USA Air Superiority

Archive of the Sojourn3 General Discussion Forum.
Ilshadrial
Sojourner
Posts: 417
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Atlanta
Contact:

USA Air Superiority

Postby Ilshadrial » Tue Dec 10, 2002 2:03 pm

The Big Gun Packs Quite a Wallop' (Posted: Tuesday, December 10, 2002)

[Associated Press Dec. 09, 2002]

HURLBURT FIELD, Fla. -- Its official name is the AC-130. Some call it
simply the Big Gun. Packed with a unique combination of airborne
firepower, it is one of the most fearsome warplanes.
Just one look shows why.

This plane does not drop bombs or break speed records. Flying night or
the day, loitering at low altitude, it fires shells the likes of which would be
expected to be found on a tank, an artillery piece or a battleship.

The steel gun barrel that protrudes from the left side of the AC-130’s
fuselage is big enough to stick an arm down. It fires 105 mm shells -- each
about 33 pounds and 3 feet long. Even resting idle and unarmed, the
cannon is a chilling sight.

Closer to the cockpit door, on the same side of the plane, is even more
weaponry: a 40 mm Bofors cannon capable of 100 shots per minute and a
25 mm Gatling gun that fires as many as 1,800 rounds per minute.

Together, these guns can inflict death and destruction on a scale
unmatched by any other aircraft that performs low-flying support for ground
troops. Over their 35 years in service, individual AC-130s have carried
such nicknames as Grim Reaper, Jaws of Death, Ultimate End,
Exterminator and Grave Digger.

If war comes to Iraq, AC-130s surely will be there, flown by crews from two
special operations squadrons based at Hurlburt Field -- the 4th, flying the
newer U model called Spooky, and the 16th, flying the H model, called
Spectre.

The Spooky has advanced features not found on the Spectre. These
include a more effective radar for long-range target detection, a Global
Positioning System for satellite navigation, and a capability to
simultaneously attack two targets as much as a half-mile apart.

The newer model, which costs about $190 million, also carries twice as
much ammunition. The older model runs about $132 million.

All 21 AC-130s -- 13 Spookys and eight Spectres -- are based at Hurlburt.
Most of them have returned for maintenance and repairs after months
flying missions against al-Qaida and Taliban targets in Afghanistan.

Gen. Tommy Franks, the Central Command commander who ordered the
AC-130 into that battle, is quick to praise its performance.

"I would sum it up by saying simply, I’m a fan,’’ Franks said in a Nov. 28
interview with The Associated Press.

At Hurlburt, Air Force officials declined to make AC-130 crew members
available for interviews. A public affairs officer, Lt. Rosemary Heiss, said
they were too busy training.

She gave a visiting reporter a tour, however, of a 1990-model Spooky
parked on the tarmac, and described what it is like inside while its guns
are blazing.

"It’s dark, it’s loud, it smells and it’s intimidating,’’ she said.

The origins of the AC-130 gunship date to the Vietnam War, where the
first ones saw action in 1968. They are converted C-130 Hercules
transport planes, modified to add not only guns but also advanced
navigation systems and a variety of sensors for detecting threats and
targets, including FLIR, or forward-looking infrared radar. This radar is
mounted under the plane’s nose. It senses heat emissions and creates a
video image.

The plane normally has a crew of 13 -- five officers and eight enlisted.

Although the AC-130s played a central role in defeating the Taliban and
chasing al-Qaida from Afghanistan, they also were involved in two highly
publicized controversies.

On March 2, the opening day of the last major U.S. offensive in
Afghanistan, an AC-130 mistakenly fired on friendly forces, killing an
American soldier. An investigation concluded that the plane’s crew had
been plagued by equipment problems including flawed navigation
systems that contributed to the erroneous targeting. The Pentagon had
originally reported that the U.S. soldier had been killed by mortar fire from
enemy forces.

On July 1, an AC-130 pounded several villages in Afghanistan’s Uruzgan
province, and Afghan authorities said afterward that 48 civilians were
killed, including women and children celebrating a wedding. U.S. officials
defended the AC-130 crew, saying they opened fire only after coming
under hostile fire from the ground.

The last time an AC-130 was lost on an overseas mission was March 15,
1994, when a Spectre gunship went down off the coast of Kenya shortly
after taking off for a surveillance mission over Mogadishu, Somalia. Eight
members of the crew were killed. The crash was caused by a detonation
of the 105 mm gun while airborne.

One AC-130 Spectre also was lost in the 1991 Gulf War. That one was
shot down by a surface-to-air missile on Jan. 31, 1991 while supporting
allied ground forces in the Battle of Khafji, Saudi Arabia. All 14 members
of the crew were killed.

------------------
Ilshad

"Your accomplishment is nothing compared to the glory that is Ilshadrial!!" Yayaril
Rausrh
Sojourner
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Madison,WI
Contact:

Postby Rausrh » Tue Dec 10, 2002 2:24 pm

What? you never watched CNN?

