pms2@jaguar.uofs.edu (STOCKSCHLAEDER PETER M) (03/18/91)
From: pms2@jaguar.uofs.edu (STOCKSCHLAEDER PETER M) Well, now that I have found about this, I find that, whenever I am checking on my VAX account, I am here!! Glad to say that I would like to contribute to the fray. Concerning the F-117....Well, why the hell didn't they call it the FB-117? It seems that this is all they do - bomb militarily significant targets but with a remarkable amount of precision. What I'd like to know is, why was this plane designed with only a 4,000 pound bomb load? Is the thrust rating of the F404 engines that bad, or is it something I'm missing? I don't think the latter is true (or maybe it is). Another point to ponder - how many of these babies did Lockheed build? I have heard approx. 60, but a friend on my floor says about 130. What is the truth? In reference to the B-2, at this point it seems direly necessary to build it. With the last B-52 built (I think back in 1963, bu I'm not sure) being about 28-29 years old, something is going to be needed soon (but in the next ten years; I think they can last at least that long). The B-1B was the supposed answer, but, in this respect, I think DoD screwed up. Had Reagan ordered another batch of, say 350 B-1C, B-1D and B-1F (my hypothesis), the problems that they are having now - wings, tanks, engines, ECM - would've been solved, say, in 1986. By not ordering more - which would've helped find the defects in the B-1B, obviously - DoD has had to commit themselves to buying 75 or 100 (or whatever crazy number it is) B-2's. Considering how the F-117 did in the Gulf, though, it would seem a wise choice. I have only glanced at the articles on AURORA, but the concept is a good one. If DoD can keep the F-117 secret for so long, maybe an AURORA is flying. It is none-too-soon, though - I think the USAF dug itself a hole by retiring all of the SR-71's. TR-1's/U-2's can't do the job themselves; we need a plane capable of Mach 5-6 with real-time capability. Satellites just won't cut it. Anyone know anything about the F-22/F-23 project? When's the winner to be selected? Will this be a competent replacement for the F-15? What about the loser (only in the sense that USAF won't buy it)? Is it in the realm of possibility that, with suitable mods, it would be a replacement for the F-14 ten years down the road? (With the cancellation of the F-14D, they better damn well do it!) As a final tidbit - one which is sure to start some debate - I bandy about the F-15G concept. That is, an F-15 "WILD WEASEL." Seems to me that the F-22/-23 would free up 200 or so F-15A/B/C models for this purpose. I mean, the F-4G is an awesome plane, but it deserves a worthy successor soon. With the diminuation of circuitry in the '80's, certainly the F-15 could carry twice the gear (computers, antennaes, HARM's, all that jazz) in the same space - maybe three pods (one centerline & two wing stores) and six or eight HARM's (two on each wing, the rest under the plane ala' F-14's with Phoenix missles). Now, if only we fellow VAXers can sell it to Congress & Cheney....... Any mail is appreciated! Criticism is well handled, also...isn't that what life is about? Peter Stockschlaeder University of Scranton PMS2@jaguar.uofs.edu
john@uunet.UU.NET (John A. Weeks III) (03/22/91)
From: newave!john@uunet.UU.NET (John A. Weeks III) > From: pms2@jaguar.uofs.edu (STOCKSCHLAEDER PETER M) > Concerning the F-117....Well, why didn't they call it the FB-117? SAC seems to have defacto exclusive rights to designate any plane in the "B" category. For example, FB-111 is the SAC bomber. The F-117A is not assigned to SAC, so no "B". One could argue that either an "A" or a "B" would be an appropriate category. In practice, the USAF does not seem to like any plane that starts with "A". > It seems that this is all they do - bomb militarily significant targets > but with a remarkable amount of precision. What I'd like to know is, why > was this plane designed with only a 4,000 pound bomb load? The key fact here is that the F-117A cannot carry any external arms. This is a constraint imposed by the Stealth specification. The internal bomb bay is fairly small--it is set between the engines. The rest of the interior of the plane is packed full of electronics, pilot, fuel tanks, landing gear, engine, air intakes and exhaust, and a bunch of other "airplane stuff". About all that would fit is two large bombs, so the bomb bay was equipped with just two bomb racks. Rumor has it that the F-117A can carry 5000 lbs or slightly more. > Is the thrust rating of the F404 engines that bad, or is it something I'm > missing? Not really. The F404 is the same engine that the F-18 Hornet uses, except that the Hornet has 'burners. The unique exhaust ducts and baffels used to disperse engine heat do cut down on thrust a bit. Another factor is the high wing load--the design does not have has much wing as other planes in its class. > the latter is true (or maybe it is). Another point to ponder - how many of > these babies did Lockheed build? I have heard approx. 