New plane for the expansion?

[MarkG88]

The whole bit was rather far-reaching, given that the F-22 has not seen combat (to our knowledge), and the assumptions made about its general superiority over any Generation 4 fighter probably need to be taken with a grain of salt.

In the show's bit, one of the B-1s did get damaged, when some Rafales, which survived the AMRAAM barrage, engaged it at range. They couldn't detect the F-22s, of course, so they went after the only target they could identify.

In many respects, it was an cheerleading session for the Air Force's latest plane. It's entirely possible that most, if not all, of what was shown is indeed how it could play out. The F-22 is, after all, the first Generation 5 Fighter to enter service. But given that the whole scenario depended on the presence of the B-1R, a plane that doesn't currently exist, I'm not sure how realistic it is.

That said, there's nothing stopping us from playing around with it in MAS. Certainly given a world where mercenary MASs abound, the ability for a government to engage superior numbers of hostile aircraft with a few higher-tech aircraft would be very attractive (and probably more critical than it is now, not counting war scenarios against China).

Interesting topic Charlie. And the F-22 is something like 200-2 against the F-15C in Red Flag/simulated dogfights IIRC from articles on strategypage.com and these simulated fights tend to be as intense as real combat can be from having talked to varioius Air Force pilot peers of my late brother over the years.

It definitely sounds like a bit of USAF propaganda to justify having "only" 189 or so F-22s for air-to-air combat although that B-1 air frame is rather roboust and could handle this "flying AEGIS cruiser" configuration. It's been 60 years but it still the USAF bomber mafia vs. the USN carrier mob......sigh.

[Charles Lewis]

Interesting topic Charlie. And the F-22 is something like 200-2 against the F-15C in Red Flag/simulated dogfights IIRC from articles on strategypage.com and these simulated fights tend to be as intense as real combat can be from having talked to varioius Air Force pilot peers of my late brother over the years.

If those are the kind of results they're getting at Red Flag, then I would give that a fair amount of credence. And, to be fair, the opposition was a squadron of MiG-29s followed by a massed wave of Su-30s (I think) and Rafales, all of which are late 4th generation fighters comparable (or maybe even better) than the F-15C.

While the concept of the missile truck B-1R (offboard artillery for dogfights!!!) was interesting but detracted from the overall value of what they were presenting since everything else did, indeed, currently exist or was under development for deployment in the near future (like the AIM-120D).

[echoco]

When I read bomb/missile truck I thought it was a plane to rearm the F22 I can dream

It seems odd to me why put so many missiles in one aircraft when the F22s doing the spotting could maneuver and get even better firing position. My arm chair general solution? Plot a carrier battle group nearby problem solved AEGIS

I could use a B1R missile truck option in the Misc equipment that gives 1 attack per enemy aircraft, I hate seeing my pilots getting shot down. Maybe a special rule so aircraft already in game could be used as missile trucks?

[Charles Lewis]

I think the issue was finding ways to leverage the superior technology of the Raptors to offset their small numbers and limited weaponry.

The gist of the show was that superiority of the F-22 lies heavily in its stealth capabilities. That advantage disappears when you close to knife-fighting range. It's still a fantastically maneuverable aircraft, thanks in part to vectored thrust, but IR seekers are increasingly sophisticated and you don't want to get that close if you don't have to. The missile truck concept is intended to take advantage of the F-22s ability to target without getting spotted in return. The large number of missiles the B-1R can carry means that multiples can be fired at the same target to increase the chances of scoring a kill without appreciably affecting the ability to fight and engage multiple targets.

Actually, on reflection, the weak link in all this is probably the "secure broadcast" link between the F-22s and the B-1Rs. That's the kind of trick that'll only work if the enemy doesn't expect it. Otherwise, throw out some jammers and try to disrupt that communication. That and the fact that the B-1Rs are not stealthy and have to depend on being far enough back to not be detected before they are used.

The first engagement of the show, where 4 F-22s took on a squadron of MiG 29s was much more believable, since that was probably extrapolated from the results of the various Red Flag exercises. The bit with the B-1R was pure speculation, and showed it.

Fun to play around with though, and also food for thought for various other projects, as well.

[MarkG88]

Interesting points gents. I'll definitely keep an eye out for the show.

Strange but true facts about my childhood: I asked my brother Jack around age 11 (before he went off to Air Force Prep school, then after that USAF Academy) why the navy didn't bring back battleships since you can't intercept a "16 inch bullet" like you can a missile........and the USN did reactivate the BBs a few years later (although with Tomahawk cruise missile upgrade, which turned out to be hard to intercept lol).

Later on as a teenager, after a visit to Wright-Patterson Air Museum, seeing the XF-85 Goblin parasite fighter they thought about attaching to the B-36 Peacemaker, I wondered why not modify a B-1 with a bundle of Phoenix AtA missiles......sorta where they're heading now with the B-1R.