------------------
Rausrh licks you.
Ilshadrial
Sojourner
Posts: 417
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Atlanta
Contact:

Postby Ilshadrial » Tue Dec 10, 2002 2:39 pm

I work for Lockheed Martin, I just post things for peeps to read that I think are interesting.

We make the AC-130 Image

------------------
Ilshad

"Your accomplishment is nothing compared to the glory that is Ilshadrial!!" Yayaril
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Tue Dec 10, 2002 5:43 pm

I could read shit like this all day. Sends beautiful visions of swiss cheese fanatics through my head..

keep up the good work ilshadrial!

Corth

------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
Marforp
Sojourner
Posts: 124
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: HI
Contact:

Postby Marforp » Tue Dec 10, 2002 6:26 pm

And the question of the day....

Why doesn't the US build more AC-130s and A-10 type planes?

Reminds me of when they figured that dogfighting was dead and they removed the guns from fighters figuring all anyone would need is missiles. WHOOPS!

------------------
Marforp / Sasdor
and now the new improved Pofas!!
Daz
Sojourner
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 5:01 am
Location: newark, delaware
Contact:

Postby Daz » Tue Dec 10, 2002 6:44 pm

schnarf?

[This message has been edited by Daz (edited 12-16-2002).]
Zouve
Sojourner
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2001 5:01 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Postby Zouve » Tue Dec 10, 2002 6:49 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Marforp:
<B>And the question of the day....

Why doesn't the US build more AC-130s and A-10 type planes?

Reminds me of when they figured that dogfighting was dead and they removed the guns from fighters figuring all anyone would need is missiles. WHOOPS!

</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

More A-10's aren't built because the Air Force is far more interested in shooting down other planes (which are the biggest threat to their own air bases) than dropping bombs in the mud. That's why the Army has so many attack helicopters, they have to look out for their own interests.

The Air Force only keeps the A-10's it currently has because the Army has threatened to fight to take them over if the Air Force tries to dump them. The Air Force does not want another military service to compete with in the fixed-wing air craft business.

AC-130's can only operate under very specific conditions, so we probably have enough of them. But the same reasoning as above also applies.

James F. Dunnigan's "How to Make War" has some reasonable insight into these sorts of issues if you are interested. A new revision is set to be released in the spring of 2003.

Zouve
Iktar
Sojourner
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 5:01 am

Postby Iktar » Tue Dec 10, 2002 8:36 pm

I think weapons like dat is somewhat waste of weapon. Sure weapon carrying dat much firepower and lay waste to just about anything from air. But what if you can't lay waste to it.

For example, Urban combat. US miliarty probably aren't going to fly one of those badasses and start blasting due to all the of the possible cilian casualties. And from what I read, US military fears urban combat the most and urban combat is one area where US military is least accustomed to.
Marforp
Sojourner
Posts: 124
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: HI
Contact:

Postby Marforp » Tue Dec 10, 2002 8:42 pm

Zouve,

I don't agree with all of your opinions there (then again mine are probably pretty crackpotish usually to).

See below for my rambeling on about the subject, but short is the AF does drop the bombs and have the air superiority. What they aren't developing is a strong plane that can loiter over an area for a long time and put leathal bullets on target. Bombs are nice, but the collateral damage and the number of bombs available on a plane are just to low to support ground troups.

If you read about what happened in Afghanistan it is clear that more coverage was needed and because of the inability for the AF to provide it and the unexplainable lack of Army artillary Americans died. F-15s dropping bombs danger close and using their guns on ground targets for the first time ever just didn't cut it.

-------

The AF isn't really more interested in shooting down other planes over dropping bombs in the mud. The problem is sexy technology. Just as their is currently a problem in the Navy with lack of transport ships there is currently a problem in the AF for lack of transport airplanes, tankers, etc....

Backing up this is the fact that the F-22 has actually had a name change to FA-22 to signify the adaption it is undergoing to allow it to drop bombs. UAV's are currently being armed and their is a push to continue arming them with more leathal ground attack weapons. Research dollars are mainly going for either the ability to shoot down missiles OR new smaller lethal bombs. Does the AF need to keep progressing in air superiority? Yes, because the long term threat of losing it is scary and would have huge consequences for other services. The near term threat to the US interests and air bases are from the ground. Question: How have our bases been attacked recently? Answer: From small ground forces.

In reference to the AF not wanting another military service to compete with them in fixed-wing air craft business...it's happened in the past, is currently happening, and will continue to happen. Marine and Navy fliers currently fly fixed wing airplanes and their ability will take a tremendous leap forward when the JSF in finally produced and moved onto the carriers.

Very true regarding the limitations of AC-130s. During day time they are vulnerable to attack. However, their are a total of 27 planes. If you figure to keep good 24 hour coverage in an area during the kick off of an offensive you need 3 planes each taking an 8 hour shift and one plane down on maintenance/backup. Now if you wanted to do this at only two locations in a country you just ate up 33% of your planes. Have another 8 planes back in the states and there goes 2/3. Move two more groups to Korea (or name a country). Okay, now what do we have? Zero planes for a conflict in Iraq, exercises, etc.... Now figure in what would happen if one or two planes were shot down. How about if some terrorist was able to sneak on a base and blow a few up or crash another plane into one or two parked on the runway. This is even disregarding that upgrades to the older systems to recieve the navigation or other upgrades have not been proposed or funded.


