35 is the proposed F15/16, A10, F18, etc. replacement. Again, mounting bombs externally still compromises its stealthiness, hence the aircraft's ability to survive. "
The F-35 has internal stores, just like the F-117. Only, it has internal stores for AA missiles, as well, which the F-117 does not.
And the SDB was developed for the F-22, giving it INTERNAL AG capabilities, as well.
Re: "I think the 747-400 could do that job just as well."
I've no problem with that...
But then again I'm for a military that can fight two major wars at the same time while keeping guard on our border with Mexico!
70,000 lbs is the total payload, not the internal one. Internally the B-2 can actually carry more of some types of weapons than the BUFF. See figure 5 on page 16 of the '99 USAF Bomber White Paper
So what? a lb on target is worth a 1000 digging a hole
in some field. B52 is obsolete. Job can be done much less expensively by other platforms.
All so true, but keeping such a plane flying for so long is extremely expensive. Any plane can be kepy flying by replacing structural components, but is it worth it? I don't know the numbers, I just can't imagine that it is cost effective. I like the B-52 and think it has served better than most aircraft but at some point we need to address its age and replacement. We spend obscene amounts on fighters, yet, we seem to spend nothing on replacing the aging B-52.
So am I. This can help keep the low intenity brush wars covered and free up the 1st strike assets for the real thing.
That's the first Operational squadron. There are others flying at the schoolhouse at Tyndal AFB, FL, and at Edwards AFB, CA, but they aren't in operational squadrons, but some could be used that way in a pinch, at the expense of pilot training and various engineering work.
Actually the BUFF flight deck is somewhat roomier than those of the B-1 and B-2. Plus it's got an extra position since they eliminated the tail gun and it's gunner (who sat up in the crew compartment with the rest of the crew, unlike earlier model B-52s where he got to ride all alone in the tail.)
I agree.
IIRC, everything about the B-52s service life is rated on the wing root box (?). You know, there area where the wings come together above the fuselage.
Once this is worn out, the expense and TIME involved would be prohibitive in refurbishing the aircraft. I believe this is one of the deciding factors in not re-engining the B-52. The engines, with spares and floats, would far outlast the B-52s remaining lifespan.
We will keep flying them, and retiring airframes at an increasing rate, until only a few are flying and there is not point in maintaining the "fleet". THEN we will finally retire that BUFF.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
