One reason the Navy likes the EA-18G is because the aircraft shares many of the same flight characteristics as the aircraft it is protecting, the F/A-18E/F. Thus, it is able to escort the aircraft throughout its mission, and operational coordination is facilitated. Might this also be a consideration for the Air Force? While the EB-52 may have a long jamming range, due to its high power, it would not be able to fly closely with F/A-22s or JSF’s through their mission profiles. Does this pose operational coordination problems or might it leave the strike aircraft vulnerable at critical points in the mission? What other or additional investments might be required to ensure that Air Force strike aircraft are protected throughout their entire missions?
• Is it wise for the Air Force to base its radar jamming plans on a 40 year old bomber? While the B-52 does have many years left to fly, it is projected to leave the inventory in 2037. After the EB-52 becomes operational, won’t the Air Force need to begin planning for how best to replace that jamming capability once the B-52 retires?
• What is being done to develop a joint solution for the radar jamming mission as opposed to separate service solutions?

For USAF he also forgot X-45 in a standoff jammer role. G Super Hornet sounds good. I have a lot of doubts about it. Once it flys in some exercises and proves itself then we will know if it can continue under that “jointness” the EA-6 provides. Standoff jamming is important. But a lot of existing platforms… both manned and unmanned can do it. EB-52 started as a Maxwell Air War College Paper Years ago. I don’t have a problem with it as:

-There is gobs of room for equipment in a B-52.
-Requiring cheap modification.
-Very long endurance.

But more important in netcentric warfare, it can command other Jammer UAVs and electronic assets and get the latest current electronic “picture” from RIVET JOINT. If it ever evolves it won’t be the only node doing the work but one of many.

Also emitters that are worth jamming are worth killing. With things like the stealth JASSM ( which just became operational ) later JASSM-ER; these weapons can loiter and be retargeted. An emitter comes on line and an asset can take it out rather quick. If nothing comes up during loitering, it presses on to a secondary fixed target. Killing emitters when possible is desireable. Also a JSF on SEAD/DEAD duty can drop (from internal stores) a Dimondback SDB, JDAM or WCMD and end the life of that emitter. An F-22 leading the way on the first night can drop a Diamondback SDB and takeout high profile major emmitters.
SEAD/DEAD/ and jamming support is being rewritten almost every year. We can’t expect that all of the same old methods of taking down an enemy defense network will always be there. Some will some won’t..

There appear to be very few countries today capable of challenging U.S. air forces in air-to-air combat

“Few” is not good enough.

Originally posted by ****Ant
i know this isnt really the thread for this but I found this on the A-10.org forum a while back and it makes interesting reading……theres a member there who is a legit ex-agressor pilot who now works on advanved projects and he confirmed that the following test pilot (jake Donovan) would have had the ability to have flown both A/C……..says something for JSF just being a ground pounder……u kinda have to read it fom the bottom up thou…..and ignore the initial question……

From: “Jake Donovan”
Subject: Re: Why not use the F-22 to replace the F/A-18 and F-14?
Date: Sunday, February 22, 2004 5:53 PM

Pete,

You are even closer than you think.
1- Whomever said the F35 is almost the
same as a F22, I have this reply, gee, that Honda 250 Dirt Bike looks just
like my sons Mongoose BMX bike.

2- The F22 is officially headed to the reserves and ANG as soon as the F35
comes on line. Kind of turns on the lights as to the operating parameters
of the 22 vs the 35.

Having flown both, they are not even close to being the same aircraft. The
35 is already light years ahead of the 22. My X/F35 experience was one of
my most memorable test programs I have been involved in. Stepping out of
the Sims and into the aircraft, you found you could push the 35 well past
what the Sims prepared you for. That was a first in my career.

Although the Raptor is a very capable aircraft, If I had the choice and had
a 35 on the line, I wouldn’t leave home with out it. It looks like they got
it right the first time out and the F35 will be with us for some time to
come.

Jake

“Pechs1” wrote in message
news:20040222101149.09068.00000117@mb-m14.aol.com…
> steele-<< Should we be thinking of using the FB-22 Raptor as a replacement
> for the F/A-18 (and the F-14)? I know that the current F-22 was
> not designed to be heavy enough for naval use, but it could be
> re-engineered. They are planning to bring the FB-22 (bomber
> version that carries 30 2000 lbs bombs) online in the future.
> Why not upgrade it then? >>

>
> F35 better, cheaper, sooner and designed for shipboard use. Why not scrape
the
> F-22, and replace it with F35? These things are ‘expensive’, to say the
least.
>
> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye
Phlyer

Not shooting the messenger here, but how has the guy Flown the F-35?? The concept jet is nothing like the final jet… which HAS NOT FLOWN YET.

#2 above is a crack head statement. Makes no sense. Especially since the F-22 is well along and except for software issues, shows promise of air domination.

Lastly I wonder about the Navy. Especially after watching the F-18E/F program. I’d take what they say with a grain of salt.

Re: Re: Re: F-16 Block-60 a White Elephant?

Originally posted by glitter
I may be wrong but I always heard that newer F-16 are more expensive to operate, specially with these very VERY high trust engine.

And I think that the block 60 is definitively not cheap to maintain.