------------------
Marforp / Sasdor
and now the new improved Pofas!!
Ilshadrial
Sojourner
Posts: 417
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Atlanta
Contact:

Postby Ilshadrial » Tue Dec 10, 2002 9:37 pm

AC-130 To Provide 24-Hour Fire Support? (Posted: Monday, October 28, 2002)

[Defense Daily, Oct. 28, 2002]

The Special Operations Command is interested in finding ways to keep
the capability of the AC-130 gunship available around the clock,
"24-seven" instead of having to operate at night and leave the combat
area at dawn because of an enemy's anti-aircraft capabilities threat,
according to officials. The Defense Science Board has addressed the
issue and supports the effort to increase the coverage in time and
space of the AC-130's striking power.

------------------
Ilshad

"Your accomplishment is nothing compared to the glory that is Ilshadrial!!" Yayaril
Kallinar
Sojourner
Posts: 564
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2001 6:01 am
Location: C'ville Va.
Contact:

Postby Kallinar » Wed Dec 11, 2002 5:36 am

Ahh the soothing rumble of a c130's powerplants at full throttle. It's rather teeth jarring is it not? Add to that the sounds of those spiffy weapons going off and what do you have? A nice splitting headache and a really bad ringing in your ears if you aren't wearing double hearing protection :P

Nice to see 130's being used for something more than a cargo/paratrooper taxi.

Kallinar likes having what little hearing he has left.

[This message has been edited by Kallinar (edited 12-11-2002).]
Ensis
Sojourner
Posts: 629
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Portland, OR 97219
Contact:

Postby Ensis » Wed Dec 11, 2002 7:42 am

[B]Nice to see 130's being used for something more than a cargo/paratrooper taxi.[/B[


The main reason they use C130's is because they knew if they used a plane that was reliable we'd be less apt to jump :P And as impressive as one spectre laying waste to an entire grid is, 720 paratroopers in the sky at the same time is far.. FAR more impressive. (until you hear everyon yell SLIP AWAY)

Groundpounders love Puff, can you say glint tape? Image



------------------
Ensis Inferni
Bish Enterprises Inc.
All Rights Reserved
Copyright 1999 Fydollaho Productions.
gordex
Sojourner
Posts: 265
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2002 5:01 am
Contact:

Postby gordex » Wed Dec 11, 2002 11:41 am

Hey Illshad... do you know of a guy named Joe Wurts? He also works for Lockheed.

------------------

Gordex - Gordex Travel Agency
Ilshadrial
Sojourner
Posts: 417
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Atlanta
Contact:

Postby Ilshadrial » Wed Dec 11, 2002 3:28 pm

Umm, the Joint Strike Fighter will have a gun. F/A-22 don't need one, they can destroy enemy aircraft from 200 miles away before the enemy even know they are there, so it is kinda of pointless.

GD To Supply Gun for F-35 (Posted: Monday, September 30, 2002)

WASHINGTON, Sept 25 (Reuters) - Lockheed Martin Corp. (NYSE:LMT -
News) said on Wednesday it had chosen General Dynamics Corp.
(NYSE:GD - News) to put a gun on the next-generation Joint Strike Fighter
F-35, the biggest warplane program in history.

General Dynamics beat out Alliant Techsystems Inc. (NYSE:ATK - News)
for the planned integration of an advanced 27mm aircraft cannon
designed by Mauser-Werke Oberndorf of Germany, industry officials said.

Lockheed and General Dynamics will also study possible alternatives to
the Mauser, said John Kent, a Lockheed spokesman in Fort Worth, Texas.

Design and development work for the gun system will take place at
General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products unit in Burlington,
Vermont, General Dynamics said.

Deliveries could reach several thousand units over the life of the program,
depending on how many Joint Strike Fighter aircraft are eventually built.
U.S. officials have estimated the possible market as high as 6,000
aircraft, including nearly 3,000 for the U.S. Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps
and British forces.

General Dynamics is now negotiating with Lockheed on the scope, timing
and value of the work, said Kendell Pease, a spokesman in Falls Church,
Virginia.

"This is a significant competitive win for General Dynamics, and reaffirms
our position as premier aircraft gun system provider," said Linda Hudson,
president of the General Dynamics armament unit in Burlington, Vermont.

Mauser's 27mm cannon is single barrel, gas-operated lightweight revolver
gun that fires electrically primed 27mm ammunition at 1,800 shots per
minute. Manufacturers of the rival Eurofighter aircraft also selected the
Mauser 27mm.

The joint strike fighter is designed to be a radar-evading, supersonic
multi-role fighter. Three variants are being developed. The first
pre-production model is due to fly by the end of October 2005.