As far as the F-15C goes, it's still plane to beat for 4th generation fighters (unblemished combat record by Israel, USAF, and Saudi Pilots), the AF is using it as propaganda tool to justify the F-22 (and it's lovely pricetag). When the F-15C "loses" in AtA mock battles vs. Mig-29s (at Red Flag and various foreign exercises like vs. India) it's due to the ROE (F-15C isn't using "full" EW/RADAR capabilities) from what I've read. And I'd definitely not bet against the Israeli version of F-15 (or F-16) they've been at war their entire 60 years with their neighbors, they add their own EW to the planes, they can't afford failure. The Su-30s and Rafaels are right there too, I love the ability to go head to head with this stuff in MAS it's great hehe.

I'm not knocking the F-22 by any means either, it's "all that" but it's still only going to be 180 platforms, that's going to keep them stretched thin globally their whole careers.

[MarkG88]

Nuts forgot one more item lol. The F-35..........it never seems to come up, especially in AF circles, I don't get it, it's going to be like the F-16 all over again..........."oh ok we'll take this not as expensive plane with some good capabilities too for 'attrition' purposes"..........and it will be stealthy and has more hard points than the F-22 and so forth plus they'll be ghee six or seven TIMES as many of them built (well over a 1,000 can't remember exact total planned) with foreign customers on board (Royal Navy getting the VSTOL "C" version along with USMC).

Back to the B-1R "fantasy sequence," I think a more realistic approach will be F-22 four plane flight shepherding a squadron (24+) of equally stealthy UCAVs with 6-8 versions of the latest AIM-120 onboard. Robots (or remote controlled drones) aren't "sexy" but they are effective and the "wave of the present" (not future, they've be around for 20+ years, it took US a while to get theirs up and running right [again Israel was premier leader here], but we've got them and they're everywhere and all sizes, the Army loves them, no need to wait on AF planes or satellites for aerial recon, and average 18 year old can fly the damn things........USAF fighter mafia isn't loving this at all).

EDIT--just read Austin Bay's latest commentary and it deals with what I just wrote about UAVs and Air Force vs. Army issues, he's reserve army officer and journalist and war game designer.

http://www.strategypage.com/on_point/2008061023332.aspx

[Charles Lewis]

They might have shown the F-35 in the second hour...Future Dogfights was 2 hours long and I only got to see about the first 45 minutes or so.

Interesting point about using UAVs at missile trucks. It would probably take a new airframe designed around the F-22's new engine so it would have the supercruiser ability to fly at mach 2 without afterburners. But particularly if they could slave the flight controls such that it automatically shadowed its F-22 link partner, you wouldn't even need a separate controller.

[MarkG88]

They might have shown the F-35 in the second hour...Future Dogfights was 2 hours long and I only got to see about the first 45 minutes or so.

Interesting point about using UAVs at missile trucks. It would probably take a new airframe designed around the F-22's new engine so it would have the supercruiser ability to fly at mach 2 without afterburners. But particularly if they could slave the flight controls such that it automatically shadowed its F-22 link partner, you wouldn't even need a separate controller.

Yep, they have a UCAV allready (mainly thanks to USN) and a second generation version of it with F-22 engine would be QED (it looks like minature B-2).

[mwaschak]

I can certainly see where they are coming from with this. I can see this being a cost effective way of at least creating panic amongst an incoming strike. AMRAAMS are not nearly as pricey as the Phoenix, and weighed against the lowered risk against US planes, it is means less of a chance to lose one of our expensive planes, and even more valuable pilots.

Good discussion guys. I especially like that the F-16 issue has been brought up again. I remember some good chats back in the DSP group when we got in the merits of the F-15 vs the F-16 .

One that note we could introduce some formations in to WoM. As many of you know I am switching to a better job, which means my own development time may be slightly limited. However this project is very much on the RADAR in Band 2, and I am anxious to put some of our new ideas to work. So, be thinking of what you want to see in the new versions, and especially on that note that Tyrel posted about how to make it a "better" end product.

-Jay

[MarkG88]

I can certainly see where they are coming from with this. I can see this being a cost effective way of at least creating panic amongst an incoming strike. AMRAAMS are not nearly as pricey as the Phoenix, and weighed against the lowered risk against US planes, it is means less of a chance to lose one of our expensive planes, and even more valuable pilots.

Good discussion guys. I especially like that the F-16 issue has been brought up again. I remember some good chats back in the DSP group when we got in the merits of the F-15 vs the F-16 .

One that note we could introduce some formations in to WoM. As many of you know I am switching to a better job, which means my own development time may be slightly limited. However this project is very much on the RADAR in Band 2, and I am anxious to put some of our new ideas to work. So, be thinking of what you want to see in the new versions, and especially on that note that Tyrel posted about how to make it a "better" end product.

-Jay

Well the whole B-1 armed with Phoenix missiles was an adolescent pipe dream on my part lol, plus I was assuming it meant WWIII so cost wasn't an issue at that point to use them (or lose them........shudder).