60, but a friend on my > floor says about 130. What is the truth? There were 59 production aircraft ordered and delivered at a rate of about 8 per year. There may also have been prototypes. It appears that 3 craft were lost, but I am not sure whether they were all production models, or a mixture of production models and prototypes. The USAF is not required to release any numbers, so there may be more planes. > In reference to the B-2, at this point it seems direly necessary to > build it. With the last B-52 built (I think back in 1963, bu I'm not sure) > being about 28-29 years old, something is going to be needed soon (but in > the next ten years; I think they can last at least that long). This has been the subject of an intense debate since the B-52 was in prototype development! Answers to the question at various times has ranged from no to any/all of the following: B-58, B-70, B-1, B-2. > The B-1B was the supposed answer, but, in this respect, I think DoD screwed > up. Had Reagan ordered another batch of, say 350 B-1C, B-1D and B-1F (my > hypothesis), the problems that they are having now - wings, tanks, engines, > ECM - would've been solved, say, in 1986. Actually, all of these problems have been addressed. The recent engine fire problems are not that serious--the planes were grounded to prevent any unnecessary loses. The ECM system was too ambitious of a project in the early 80's, and a new system is currently being worked on. Even though the current electronics might not meet specs, the B-1 is still a very formible opponent for the USSR. I doubt that another 350 nuclear only bombers were needed, or would have been funded by congress. > By not ordering more - which would've helped find the defects in the B-1B, > obviously - DoD has had to commit themselves to buying 75 or 100 (or > whatever crazy number it is) B-2's. Considering how the F-117 did in the > Gulf, though, it would seem a wise choice. The proposed B-2 role is attacking mobile missile launchers in the Soviet Union. After Iraq, it appears that this mission might be far more difficult than anyone thought. The performance of the F-117 doesn't really translate to the B-2. The F-117 flys a pre-targeted precision bombing strike, whereas the B-2 is supposed to go hunting over hostile territory. > I have only glanced at the articles on AURORA, but the concept is a good > one. If DoD can keep the F-117 secret for so long, maybe an AURORA is flying. > It is none-too-soon, though - I think the USAF dug itself a hole by retiring > all of the SR-71's. TR-1's/U-2's can't do the job themselves; we need a plane > capable of Mach 5-6 with real-time capability. Satellites just won't cut it. > Anyone know anything about the F-22/F-23 project? When's the winner to > be selected? Will this be a competent replacement for the F-15? The advanced technology fighter program has been getting a great deal of press lately. The fly off is scheduled to be in March or April of this year (last I heard). With the expected performace, fly-by-wire, limited stealthieness, and super-cruise, both ATF entries would be un-matched for years. > What about the loser (only in the sense that USAF won't buy it)? Look at what happened to losers in the past. The F-17 was reborn as the F-18 hornet. The F-107 program died. The F-17, IMHO, did not really match the USAF needs, and the F-16 is an excellent plane. The F-17 deserved to lose. The F-107 was kind of a weird plane to begin with (it had the meat-grinder intakes above the canopy). In the ATF program, both planes look great on paper. If there were buyers, I suspect that both planes could find buyers. Only time will tell. In the case of the F-20, the best plane does not always find buyers, and in the case of the F-104, it proves that anything can happen. > Is it in the realm of possibility that, with suitable mods, it would be a > replacement for the F-14 ten years down the road? (With the cancellation > of the F-14D, they better damn well do it!) Based on past USAF/Navy aircraft, Navy planes can be converted to USAF use with great sucess (F-4, F-8), but USAF planes do not translate well into carrier usage (F-111B). It seems that Navy planes have to be designed around the landing gear. Since carrier space is so valuable, the best possible planes should be available for the fleet defense role. The Navy will probably want a plane designed specifically for carrier fleet defense. Anything could happen.... > As a final tidbit - one which is sure to start some debate - I bandy > about the F-15G concept. That is, an F-15 "WILD WEASEL." Seems to me that > the F-22/-23 would free up 200 or so F-15A/B/C models for this purpose. > I mean, the F-4G is an awesome plane, but it deserves a worthy successor. The Wild Weasels have been operating in hunter/killer pairs of recent. CNN profiled a unit in Germany that used F-4's as the hunter, and F-16's as the killers. A single crew-person can handle the killer role, but hunting requires a crew of 2, a plane that can really accelerate, and superior manuverability. The F-15 would appear to fit in real well. Using the F-15s is a trade off. The strike eagle concept has proved to be excellent. Perhaps converting the "surplus" F-15's to strike eagles would be better way to use the aircraft? That is my favorite senario. -john- -- +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications ...uunet!tcnet!wd0gol!newave!john
jjb%sequent.uucp@RELAY.CS.NET (Jeff Berkowitz) (03/22/91)
From: Jeff Berkowitz <jjb%sequent.uucp@RELAY.CS.NET> In article <1991Mar18.132743.14476@cbnews.att.com>, pms2@jaguar.uofs.edu (STOCKSCHLAEDER PETER M) writes: > Concerning the F-117....Well, why the hell didn't they call it the >FB-117? It seems that this is all they do - bomb militarily significant >targets Against Iraq, true. In general, I believe not true. It is not a plane that would be used for random daytime dogfighting, but on the other hand I think the Clancy scenario in "Red Storm Rising" is pretty reasonable. (The first act of WWIII in that book was for a carefully timed F-117A mission to shoot down all the Soviet AWACS planes [Mainstay]). -- Jeff Berkowitz N6QOM uunet!sequent!jjb | If you can't trust the comics, Sequent Computer Systems jjb@sequent.com | what can you trust? -Bullwinkle