Kent, the Lockheed spokesman, said the F-35's Air Force version would
have its gun mounted internally, while the Navy and Marine Corps versions'
could be set in a pod on the aircraft's belly.

------------------
Ilshad

"Your accomplishment is nothing compared to the glory that is Ilshadrial!!" Yayaril
Calinth
Sojourner
Posts: 118
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Calinth » Wed Dec 11, 2002 4:18 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ensis:
<B>

And as impressive as one spectre laying waste to an entire grid is, 720 paratroopers in the sky at the same time is far.. FAR more impressive. (until you hear everyon yell SLIP AWAY)

</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Until you hear the ADA get into the act. I'd hate to see what a ZSU-23-4 would do to that. Image Mass tac jumps are dead in any serious conflict, have been since Sicily, they just won't admit it.


Cal
Chandigar2
Sojourner
Posts: 117
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2002 5:01 am

Postby Chandigar2 » Wed Dec 11, 2002 7:19 pm

Speaking of bombs, I see no one mention the happy trigger finger that dropped the bomb on those Canadian troops in training in Afghanistan huh? :P
Grungar
Sojourner
Posts: 967
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Somewhere on the east coast, usually.
Contact:

Postby Grungar » Wed Dec 11, 2002 7:44 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Chandigar2:
Speaking of bombs, I see no one mention the happy trigger finger that dropped the bomb on those Canadian troops in training in Afghanistan huh? :P</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They're Canadians. It's not like we're talking about real people here.

- Grungar "I like freezing rain" Forgefire
Ilshadrial
Sojourner
Posts: 417
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Atlanta
Contact:

Postby Ilshadrial » Wed Dec 11, 2002 8:35 pm

If you are interested in learning more about the SR-71 this might be for you, BTW we upgraded the cockpit to color glass displays which a quite wicked!

SR-71 on The History Channel (Posted: Wednesday, December 11, 2002)

A new film titled "Heavy Metal - Blackbird Stealth" detailing the history and heritage
of the SR-71 Blackbird will be aired on The History Channel Dec. 15 at 8 p.m.
(ET/PT), Dec. 16 at 12 a.m. (ET/PT) and Dec. 21 at 4 p.m. (ET/PT). For details visit
http://www.historychannel.com/index2.html and type in "Blackbird Stealth" in the
keyword search box.

Excerpt from The History Channel's show description:
Designed in the late 1950s by aeronautical genius Kelly Johnson at the mysterious
Skunk Works, the SR-71 Blackbird was the world's first stealthy aircraft, designed to
over-fly enemy territory with impunity while photographing 100,000 square miles in
an hour. While serving 6 presidents, it saw action on hot and cold war fronts alike.
Interviews with crews and commanders combined with unbelievable footage puts
viewers in the cockpit of this amazing spy plane, flying at speeds of 2,000 miles an
hour.

------------------
Ilshad

"Your accomplishment is nothing compared to the glory that is Ilshadrial!!" Yayaril
Zouve
Sojourner
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2001 5:01 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Postby Zouve » Wed Dec 11, 2002 8:35 pm

Marforp,

In some ways, we are saying the same thing. You say sexy technology and I say that to the AF, air-to-air is what is sexy.

Let me restate my opinion. I didn't say the AF didn't drop bombs, I said they always view dropping bombs as secondary to shooting down enemy aircraft. The AF has tried to re-arm the A-10 squadrons with F-16 on several occasions and had to back off due to the protests the army puts up.

Putting the A in the F-22 only supports that notion. The AF wants air superiority fighters and will drop bombs from them if required. The F-15E was another example; a very capable ground attack platform, but an air superiority platform first.

As for the AC-130, it's mission is night time suppression of troops who do not have any coordinated anti aircraft capability. You don't pile these things up over the front in some place like Korea or Iraq, and you don't use them in the day time, they'll get shot out of the air muy pronto. They were designed for a counter-insurgency mission, and you don't need more than a couple of them in any one place do put the hurt on bad guys hiding in the hills, jungles, or where ever.

As you point out, in Afghanistan, AF assets weren't as effective as we would have liked. However, with the possible anti-air threat, trolling AC-130's over the country was not going to improve the situation much. Too many SAMs running around, many of which we put there.

On competition for budgets for fixed wing aircraft, I said the AF doesn't want to compete with ANOTHER service, (i.e. The Army) implying that they do already compete with the Navy and Marines, not that they have exclusivity currently. I should have perhaps said "Yet another service."

The JSF will certainly help the situation, especially for the Navy, which pulled the same prank the AF wanted to with the A-10 and dumped the A-6 for the F/A-18 and lost a lot of air to ground capability in exchange for some increase in air to air.

Zouve
Ilshadrial
Sojourner
Posts: 417
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Atlanta
Contact:

Postby Ilshadrial » Wed Dec 11, 2002 8:55 pm

Don't count of the F-16 yet boyz!!!! It is still an awsome fighter, and the fighter pilots can target objects with their helmets and shit! Image

Combat Aircraft

F-16 Press Releases 2002

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 5, 2002

Latest Lockheed Martin F-16 Upgrade
Version Completed on Schedule

Fort Worth, Texas — The latest version of
Lockheed Martin F-16s to have Common
Configuration Implementation Program (CCIP)
modifications have begun delivery on schedule.