Na.. not for most things. I can think of a couple (below) If anything the newer engine should be more economical ( very very small mod’s over time ) Plus with PW and GE at each others throats to compete if one slips up the other is there to under cut it. Also because it is a new engine, depending on the initial engine bid, it commands a higher unit price, because jet engines by themself are expensive.. this contributes to the overall cost of the jet. It is an expensive jet to buy, but the F-16 is pretty cheap to maintain. Block 52+ along with Block 60, broke it’s head above water to get away from the plague of wing life issues that have been an albatross for an F-16 over it’s life. ( one remaining item…. in 10 years, see if flying the AMRAAM on stations 1 & 9 on a BLock 60 still flutter enough to ruin the fittings in the wing tank a la Block 3x-4x etc )
Again the avionics should be a bit easier and require less maintenance because of evolution. With the Block 52+ and 60, the jet finally got up to the supreme ease of avionics maintenance of the F-18E/F.
Phase checks for many items went up from every 300 hours to every 400 hours.

On the other hand if you have more gizmos on the jet. IRST, CFT it is possible that this jet is very [i]slightly[/i ] more expensive to run than previous F-16s. ( Labor hours and supply chain management for upkeep of those components above ) Probly the cheapest F-16 to run over time would be a new Block 5x ( no IRST or CFT )

Now if you dump 1 or 2 of these things in the sand, then over 20-30 years it could be more expensive to run from a total cost over that time frame. 😉

In the finest English fashion. The pilot doesn’t just walk in and get a suit. You talk to the tailor for an hour about the weather, whats going on in England ( show up before tea time and scam some tea and biscuits ) An hour and a half later, after all the friendly conversation, while getting your suit fitted, look at your watch, politly say: “My, where has the time gone? ” Thank the tailor for a hospitable buying experience and give him the location of where to have the suit delivered. 😀

Re: F-16 Block-60 a White Elephant?

Originally posted by Twilight2002
Okay, I threatened twice to do it now…

The title asks it all really. You have an aircraft which when it exported will probably outcost the early F-35 CTOL export by a fairly heafty margin, and like the F-35 will be primarily intended as a PGM bomb-truck, with obvious regard for A2A capacity as well.

I mean, quite what Lockheed was thinking when it built this beast is beyond me (though it already has a buyer). The F-16 B50/52 series is selling quite nicely to Greece, Israel and numerous other buyers, and there are plenty of 4th generation alternatives on the way in.

As far as I am aware, the Block-60 has little in the way of RCS-reduction, and relies heavily on electronic warfare and the newest countermeasures, presumably because it is expected to spend a lot of time dodging advanced radar and SAM’s.

What I can’t understand is why you would spend so much on what is clearly a dramtic increment in price over the Block-52, when if you are cleared for Blk60 then you can probably wait for the F-35 or even the Tranche-2 Eurofighter, both of which work heavily with RCS-reduction, and can compare with the same countermeasures of similar or lower price than the Blk-60.

One thing seems certain to me, the Block-60 is not intended for large scale mass-production. How can it be? It seems inconceivable that the USAF is going to use it as an interim for the F-35, and at its current price, who apart from an oil nation is going to be able to afford it when balanced against 4th GEN competitors?

Utterly rediculous if you ask me, but then I’m not exactly qualified to offer anything more than this opinion.

Although I am not familiar with the radar of the Block-60, I find it hard to believe that Lockheed would ever like to see it in a mock fight with something like the Tranche-2 which other F-16 users like Greece are likely to purchase in the near future. For a start, CAPTOR and PIRATE, which I suspect are capable enough to offer the sensor edge anyway, will only compound the fact that the Tranche-2 will offer a potentially harder target to detect, particularly since it doesn’t have the bizarre bulky shape of the Blk-60.

People will have different opinions on this, but you have to regard the price for buying and equipping this aircraft if it is only a short time away from being made “commercially obsolete” by the mass production of newer aircraft types.

So I ask again, what was Lockheed’s motivation behind making this aircraft? Surely it was unnecessary to go head-over-heels on preparing this F-16 concept this way unless they already had firm interest from the potential buyer.

The F-16 is cheap to operate, Just as a Mirage2000 although the purchase price on both is a bit much, either of these single engine jets are just flat out easier to budget for over years of service. Engines and engine refirb and all the associated plumbing for having a two engine jet means that you will pay more per year to operate it. The Block 60 isn’t revolutionary tech it is evolutionary. Small improvements over time.

Don’t get all excited about “stealth” qualities on conventional design jets. Once you start hanging crap on the jet ( drop tanks, pods, and weps, ) most of that goes away. It is a small help, but don’t expect that when combat loaded going against a new SU with a new radar.

Yeah as it is a home defense type of thing not good if it lands in your back yard 😀

The F-15K is still a paper flyer,

Not really. Most of the tech on that jet has been figured out and isn’t revolutionary. All the weapons and hook up off of that jet has been tested already ( example SLAM-ER ) and the radar while good, isn’t the best. The new engines generally work. A mod’d “E” model, the combat crew simulator and the history of the jet is good enough for a sales demo. Compare that to the ridiculously slow fielding of A2G weapons on to the EF2000 and Rafale.