I'll try to get some suggestion for WoM when I have some time as well. It's been a rare commodity lately for everyone including me.

The only beef I have with the F-16 (a superb aircraft) was when the AF tried to replace the A-10 with it (this actually started before the Cold War ended too now that I think about it), I remember full page color ads in Air Force Times magazine with "artist concepts" of the F-16 painted in green/brown camo tooling around at low altitude bristling with Mavericks and gun pods. Now the Mavericks would work, but as the AF found out in Gulf War I, a 30 mm gun pod on F-16 making it an "F/A-16" sounds sexy and looks cool..........but it didn't work........at all. Too much vibration, not enough accuracy. Gun pods came off, laser guided bombs went back on, no more "F/A" designations thank you.

[echoco]

Hahahahaha F/A-16 reminded me of a discussion I had with a Navy friend years back about how the USAF would rather die before putting an "A" on another aircraft it buys and its looks like the F-35 proves my point.

I thought I was thinking too much into it but since you mentioned ROE. I think ROE is a killer of the missile truck dream, my thought pattern ran like this.

F-22, good-great-low observable but the moment it switch its radar on I bet the other side'll know about it. Missile trucks launch 8+ missiles BVR with target data from F-22, wonder if politicians will make the F-22 get visual ID?? Nothing to do with MAS but I think its funny, its guaranteed that ROEs will be set and negate any advantage. like F-22 must work in pairs, F-22 must visually ID targets before launch, F-22 must spend the next 30 seconds getting out of the area to avoid friendly fire, if contact is lost rinse and repeat.

I didn't think of the UCAV or was it UCAS?? they'd be even better than B-1R for sure no need to have situational awareness so no pilots needed. I think it'll be easier to make a drone super cruise than a B1 sized hanger queen. Now I'm thinking why didn't they just buy F-22 with more pylons

For MAS though I think anything goes, I'm sure if its possible then some crazy pilot somewhere will use it. Easy money is the overriding factor (for me anyway )

[Charles Lewis]

Now I'm thinking why didn't they just buy F-22 with more pylons

All of the F-22's ordnance is carried internally to enhance the stealthiness of the airframe. But yeah...it does make you wonder...

[MarkG88]

Now I'm thinking why didn't they just buy F-22 with more pylons

All of the F-22's ordnance is carried internally to enhance the stealthiness of the airframe. But yeah...it does make you wonder...

It does have four external hardpoints (rated at 5,000 pounds each) but those will only be used in extreme situations I'm sure (like areas where it's safe for a B-52 to fly around in).

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/asse ... ochure.pdf

Page 4 shows the "ideal layout" and the four wing hardpoints. The "air to ground growth" stats is for the F-22B.........needs interal bay reconfigured for the SDB so it can actually contribute to ground support missions instead of just Wild Weasel style missions which is what the 2 x JDAM configuration was intended for. And notice the "non-stealthy" external combat load.......is strictly air-to-air........defeating the whole purpose of having a stealth fighter with internal missile bays...........sigh.

And don't get me started on the Air Force and not planning ahead.....the B-1 "missed" Gulf War I if I recall. It was still on standby nuclear alert, but it actually wasn't set up for conventional bombs unlike the B-52 which had that ability from day one, and was still in the middle of its EW teething problems.

Another revolution on air based technology is the gunsights for the vulcan cannons, they're now set up for straffing, which is excellent (6,000 rpm of 20mm hellfire gotta hurt), but most ROE forbid pilots down on deck........where the grunts live and die of course.

And I love the Air Force and the B-1 is the irony of all these comments, but that is why I criticize, I know and I care, I want them to be the best they can when we need them.

[MarkG88]

Just read today's strategypage newsletter. Here is an article on lastest development with UAVs, appropriately titled "The Cylon Menace"

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairf ... 80614.aspx

There is in fact, a B-3 bomber, yes the rumors are true. Care to bet on the flyaway price tag on this future warplane?

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairf ... 80310.aspx

Also, I neglected to post a bit of good news, espesically for the USN, they now have the F-18G "Growler" up and running SEAD missions replacing the retired EA-6B "Prowler". So here is that link.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htecm/ ... 80612.aspx

And finally, they had a recent article on China's "F-16 lite", the J-10.

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/article ... 402751.asp

The bombing part they got right, the AtA stuff, not so easy to duplicate apparently. An all F-16 and F-16 Clone campaign should be done with WoM I'm still thinking.


Sorry for the flurry of links but I've been a slacker here on vbam forums whilst being productive in RW.......or I think I have anyhow on both accounts

-Mark

[echoco]

F/A-18G finally operational and nice to read that the air force planing to get back in EW with a version of the F-35. I hope its not a single seater though.

I googled J-10 to see what it looked like and its almost an EF2000 globalsecurity.org even has comparison

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... 0-pics.htm

quite a few new delta wing aircraft