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., a business
area of Lockheed Martin Corp. [NYSE: LMT],
provides the modification kits and field support
for the F-16 CCIP modification effort. The
aircraft are being modified at USAF’s Ogden
Air Logistics Center, Utah, the prime depot for
the F-16.

The first Phase IA aircraft was completed during October and was assigned
to the 57th Fighter Wing, Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., for follow-on operational
test and evaluation.

Most of the next aircraft to complete the modification program belong to the
389th Fighter Squadron, 366th Air Expeditionary Wing, Mountain Home Air
Force Base, Idaho, which will be the first operational squadron to convert to
this latest upgrade version.

“We are pleased the F-16 CCIP continues to perform smoothly and support
the war fighters,” said Bill Lake, director of the USAF/EPAF F-16 program at
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics. “I know the USAF F-16 pilots are eager to get
the new capabilities on their Block 50/52 jets.”

The Phase IA configuration incorporates the APX-113 air-to-air interrogator,
which provides the F-16 pilot increased situation awareness and the ability to
autonomously identify targets, and thus, a robust beyond-visual-range
intercept capability using the AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air
Missile.

The Phase IA configuration also includes two new electronics units for
displays and data entry, which use commercial components that provide
increased throughput, reliability and supportability.

A corresponding software change allows the aircraft to operate either the
High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile Targeting System pod or a FLIR targeting
pod (including the new Sniper XR Advanced Targeting Pod) from the right
inlet chin station. The latter is new to USAF Block 50/52 aircraft and provides
a capability to destroy ground targets using laser-guided bombs. These
aircraft already were capable of employing global positioning system-guided
weapons through a software upgrade made two years ago.

The F-16 CCIP provides a common, robust upgrade to the USAF fleet of
approximately 650 Block 40/42/50/52 F-16s. Development efforts began in
1998, and the systems have been extensively tested on the ground and in the
air.

The program is being completed in phases. Phase I deliveries began in
January 2002 and included a color multifunction display set and the modular
mission computer. Phase II will be fielded in July 2003 and will also
incorporate the NATO-standard Link 16 data link, the Joint Helmet-Mounted
Cueing System and an electronic horizontal situation indicator.

The Phase I/IA Block 50/52 aircraft will go back through the depot mod line at
Ogden to receive the additional changes. Phase III of the program involves the
Block 40/42 aircraft, which will receive the entire modification all at one time,
beginning in 2005.

The F-16, the choice of 23 countries, is the world’s most sought-after fighter.
More than 4,000 aircraft have been delivered, hundreds more are on order for
the United States and seven other countries, and production is expected to
continue beyond 2010. Major upgrades for all F-16 versions are being
incorporated to keep the fleet modern and fully supportable over the aircraft’s
long service life.

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas, is a
leader in the design, development, systems integration, production and
support of advanced military aircraft and related technologies. Its customers
include the military services of the United States and allied countries
throughout the world. Products include the F-16, F/A-22, F-35 JSF, F-117,
T-50, C-5, C-130J, P-3, S-3 and U-2.

Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin Corp. is a global
enterprise principally engaged in the research, design, development,
manufacture and integration of advanced technology systems, products and
services. Employing about 125,000 people worldwide, Lockheed Martin had
2001 sales of $24 billion.

------------------
Ilshad

"Your accomplishment is nothing compared to the glory that is Ilshadrial!!" Yayaril
Ilshadrial
Sojourner
Posts: 417
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Atlanta
Contact:

Postby Ilshadrial » Wed Dec 11, 2002 9:00 pm

This might help you all understand the role the F-22 will play in the security of our nation.

Question: How much better is the F/A-22 going to be than the F-15 is?

Answer: Dramatically. First of all, when you put weapons on the F-15, it has
drag. F/A-22 carries everything internally. Supercruise does not exist in the
F-15. The F-15 is very large and the radar cross-section is quite large.
You're talking about, in radar terms, something the size of bigger than a
basketball versus something the size of a marble. And by the way, you put
the weapons on the F-15, it's a big beach ball. So in terms of stealthiness,
the F/A-22's much better.

Then supercruise. This ability to move fast isn't just the old thing of "I'll be a
hotshot jockey." This is a plane that we would also be using to attack cruise
missiles that might be coming at our forces that are deployed overseas.
The fact that you can handle one threat and then hop to another one very
quickly is very important.

Question: If the F/A-22's going to be so much better, how many F/A-22s
does the Air Force really need?

Answer: We had talked about 339. The secretary has asked us if 180 is
acceptable.

Its flying qualities have been superb. Its radar has performed better than
average, and, truth-in-advertising, I used to head the team that did the radar,
so I have to tell you that was sort of self-serving, but it's also true. Its stealth
performance has been terrific. Its supercruise has been better than we
thought it was going to be. So the key parameters have all been met. It will
earn its wings.

Question: So a "silver bullet force" would be okay because, once you had it,
people would fall in love with the plane and buy more?

Answer: I don't like the idea of a "silver bullet" because it means that they're
sitting at home and they go out and get used and they go back home.

We are, as the secretary has asked us to do, taking a look at 180 [F/A-22s].
Is that good enough? You'll have people say, "Absolutely not!" And there are
some members of the Air Force who say, "Nothing less than 700." And
there are some others who'll say, "Nothing less than 400."

Don Rumsfeld's done the sensible thing. He says, "Well, show me." And if
we can't make the case, then shame on us.

Question: Tell me about the FB-22.

Answer: This is a concept. You enlarge the wing. It doesn't go as fast. It can't
supercruise as fast. It's not as agile. But it has certain real advantages.

One, it carries air-to-air weapons, and so if it's jumped by someone, it can
fight. Two, it can go pretty fast if it uses afterburner. So it can
shoot-and-scoot, like the F-35. But because you have a much larger wing ...
you can have much greater range. So the expectation is, you get about
1,600 miles as opposed to about 600-plus miles, and you carry more. So
as a comparison, a regular F/A-22 would carry eight Small Diameter
Bombs. An FB-22 would carry 30.

It costs some money to develop it. But to give you an example of the
efficiency, because the avionics is such a major part of any new aircraft, the
avionics on the FB-22 are going to be identical to the avionics on the
F/A-22. What changes in software is the flight controls. But airplane builders
know how to do that in their sleep. And then you have to integrate more
weapons, but they're the same types of weapons, so you're really just talking
about more stations and changing the weapons control software to account
for more weapons. So the efficiencies are great.

Question: This FB-22, would it in the long term be replacing some of the
strategic bombers?

Answer: No. If this concept were to become a program, it would be a
regional bomber.

Question: I've heard $10 billion to develop an FB-22.

Answer: No. No, no, no, no, no. Somewhere between five and seven.

Question: Much cheaper than developing a brand new airplane.

Answer: Think of it! We'll put $5 billion-plus into developing a superlative
engine for the F-35, which, by the way, is a derivative of the engines on the
F/A-22.

Question: If you had an FB-22, such a terrific regional bomber, why would
you need the Joint Strike Fighter?

Answer: Joint Strike Fighter is more agile. Joint Strike Fighter has three
variants. No FB-22 is going to be a STOVL [short takeoff, vertical landing
aircraft].

Question: That's the jump jet version.

Answer: Right, the short takeoff and landing. No FB-22's going to fly off an
aircraft carrier. Whereas the F-35 has three variants: the jump jet version for
the Marine Corps and the Royal Navy. So you'd want to do the F-35 in any
event. And we're looking for something someday to replace the F-16s.

Question: At what point is the nation going to need a new strategic bomber,
or will there be a need for one?

Answer: If you were to press us today ... then I'd say, "Okay, the first thing to
do is ... let's go to FB-22.

If you were to say we have a few years but we just feel that we've got to
replace these B-52s, I would probably say, "Okay, if it's the short-range
future, whatever the heck that is, why don't we think of an unmanned
version?" Because bombers go to fixed points in space and they drop
against fixed points on the ground.

Given technology, and given what we've learned because [Army Gen.]
Tommy Franks allowed us to use all these unmanned vehicles in
Afghanistan, that appears to be a very sensible idea.

If you wanted to go further out, we'd say, "Well, is there something that can
be suborbital – or orbital?" Could, in fact, the future bomber 30, 40 years
from now be something that takes off from Dyess [Air Force Base, Texas]
and somewhere over California or New Mexico launches something which
goes into suborbit and lands precisely around the globe on some target?

But that's just our current thinking.

------------------
Ilshad

"Your accomplishment is nothing compared to the glory that is Ilshadrial!!" Yayaril
Ilshadrial
Sojourner
Posts: 417
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Atlanta
Contact:

Postby Ilshadrial » Wed Dec 11, 2002 9:27 pm

Whoops! No Missle Shield Technology YET!!!


U.S. Missile Intercept Test Fails (Posted: Wednesday, December 11, 2002)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Raytheon Corp.-built "kill vehicle" designed to
destroy incoming warheads failed to separate from its booster on
Wednesday in a test over the Pacific, setting back a multibillion-dollar
system under development to shield against ballistic missiles from
countries such as Iraq, Iran and North Korea (news - web sites).

"We do not have an intercept," said Air Force Lt. Col. Rick Lehner of the
Pentagon (news - web sites)'s Missile Defense Agency.

He said it was "frustrating and disappointing" that a glitch that had little to
do with advanced missile technology had doomed the eighth, $100 million,
flight test of a key part of a planned U.S. layered defense against ballistic
missiles.

Five of the flight tests have succeeded in shooting down the target vehicle
launched from California's Vandenberg Air Force base. Wednesday's flight
was the third failure, including a July 8, 2000, test in which Raytheon's
so-called Exo-Atmospheric Kill Vehicle also failed to separate from its
booster, in that case because of an electronic module failure.

Separating boosters from their payloads is something the United States
has
been doing successfully for some 50 years, Lehner said.

A spokesman for Raytheon, Dave Shea, said the company had confidence
in its design. High technology seemed an unlikely culprit, he said, as it
might have been had the device separated on schedule and yet missed its
target in space.

The kill vehicle weighs about 120 pounds. Equipped with two infrared
sensors and a visible sensor, it packs a small propulsion system meant to
zero in on its target, bypassing decoys expected to accompany any
incoming warhead.

'HIT TO KILL'

The botched "hit to kill" intercept was meant to demonstrate that, as in
previous tests, a warhead tipped with a weapon of mass destruction --
nuclear, chemical or biological -- would be totally destroyed and neutralized
in a collision with the "kill vehicle."

Lehner said the test had begun without a hitch with the launching of a
modified Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missile from Vandenberg, on
the central California coast.

Also launched without incident was the interceptor. It was fired from 4,800
miles away on Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands, for the first time under
cover of night, a new wrinkle in the testing program.

The preceding four flight tests, all successes, had bolstered the Pentagon's
confidence that the so-called ground-based system to shoot down
incoming warheads in mid-course was on track.

President Bush (news - web sites) wants to put an Alaska-based "test bed"
with five missile silos -- and rudimentary operational capabilities -- in place
by October 2004.

The site, at Fort Greely, near Fairbanks, would constitute one leg of a
projected multilayered defense against missiles from countries such as
Iran, Iraq and North Korea, members of Bush's "axis of evil."

Developing a missile defense is the Pentagon's single most expensive
program, likely to cost hundreds of billions of dollars over coming decades,
including for sea-, air- and space-based components.

For each of the past two fiscal years alone, Bush requested and Congress
approved $7.8 billion in research, development and testing funds.

Boeing Co. is the lead system integrator for the ground-based mid-course
program. TRW Inc. builds the system's battle command, control and
communications system. Lockheed Martin Corp. is the prime contractor on
the current booster system.


------------------
Ilshad

"Your accomplishment is nothing compared to the glory that is Ilshadrial!!" Yayaril
Chandigar2
Sojourner
Posts: 117
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2002 5:01 am

Postby Chandigar2 » Wed Dec 11, 2002 10:00 pm

Now... if we were to cast missile shield on North America, how many +5+5 scuds would it block before breaking?

(Gibberish courtesy of work related boredom.)
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Thu Dec 12, 2002 5:57 am

Missile shield is broken and you think that's news?

------------------
- Ragorn
Rondandal tells you 'I take it your goal is to clash?'
Ensis
Sojourner
Posts: 629
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Portland, OR 97219
Contact:

Postby Ensis » Thu Dec 12, 2002 7:51 am

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Chandigar2:
Speaking of bombs, I see no one mention the happy trigger finger that dropped the bomb on those Canadian troops in training in Afghanistan huh? :P</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pretty sure that was laser target designator failure.

You expect to work around rockets, grenades, machineguns, jets, bombers, helicopters, practicing and drilling killing people with LIVE ammo and never have ANY mistakes?.. not to downplay people getting killed, but its an occupational hazard.. it just so happens that being a soldier has MORE occupational hazard than being a clerk. Thats why people think "do i really want to get blown up" before they sign the papers or put on a tie :P



------------------
Ensis Inferni
Bish Enterprises Inc.
All Rights Reserved
Copyright 1999 Fydollaho Productions.
Ilshadrial
Sojourner
Posts: 417
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Atlanta
Contact:

Postby Ilshadrial » Thu Dec 12, 2002 2:25 pm

This is a 7 and a half minute Windows Media Player file. It is infrared footage of an attack on an Afghanistan target and includes audio of the flight crew onboard the AC-130. Use your own discretion in choosing to view this video clip.

http://skynet.bizatchu.com/AC130_GunshipMed.wmv


------------------
Ilshad

"Your accomplishment is nothing compared to the glory that is Ilshadrial!!" Yayaril
Mikayla
Sojourner
Posts: 311
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 5:01 am
Location: orange, tx, USA
Contact:

Postby Mikayla » Thu Dec 12, 2002 9:27 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ilshadrial:
<B>If you are interested in learning more about the SR-71 this might be for you, BTW we upgraded the cockpit to color glass displays which a quite wicked!

SR-71 on The History Channel (Posted: Wednesday, December 11, 2002)

A new film titled "Heavy Metal - Blackbird Stealth" detailing the history and heritage
of the SR-71 Blackbird will be aired on The History Channel Dec. 15 at 8 p.m.
(ET/PT), Dec. 16 at 12 a.m. (ET/PT) and Dec. 21 at 4 p.m. (ET/PT). For details visit
http://www.historychannel.com/index2.html and type in "Blackbird Stealth" in the
keyword search box.

Excerpt from The History Channel's show description:
Designed in the late 1950s by aeronautical genius Kelly Johnson at the mysterious
Skunk Works, the SR-71 Blackbird was the world's first stealthy aircraft, designed to
over-fly enemy territory with impunity while photographing 100,000 square miles in
an hour. While serving 6 presidents, it saw action on hot and cold war fronts alike.
Interviews with crews and commanders combined with unbelievable footage puts
viewers in the cockpit of this amazing spy plane, flying at speeds of 2,000 miles an
hour.

</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


seen it, but ilsha tell them the real speed it flies at Image and we know it is faster then 2k, hell they flew across the US in under and hour Image



------------------
Her Royal Bitchness Eye Aeturnum
Ilshadrial
Sojourner
Posts: 417
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Atlanta
Contact:

Postby Ilshadrial » Thu Dec 12, 2002 11:37 pm

That is classified, all top speeds of all military aircraft are! *wink*

------------------
Ilshad

"Your accomplishment is nothing compared to the glory that is Ilshadrial!!" Yayaril
Drevarr
Sojourner
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Georgia
Contact:

Postby Drevarr » Fri Dec 13, 2002 12:16 am

I hope I get more work out of you tomorrow Ilshad.

------------------
Mikayla
Sojourner
Posts: 311
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 5:01 am
Location: orange, tx, USA
Contact:

Postby Mikayla » Fri Dec 13, 2002 12:55 am

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ilshadrial:
<B>That is classified, all top speeds of all military aircraft are! *wink*

</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes i know ilsha Image but we both know Image



------------------
Her Royal Bitchness Eye Aeturnum
Gerad
Sojourner
Posts: 591
Joined: Sun May 13, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Contact:

Postby Gerad » Fri Dec 13, 2002 9:16 am

Holy crap, turxx hasnt tagged this with innane banter about killing machines and war yet? Im amazed!

G

------------------
Auril tells you 'Yes, we're plotting the destruction of all that is holy - and unholy, too. Just to be thorough.'
Ilshadrial
Sojourner
Posts: 417
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Atlanta
Contact:

Postby Ilshadrial » Fri Dec 13, 2002 12:20 pm

Aww come on Boss, you "work me" all the time *evil grin*

------------------
Ilshad

"Your accomplishment is nothing compared to the glory that is Ilshadrial!!" Yayaril
Marforp
Sojourner
Posts: 124
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: HI
Contact:

Postby Marforp » Sat Dec 14, 2002 1:21 am

You want to know the top speed of the SR-71...I'll tell you, but first you have to tell me what topspeed you really mean. What altitude, does the plane have to be flying straight and norrow, how about normal top cruising speed or balls to the wall emergency power speed? Okay, actually don't know, doesn't matter. Willing to bet the US has another bird that can fly faster now irregardless of if it is operational or not.

Regarding the Canadian issue clearly several things went wrong on that mission. To just blame the pilot isn't telling the whole story (although it was not a laster designation issue).

------------------
Marforp / Sasdor
and now the new improved Pofas!!
Daz
Sojourner
Posts: 1942
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 5:01 am
Location: newark, delaware
Contact:

Postby Daz » Sat Dec 14, 2002 1:37 am

that link is broken ilsha
Mikayla
Sojourner
Posts: 311
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 5:01 am
Location: orange, tx, USA
Contact:

Postby Mikayla » Mon Dec 16, 2002 5:14 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Marforp:
<B>You want to know the top speed of the SR-71...I'll tell you, but first you have to tell me what topspeed you really mean. What altitude, does the plane have to be flying straight and norrow, how about normal top cruising speed or balls to the wall emergency power speed? Okay, actually don't know, doesn't matter. Willing to bet the US has another bird that can fly faster now irregardless of if it is operational or not.

Regarding the Canadian issue clearly several things went wrong on that mission. To just blame the pilot isn't telling the whole story (although it was not a laster designation issue).

</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

marforie pooh Image




------------------
Her Royal Bitchness Eye Aeturnum
Kallinar
Sojourner
Posts: 564
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2001 6:01 am
Location: C'ville Va.
Contact:

Postby Kallinar » Thu Dec 19, 2002 7:17 am

ooh ooh...anyone wanna know the top speed of a "well-functioning" F-14 tomcat? I did , after all, work on them...

They are so fast, they can outfly a hummingbird flying in a straight line! Now isn't that fast?!! And I still maintain the secrets the government entrusted me with. Go me!

Kallinar likes fast stuff.
Ilshadrial
Sojourner
Posts: 417
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Atlanta
Contact:

Postby Ilshadrial » Thu Dec 19, 2002 12:36 pm

You think a hummingbird is fast? heheheh

It doesn't have a jet engine and can't break the sound barrier, so that is a pretty lame comparison.

Wink

------------------
Ilshad

"Your accomplishment is nothing compared to the glory that is Ilshadrial!!" Yayaril
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Thu Dec 19, 2002 7:36 pm

http://home.attbi.com/~zotter/ac130_gunshipmed.wmv

------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.

Return to “S3 General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests