# F-117A, U-2 and Half of the B-52 Fleet Many Go Away



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 11, 2006)

Cleaning house for the F-22!

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,84991,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 11, 2006)

I think the F117 is being eliminated because the USAF has a replacment up its sleeve (stored at area 51 of course).

It will be a shame to see the B52 be reduced.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 11, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I think the F117 is being eliminated because the USAF has a replacment up its sleeve (stored at area 51 of course).
> 
> It will be a shame to see the B52 be reduced.



The 117 replacement? The F-35....


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 11, 2006)

No, something more exotic. Maybe even powered by technology that was reverse engineered from the aliens they have stored there.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 11, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> No, something more exotic. Maybe even powered by technology that was reverse engineered from the aliens they have stored there.


There's nothing at "Area 51" tha't replacing the F-117A. Lockheed is working on some UAVs but believe me, everything is from planet earth.

The USAF F-35 will replace the -117.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 11, 2006)

How would you know whats going on there? Lots of "black" stuff going on.


----------



## marconi (Jan 11, 2006)

FLYBOYJ, as I understand F-35 is basically a fighter with STOL capability while F-117 is Fighter/Bomber .How could it be F-117s replacement?


> The F-35 is designed to replace aging fighter inventories including U.S. Air Force A-10s and F-16s, U.S. Navy F-14s and F/A-18s, U.S. Marine Corps AV-8B Harriers and F/A-18s, and U.K. Harrier GR.7s and Sea Harriers.


Some article from internet.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 11, 2006)

marconi said:


> FLYBOYJ, as I understand F-35 is basically a fighter with STOL capability while F-117 is Fighter/Bomber .How could it be F-117s replacement?
> 
> 
> > The F-35 is designed to replace aging fighter inventories including U.S. Air Force A-10s and F-16s, U.S. Navy F-14s and F/A-18s, U.S. Marine Corps AV-8B Harriers and F/A-18s, and U.K. Harrier GR.7s and Sea Harriers.
> ...



Simple - the F-35 gets its V/STOL capability from the engine driven "Lift Fan" that Lockheed developed. The USAF versions will not have the lift fan installed..

"F-35 Variants
US Air Force
The Air Force expects that to purchase 1763 F-35s to complement the F-22 Raptor and replace the F-16 as an air-toground strike aircraft.* The Air Force variant includes an internal gun, infrared sensors, and laser designator. This is the technologically simplest version of the JSF, in that it does not require hover or aircraft carrier capability. Therefore it does not require the vertical thrust or the handling qualities for catapult launches, augmented control authority at landing approach speeds and strengthened structure to handle arrested landings. *At the same time, the Air Force F-35 will have to improve upon the high standards created by the F-16. Since replacement of the F-16 by the F-35 will entail a significant payload reduction, the F-35 faces a very demanding one shot one kill requirement. 

US Navy
The requirement for carrier operations creates the largest differences between the Air Force and Navy version. The naval version has larger wing and tail control surfaces to enable low-speed approaches to aircraft carriers. Leadingedge flaps and foldable wing tip sections account for this increased wing area. The larger wing area also provides the Navy version with an increased payload capability. To support the stresses of carrier landings and catapult launches, the internal structure of this version is strengthened. In addition, the landing gear has longer stroke and higher load capacity, and of course an arresting hook is added. Compared to the F-18C, the F-35 has twice the range on internal fuel.. The design is also optimized for survivability, which is a key Navy requirement. Like the USAF version, the Navy version will incorporate an internal gun and sensors. This new fighter will be used by the Navy as a first-day-of-war attack fighter in conjunction with the F/A-18 Hornet. The Navy plans to purchase 480 JSF.

US Marine Corps
The distinguishing feature of the USMC version of the JSF is its short takeoff/vertical landing capability (STOVL). There will not be an internally mounted machine gun, but an external gun can be fitted. This version requires controllability on all axes while hovering. Another critical design feature is its impact on the ground surface beneath it during hover. The USMC expects their version of the JSF will replace the F/A-18 Hornet and the AV-8 Harrier. The Marine Corps expects to purchase 480 STOVL versions of the F-35."


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 11, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> How would you know whats going on there? Lots of "black" stuff going on.



I worked for them for 10 1/2 years - almost 1.5 years in and out of the Skunk Works - I still have connections... 8)


----------



## marconi (Jan 11, 2006)

FLYBOYJ, thanks for information but I wanted to know whether F-35 can replace F-117. Does F-35 have same stealth characteristics as F-117?Can it use weapons similar to those that F-117 can use?In operation Desert Storm F-117 was used to destroy most difficult targets in areas with tight air defence system.And I thought that F-35 is just a cheaper alternative for F-22.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 11, 2006)

marconi said:


> FLYBOYJ, thanks for information but I wanted to know whether F-35 can replace F-117.


And the F-16!


marconi said:


> Does F-35 have same stealth characteristics as F-117?


Even Better!


marconi said:


> Can it use weapons similar to those that F-117 can use?


What you're going to see is a stealth aircraft with the bombing capability of the F-117A, and the air-to-air combat ability of the F-16. The F-35 might even be as good as the F-22 from what I've been told.



marconi said:


> In operation Desert Storm F-117 was used to destroy most difficult targets in areas with tight air defence system.And I thought that F-35 is just a cheaper alternative for F-22.


Far from it! Lockheed-Martin pulled all stops to secure this contract. Although its smaller than the F-22, the F-35 is a whole new animal. Better assembly methods, materials, avionics, etc. My best friend designed the electrical system on this aircraft and he has told me "you've just seen the surface" when the X-35 flew, by the way I was there for the X-35 first flight and first hover flight.

Unless Lockheed-Martin screws up during manufacturing or some kind of major flaw emerges, the F-35 will the benchmark of combat aircraft. There is always much discussion comparing the F-22 to the Eurofighter, in my opinion the F-35 is going to better than both of them!!!


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 11, 2006)

I see the UAV's becoming more and more sophisticted. The days of manned aircraft doing the mundane or really dangerous stuff will eventually be over.

Radar and AA defense supression might be performed by hordes of "throw away" drones that would destroy their target by simplying diving on them, kamikazi style.

If you want a B52 replacement for just carrying a bunch of PGM's, all of which are semi autonomous, all you need a simple inexpensive transport to orbit the battlefield and drop them as needed. That can even be done automatically.


----------



## marconi (Jan 11, 2006)

Will F-35 carry its weapons in internal section like F-117 and F-22 do?
ALso have you heard anything about its competitor X-32 in JSF programm?Was it a good plane and why did it lost to F-35?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 11, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I see the UAV's becoming more and more sophisticted. The days of manned aircraft doing the mundane or really dangerous stuff will eventually be over.
> 
> Radar and AA defense supression might be performed by hordes of "throw away" drones that would destroy their target by simplying diving on them, kamikazi style.


I agree to a point - I think the manned fighter will be around for a little longer, I've seen concepts where a fighter may have several armed UAVs at his disposal during combat


syscom3 said:


> If you want a B52 replacement for just carrying a bunch of PGM's, all of which are semi autonomous, all you need a simple inexpensive transport to orbit the battlefield and drop them as needed. That can even be done automatically.



That's been thought of in the late 80s using a 747


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 11, 2006)

marconi said:


> Will F-35 carry its weapons in internal section like F-117 and F-22 do?
> ALso have you heard anything about its competitor X-32 in JSF programm?Was it a good plane and why did it lost to F-35?



The F-35 will carry weapons internally..

As far as the X-32  It was a Pig!!! Although it flew first, it was crude and no where as advanced as the X-35, the Lockheed guys I knew who worked on the X-35 used to call it "The Happy Guppy." Hover testes were done at Patuxet River NAS because the X-32 could barely get off the ground at the Boeing plant in Palmdale Ca. (Palmdale is about 2500 feet about sea level). Even during the hover tests the X-32 had its landing gear doors removed to improve performance. It was a pig and in my opinion one of the ugliest aircraft ever built. I would scrap it, it isn't worth the floor space in a museum!


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 11, 2006)

Agreed the X-32 is as good looking as George Bush's butt (wait it is even worse than that) . The F-35 sounds like it is going to be an awesome aircraft plus it looks cool and we British are getting it .


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jan 11, 2006)

I dont think you should make fun of Juniors ass when Britain unleashed Thatcher upon the world, woaa I just got goosebumps


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2006)

I agree with FBJ on the F-35. It is a better aircraft, can do what the F-117 can and more.

As for the B-52 I hate to see it go, but if you look at the technology we have today, there is no longer really a need for the BUFF!


----------



## Aggie08 (Jan 28, 2006)

I was surprised to see the -117 getting some cuts, compared to other aircraft it's term has been very short. Same with the B-1. Those two made such a fuss with all their technology and shnazz and are already outdated. What will the B-1 be replaced with? There's nothing that can carry that much that fast. Make way for more versatile craft though, can't argue with that. 

Also, I wonder what would happen if we were to take on a country that actually has an air force after the -22s and -35s are in service. Slaughter is all I can think of...


----------



## plan_D (Jan 28, 2006)

It's bullshit. They're not going to get rid of 'em ... this is just like how they got rid of the A-10s before the Gulf war.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 28, 2006)

They are not going to get rid of them, but they will downsize the force. There are aircraft coming out with technology that is greater and better. You have to remember that the B-1 and the F-117 are using 1970's techonology. The F-117 program started in the late 1970's.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 28, 2006)

And the A-10 is even older than that. The F-15 has been updated to modern technology, and they will do the exact same with the F-117 and B-1.


----------



## Aggie08 (Jan 29, 2006)

Of course, but if 1970's technology is the best we have for an important role and we have nothing to replace it...


----------



## plan_D (Jan 29, 2006)

The basic airframe maybe 1970s technology, but the avionics and internal equipment can be updated. It's been done with the F-15C - and could be done with the F-117 and B-1.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2006)

I think you're going to find that the F-35 in its non-VSTOL strike version could easily replace the F-117, and unlike the F-117 it will have an air-to-air capability.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 29, 2006)

But the F-22 could fully replace the F-15, but it isn't going to happen. We all know that the U.S government aren't complete idiots, there'll be many in stockpiles ready for combat in a moments notice. After all, the F-117, F-15 and B-1 are all combat capable planes and even though they are 1970s technology - the only things truly superior are the Untied States' own equipment.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 29, 2006)

The F-22 could easily replace the F-15 if they would build sufficient numbers. It also is not that we do not have anything to replace these aircraft, it is more the question of why at the moment because they are all still very capable.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 29, 2006)

Ive always suspected that one reason the F22 hasnt been been built as quickly is the Secretary of Defense and a few important congressman and senators want to see what the future threats are, before they commit billions and billions of dollars to these aircraft.

Even though the avionics can be kept up to date, the airframe is still late 80's early 90's technology. I wouldnt be surprised if we have something up our sleeves at area 51 that just needs refinement to be put into production.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 29, 2006)

I don't see a problem with an old airframe or, more precisely, an old airframe design as long as the internal workings are kept up to date. I've said it before, and I know it's like I'm just repeating myself but the English Electric Lightning airframe does still have potential as a fighter to this day. A lighter structure and superior engines would make that aircraft a formidable air superiority fighter to this day. I state this merely to show the point that airframe is not the problem of the aircraft being out-dated, the internal workings and electronics are.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2006)

I think you'll see a slow phase out of the F-15. The Airforce and congress keep messing with the actual numbers to be built and I could tell you that the prigram got off to a rough start. A 12 year development period!!! That was rediculous! 

Look at the JSF. the first ones will be flying in a few years, Lockheed better managed the program, former General Dynamics For Worth people have been placed into key positions in the company and have really cracked the whip, some for the good, others not so good....



syscom3 said:


> I wouldnt be surprised if we have something up our sleeves at area 51 that just needs refinement to be put into production.



UAV technology - but for the most part not much is going on there - I know!!!


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 29, 2006)

If you did know, you wouldnt be able to talk about it would you. Plus you arent privy to everything going on there.

8)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> If you did know, you wouldnt be able to talk about it would you. Plus you arent privy to everything going on there.
> 
> 8)



And if I were and told you, I would have to kill you!


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 29, 2006)

I knew you were going to say that


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I knew you were going to say that



 Seriously, I think if there is anything going on "at the site," it involves UAVs...


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 29, 2006)

The extreme security is what makes me wonder.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The extreme security is what makes me wonder.



Actually there are many other bases around the country much tighter - area 51 just gets all the attention.


----------



## evangilder (Jan 29, 2006)

Agreed, Joe.

***Having actually met Joe, he can say that there is nothing there because he is actually an alien plant that is put here to deny everything. Ganarg, mrazek, Joe.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2006)

evangilder said:


> Agreed, Joe.
> 
> ***Having actually met Joe, he can say that there is nothing there because he is actually an alien plant that is put here to deny everything. Ganarg, mrazek, Joe.



naanoo-naanoo


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 29, 2006)

> naanoo-naanoo


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 29, 2006)

LOL


----------



## Aggie08 (Jan 31, 2006)

I think we should show glimpses of what's in these area 51 sites just to scare everyone else. Kind of like dropping the towel in the locker room and everyone's like holy crap! 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 4, 2006)

Unfortunatly it wont scare anyone. We are fighting people right now that live in the stone age and they are not scared.


----------



## Twitch (Feb 8, 2006)

We are probably looking at the last manned aircraft in military inventories now. Except for a very few future derivitives in the next few decades that are little different, in 50 years UCAVs will bear the brunt of any combat scenarios in a half century. Face it, as a country we simply can't stomach casualties no matter how light. The breakthroughs in artifial intelligence for machine-made decision making in real time on the spot are coming as fast as computers are evolving. The military has been quietly dedicated to a robot front line force for some time. They may seem quaint today, the UCAVs, but by the time the last of the B-52s retire in 2040 we won't recognize anything in common with today's.....those of us who will be alive.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 8, 2006)

I disagree with you to an extent I see them getting more and more closer to going to all unmanned aircraft but as a US Army Helicpter Crewman I dont see Tactical Utilility Helicopter types like the Blackhawk that I crew, being replaced by unmanned vehicals and time in the near future. For ground attack operations, yes that I can see very soon actually. Hell we have already used UAVs in Iraq and Afganistan to fire missles at ground targets.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 8, 2006)

I disagree to a point as well. I think we'll see them used together. I thinks its too premature to say the manned combat aircraft is becoming obsolete. I remember in the 1960s when folks were saying that air-to-air combat was obsolete but yet Mig-17s were knocking down F-4 over North Vietnam...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 8, 2006)

That I agree with also FBJ.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 8, 2006)

In certein high risk situations, we will see the UAV's performing this roll.

Maybe if the PRC has a Fighter fleet of 2000 aircraft, we would fight them with drones.


----------



## mosquitoman (Feb 8, 2006)

Nothing will ever beat the human mind when it comes to initiative and risk-taking but for dangerous ground attack I can see it's use


----------



## Twitch (Feb 8, 2006)

Fighters, fighters and bombers in 50 years will be Star Trek automated and smart. Think of artificial intelligence 50 years ago. It existed as the most rudimentary form of simply computing device. Now think 50 years from now. The advances in this type of field have and will continue to grow exponentially. It will expand as have aero design overall and as all electronic devices have.We have no choice since the country can't stomach casualties any more.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 8, 2006)

Twitch said:


> Fighters, fighters and bombers in 50 years will be Star Trek automated and smart. Think of artificial intelligence 50 years ago. It existed as the most rudimentary form of simply computing device. Now think 50 years from now. The advances in this type of field have and will continue to grow exponentially. It will expand as have aero design overall and as all electronic devices have.We have no choice since the country can't stomach casualties any more.



Its still wait and see - remember these casualities the contry can't stomach are from ground forces - although the Army has lost many in helicopters, there have been a limited number of aircraft destroyed between Gulf War 1 and today. I see it coming but I don't think its going to be as automated as we would like to think.....


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 8, 2006)

We are talking about the dangerous missions that can easily be done by drones. SAM suppresion? Use a drone. Attack a formation of tanks under an umbrella of SAMS and AAA? Use a drone. Go hunting for fighter jets? Use a drone.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 8, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> We are talking about the dangerous missions that can easily be done by drones. SAM suppresion? Use a drone. Attack a formation of tanks under an umbrella of SAMS and AAA? Use a drone. Go hunting for fighter jets? Use a drone.


 Easier said than done right now, although full size fighters like an F-4 have been droned, achieving the same combat capability as a manned fighter is still a generation away for a number of reasons. Do you know most computers used on combat aircraft today only have about a 286 capacity? Its only going to improve marginally in the next few years...

A man in the cockpit in some capacity over the battlefield will always be part of the scenerio, if for anything the human decision making process that a computer can not do....


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 8, 2006)

Im talking about a dozen years from now.

And dont think that just because a computer is just a '286, its not capable. No need to have a supercomputer doing the work that a plain old low speed controller can do just as effectively.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 9, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Im talking about a dozen years from now.
> 
> And dont think that just because a computer is just a '286, its not capable. No need to have a supercomputer doing the work that a plain old low speed controller can do just as effectively.




Me too...

No, its kept low because of software reliability, that's one of the current limitations for a fully autonomous UAV and the government is dictating this.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 9, 2006)

As long as the processor is not running Windoze!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 9, 2006)

evangilder said:


> As long as the processor is not running Windoze!



Yep! I remember one of my X-35 engineering friends telling me that even on that thing (and probably the F-35) it was going to be the same thing, but who knows, that may change....


----------



## Twitch (Feb 9, 2006)

In the most simple scenario the aircraft would fly on auto and have an interface capability, as UAVs and UCAVs do now, for human interface. When it gets to the target or it is intercepted or otherwise interfered with the human pilot could get hands-on. Imagine maneuvering with an enemy pilot in a craft that can pull 18 Gs against his 9 while you take a hit of Mountain Dew between maneuvers.

Evasion of SAMs and other missiles could use the machine's pro-active intelligence and use electronic countermeasures and a series of maneuvers, chaff and whatever is required in a very short span of time employing G forces far greater than a human could stand.

Sure this ain't gonna happen overnight but when you look at an F-100 from 1953 and the F-35 of today and the chasm is so wide in 53 years. From 1903 to 1953 was the span of the Wright flyer to the F-100! In 53 more what will it be?

Everything will not be robot but much more will be and the thing that pisses everybody off, the cost, will decrease. Most of the expense of aircraft revolves around the systems and safeguards to ensure survival of the human pilot onboard. 

Yeah it'll be a weird and sad day when UCAV # 61776v becomes and "ace" after downing 5 E/A over Lower Slobovia but at least there won't be a national hand wringing that accompanies the pondering of the unknown fates every time we have pilots captured in some rinky  conflict.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 9, 2006)

Its always good to bring up time span comparisons to the "non beleivers".

For those of us that are old enough to remember........... I remember when the 8086 processor was the neatest new fangled invention, and dial up modems were really pushing the envelope at 150 baud!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 9, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Its always good to bring up time span comparisons to the "non beleivers".
> 
> For those of us that are old enough to remember........... I remember when the 8086 processor was the neatest new fangled invention, and dial up modems were really pushing the envelope at 150 baud!



Non-believers? Yea, Like I said earlier, many thought air-to air combat was a thing of the past and any air-to-air combat would be accomplished by missiles only - that was 1966 - look where we are 40 years later, our newest fighters still have guns!!! 

Because we started getting our butts kicked in Vietnam because we relied too much on technology....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 9, 2006)

Twitch said:


> In the most simple scenario the aircraft would fly on auto and have an interface capability, as UAVs and UCAVs do now, for human interface. When it gets to the target or it is intercepted or otherwise interfered with the human pilot could get hands-on. Imagine maneuvering with an enemy pilot in a craft that can pull 18 Gs against his 9 while you take a hit of Mountain Dew between maneuvers.
> 
> Evasion of SAMs and other missiles could use the machine's pro-active intelligence and use electronic countermeasures and a series of maneuvers, chaff and whatever is required in a very short span of time employing G forces far greater than a human could stand.
> 
> ...


You paint a great science fiction scenio - while I believe its achievable around the corner, there's many variables and military doctrine to be considered before all this happens....

see this: http://www.nellis.af.mil/units/UAVB/initiatives.asp


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 9, 2006)

The technology exists right now to do it. Its a proven and indisuputable fact that unmanned aircraft can far exceed the gee tolerances of humans. Plus just designing in the cockpit into an aircraft add's lots of weight and doesnt add much to the aerodynamics. 

The one thing that will be the end of manned fighters and attack aircraft is the huge cost of building them and then training and keeping proficient the pilot.

I bet right now, we could equip a predator to carry a Phoenix missle, have it loiter far above the battlefield and just wait untill an enemy plane is sighted and "let her rip".

The Vietnam airwar ended 33 years ago. That technology is ancient. Just like comparing the aircraft of 1945 with that of the F16. In the next 33 years, we will be shaking our heads in amazement in what will be in avaiation.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 9, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The technology exists right now to do it. Its a proven and indisuputable fact that unmanned aircraft can far exceed the gee tolerances of humans. Plus just designing in the cockpit into an aircraft add's lots of weight and doesnt add much to the aerodynamics.


Agree


syscom3 said:


> The one thing that will be the end of manned fighters and attack aircraft is the huge cost of building them and then training and keeping proficient the pilot.


Agree to a point - that's why you're seeing less in numbers and more in technology


syscom3 said:


> I bet right now, we could equip a predator to carry a Phoenix missle, have it loiter far above the battlefield and just wait untill an enemy plane is sighted and "let her rip".


Possibly, but consider evasive actions by the opponent, countermeasures, etc. 


syscom3 said:


> The Vietnam airwar ended 33 years ago. That technology is ancient. Just like comparing the aircraft of 1945 with that of the F16. In the next 33 years, we will be shaking our heads in amazement in what will be in avaiation.


True but the lessons learned still apply today and are taught at places like the USAF War Colleges. We though the NVAF was hopelessly obsolete and through a combination of outdated technology (Mig-17s) and contemporary technology (SA-2s) we almost had out butts handed to us. The same will happen if we rely too much on autonomous technology. I support the induction of UAVs but having worked on (and flown) QM-107E drones and QF-4s I see the UAV as a supplement to the manned fighter.

UAVs are great but there has to be a real time human factor somewhere close to the battle field. If you notice there is a lot of emphasis of forward battlefield observation aircraft which are planned to fulfill this purpose, I believe its here the UAVs were eventually be controlled


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 9, 2006)

Thats where the unstoppable march of technology will redefine the aerial battlefield. I dont think you can honestly compare the simpleton drones of today with what they could do with high performance computers, software and communication of a couple of decades from now.

Manned aircaft will always be with us........... but the dangerous missions will be done by "smart" drones and UAV's


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 9, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Thats where the unstoppable march of technology will redefine the aerial battlefield. I dont think you can honestly compare the simpleton drones of today with what they could do with high performance computers, software and communication of a couple of decades from now.


Read about was was planned in 1976. We should be living on Mars right now....



syscom3 said:


> Manned aircaft will always be with us........... but the dangerous missions will be done by "smart" drones and UAV's


 Agree...


----------



## Twitch (Feb 10, 2006)

syscom3- exactly on the future money for all the reasons I mentioned! The future key element will not be whether ANY manned air vehicles exist but whether human pilots fly them in harm's way. They won't. The humans will be relegated to actual flying in non-combat areas while they manage UCAVs in hot zones. It doesn't mean that anyone will remove guns or modify the equipmental aspect of manned or unmanned aircraft. It doesn't entirely exclude that it could be possible for a manned aircraft to fly in a combat zone. It means that incidents of that will be almost non-existent.

Again the 2 main reasons I am convinced of are huge costs for manned air combat vehicles and the fact that we, as a nation, have lost the stomach to accept combat losses, no matter how insignificant relative to our population, as an extension of political will.

And instead of guns beam weapons will one day predominate. Yes, the USAF is commited to the technology now and is testing it. This not sci-fi any more than the B-2 is compared to a B-17. Time changes everything.

Here's what is going on NOW- beam weapon for the F-35
http://www.atsnn.com/story/36894.html


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 10, 2006)

While I agree whole heartily with this - my point here is there will always be a human element in this and agree the more dangerous missions will be accomplished by UAVs. There also needs to be a sanity check to ensure we're not pressing the technology button too hard, especially when combating the third world (re: my Vietnam example). 

Just so you know - beam weaponry was first proposed on the F-117,,,,


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 10, 2006)

Actually, UAV's are perfect for third world applications. 

Look at the success were having with the "Predator" loitering high over the battle field for hours and hours at a time.

Imagine a UAV a couple of decades from now orbiting far out of sight and unseen from the ground, loaded with "brilliant" PGM's that would be dropped as requested from troops on the ground or by a PFC sitting behind a console in a non descript building anywhere in the world.

Also imagine in the future where an enemies fighter force outnumbers the USAF/USN numbers, and a modified B52 carrying a few throw-away "dogfight/killer drones" that would be dropped by the bomber hundreds of miles away and they would automonously climb up to 100K feet and then dive on any enemy aircrfat in the air. The drones could easily be guided with multiple sensors and designed for extreme high gee maneuvers. 

Just as Billy Mitchell was far seeing about the role of air power in a "future war", so are the pioneers with UAV's.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 10, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> Actually, UAV's are perfect for third world applications.
> 
> Look at the success were having with the "Predator" loitering high over the battle field for hours and hours at a time.


It's done very well however if there were an inkling of any formidable AA or fighters available they'd be toast - we've been sending UAVs over China for years, every so often they knock down one. While better the UAV than a manned aircraft the point is in today's terms there is a vulnerability factor especially if you're gathering intelligence.




syscom3 said:


> Imagine a UAV a couple of decades from now orbiting far out of sight and unseen from the ground, loaded with "brilliant" PGM's that would be dropped as requested from troops on the ground or by a PFC sitting behind a console in a non descript building anywhere in the world.


Agree thats around the corner...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 10, 2006)

I believe that eventually we will go to a UAV force, however in such things such as the Air Assault and transport roles, manned aircraft will never be replaced, because the risk is to high, if something goes wrong.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 10, 2006)

That I agree with. I think the UAV's and killer drones will take out any AAA and SAM's before the troops are flown in.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 10, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> That I agree with. I think the UAV's and killer drones will take out any AAA and SAM's before the troops are flown in.


 The SAM mission would be the most advantageous - no more "Wild Weasel" missions required.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 10, 2006)

That I can completly agree with. Even though Wild Weasel is just plain sexy!!!!!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 11, 2006)

Here's a new report on this...

DoD Cuts Air Force Aircraft Fleet
InsideDefense.com NewsStand | Jason Sherman and Daniel G. Dupont | January 11, 2006

Editor's note: The original version of this story, published Jan. 9, erroneously reported that program budget decision No. 720 cuts a total of $16.4 billion from B-52, U-2, and F-117 accounts. The correct total is $2.6 billion. 

The reporting error was the result of misinterpreting the PBD's end-strength reductions as dollar amounts. InsideDefense.com regrets the error and has reprinted the story in full, with correct numbers, below. 

The Defense Department plans to accelerate retirement of key Air Force aircraft, including nearly half the B-52 bomber force and the full U-2 spy plane and F-117 stealth fighter fleets, in a bid to save $2.6 billion and boost spending for the services' prized F-22A fighter aircraft program. 

In a Dec. 20 internal budget document, Pentagon Comptroller Tina Jonas approved significant spending changes between fiscal years 2007 and 2011 that were proposed by the Air Force. The moves, which affect the service's procurement and personnel accounts, are designed to realign resources to produce a more lethal, agile and streamlined force, it states. 

The document, program budget decision 720, carries the imprimatur of the Defense Department leadership and reflects decisions made in the nearly complete Quadrennial Defense Review, according to these sources. 

The decisions, however, will require more than support from Pentagon officials; the Air Force will have to convince Congress, which has rejected recent Air Force proposals to retire major aircraft types early, according to defense analysts. 

“The Air Force is looking to get rid of what they call ‘tired iron,'” said Christopher Bolkcom, an aviation expert at the Congressional Research Service. “Congress in the past has not allowed them to retire airplanes.” 

Similar attempts in recent years -- including moves to stand down B-1B bombers, KC-135E aerial refueling aircraft, and the F-117 -- have met stiff resistance on Capitol Hill. But this time around, the Pentagon appears to be taking a new approach in proposing to retire three programs at once. 

“Now they're going for the whole enchilada,” Bolkcom said. “You can see that they seem to be launching a frontal assault.” 

Underscoring the difficulty that the Air Force may face in selling this plan to Congress, the fiscal year 2006 defense appropriations bill, signed Dec. 30 by President Bush, includes $9.4 billion to maintain the fleet of 52 F-117s. 

“The conferees believe it is premature to retire any F-117 aircraft at this time,” lawmakers wrote in the conference report accompanying the final spending bill. “The F-117 provides a unique capability to the combatant commanders and remains the only tactical stealth aircraft capable of delivering certain types of precision munitions.” 

The fiscal maneuvers detailed in the 14-page PBD would allow the Air Force to inject an additional $1 billion into its prized F-22A program, stretching production through fiscal year 2010 -- two years longer than previously planned -- and raising total acquisition numbers from 179 aircraft to 183. 

To that end, the PBD trims $3.3 billion from the F-22A program in fiscal years 2007 and 2008 and provides $4.4 billion in fiscal years 2009 and 2010. 

The Pentagon also plans to terminate the B-52 Stand-off Jammer System, an electronic attack capability, saving $1.1 billion across the five-year spending plan, according to the PBD. 

Cuts to the long-range B-52 bomber fleet would reduce the inventory from 94 aircraft to 56, a move that would not affect any international treaties, the document states. The Air Force is banking on saving of $680 million in its procurement accounts and reducing its B-52 personnel ranks by 3,924 airmen. 

The 33-plane fleet of high-altitude U-2 reconnaissance aircraft would be retired by 2011, according to the budget decision, in a move that garners $1 billion in savings from the procurement accounts and 3,309 fewer personnel to operate the fleet. United Press International first reported details of the U-2 cut last week. 

Cuts to the stealthy F-117A Nighthawk, which played a prominent role in the open salvos of the 1991 war with Iraq but has seen limited duty more recently, produced $1.1 billion in savings from the procurement accounts and reductions to the Air Force end strength of 5,180 billets. 

In addition to these decrements, the Air Force plans to slash its fleet of C-21 jets from 76 to 38 aircraft. C-21s are used to ferry Pentagon executives, cargo and execute medical missions. 

“There are some pretty sound operational reasons” for the Air Force's move to retire these aircraft early, said Rebecca Grant, vice president for defense at Defense Forecast International, a Washington-based consulting firm. “What you see is an attempt to get down to the right force structure that's more manageable and sustainable.” 
Sound Off...What do you think?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 11, 2006)

I really dont think they should mothball half the B-52 fleet. The world is too volatile right now and the Buff can hand it to them, if they mess up too bad.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 11, 2006)

Agree - they're really after the F-22....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 11, 2006)

Yeap too bad I guess.


----------



## Twitch (Feb 13, 2006)

I guess it really all comes down to how much do you have to spend when there is no major bad guy capable of designing and manufacturing large numbers of techno-fighers or bombers, spares, training and upkeep? The only folks that have the technical ability to construct anything that is top notch are our Allies. 

Looks like we'll see a lot of the same aging planes that used to be "hot" on opponent air forces for quite a while. I suppose if they figure our current and forseeable threats are known and containable so they figure why overkill? There is NO ONE including the USA who can afford 500 techno-fighters at $100 million each. 100 is enough...maybe 75...or....

Since I've been a kid I can hardly recall a production quantity that hasn't been slashed for one reason or another on any aircraft project. Like it's some big game between the military guys and government spending guys. Besides we gotta save money so we can pay all those congressional and senatorial pay and retirement benefits for our loyal pubic servents.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 13, 2006)

I think that the future air engagments will initially be handled by the drones. The manned planes will come in when its safer or the odd's are better.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 14, 2006)

No I do not see that happening for the next 25 to 50 years. It will be handeled the way it has been. Bombing the shit out of them, and taking out there radar sites, then the aircraft go in.

Cruise Missles all the way baby!


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 14, 2006)

That is the way I see it going as well. I also think that there will be a human element in drones for at least the next 50-100 years before the technology can fully handle the decisions that would have to be made in a combat situation.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 14, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No I do not see that happening for the next 25 to 50 years. It will be handeled the way it has been. Bombing the sh*t out of them, and taking out there radar sites, then the aircraft go in.
> 
> Cruise Missles all the way baby!


Agree!


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 14, 2006)

I should have mentioned that when I say "drones", I mean they are somewhat controlled by humans untill engagement time. Then once their sensors lock onto a target, the go to an autonomous state untill there weapons are used up.

Then they let the operator know and the decision is made to have them leave the battlefield and come home for more ammo, or to simply sstay in the fight and operate as a kamikazi.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 14, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I should have mentioned that when I say "drones", I mean they are somewhat controlled by humans untill engagement time. Then once their sensors lock onto a target, the go to an autonomous state untill there weapons are used up.
> 
> Then they let the operator know and the decision is made to have them leave the battlefield and come home for more ammo, or to simply sstay in the fight and operate as a kamikazi.


Good scenerio - Some other thoughts....

Today target drones are used about 15 times before they are destroyed with a "skin shot." Rather than using a brand new drone for a "kamikazi" I would suspect the operators may pick and choose (when possible) which UAVs are expendable first...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 14, 2006)

I agree syscom.


----------



## Tokaybyt_MDx (Feb 19, 2006)

As someone formerly living in the hometown of the F-117 here's the rumors I've been hearing from a now 1 hr SW while attending college at NMSU.

- Some F-117's being phased out for a squadron of F-22s
- German Air Force stationed at Holloman AFB returning back to Germany
- German Air Force staying and receiving EF-2000 Typhoon for Training
- moving of all active F-117s to another base and Holloman, along with Langley, being home to the F-22.

Again, this is all rumor and speculation from what I'm hearing from friends that I still talk to living 1 hr away from me at Holloman AFB. No more truth to it that what any of you have speculated at. Though I think it would be bad*** to not only see F-117s flying around here in NM but also F-22s and together. Two stealth planes, one a bomber, the other a dog-fighter in the same place. Throw in the German Tornados already flying here and that's just awesome!


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 19, 2006)

I thought the German Air Force needed Hollomon AFB as to have a large aerial training ground.

Besides the Canadian Cold Lake training ground, is their an equivelant NATO training range in Europe?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 19, 2006)

Welcome Toka!

you say you're 1 hour from Holloman - ever see the QF-4s fly there?


----------



## plan_D (Feb 19, 2006)

I cannot understand the U.S love of the Tornado. It is not a good plane!


----------



## Tokaybyt_MDx (Feb 19, 2006)

Thanks for the welcome...

To the best of my understanding the Germans are still going to be here for a while. And man has it been a while since I've seen any Cold Lake guys down here, let alone their F-18s. 

I have seen some of the QF-4s flying, as well as the German F-4s (I don't think they[Germans] fly 'em anymore at Holloman though).

Small background on me. My dad is retired AF though I don't talk to him (parents are divorced, long story!). We started out at Myrtle Beach AFB, moved to Dyess AFB when MB was closed, and in '95 my dad got orders to Holloman. When he came home to tell us of the orders and whether or not we wanted to stay at "Duh! yes" or move, we stated "Why aren't we in NM yet?" For those not getting that, Abilene, TX/ Dyess AFB is a HELL HOLE! I left Alamogordo in 2002 to finish my biology degree at NMSU main campus. I always liked planes and I'm one of the few on here that's an A-10 nut (how I found the site...googling A-10 photos). I wanted to become a pilot, but in 10th grade my vision went down the crapper to 20/50 20/75. I'm now 20/80 in both eyes with an astigmatism in my left eye and a cataract in my right eye (from my dad backhanding me when I was 6 y.o.) that thankfully isn't in my field of vision. Thus why I'm a biology major. LOL Even though I have Holloman AFB to my east and Briggs Army Air Field to the south and got to hear F-117s, F-16s, F-15s, German Tornados, German F-4s, various helos over the 7 years of living in Alamogordo I sure do MISS the whistle of those A-10 engines. I'm stuck having to drive 4-5 hours west to hear it unless I go to an air show here locally.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 19, 2006)

Well welcome Toka - read through the threads, get a feel for this site and join in...

I asked about the QF-4s cause I used to work on them, spent some time in Holloman..


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 19, 2006)

plan_D said:


> I cannot understand the U.S love of the Tornado. It is not a good plane!


We think its neat looking - same thing like an MG -


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 20, 2006)

Welcome Toka.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 20, 2006)

Welcome aboard, Toka. There are a lot of A-10 fans here.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 20, 2006)

plan_D said:


> I cannot understand the U.S love of the Tornado. It is not a good plane!



Yeah - but it does look damn good.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 20, 2006)

you cirtainly can't fault her looks.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 22, 2006)

The Germans will be at Holloman for a while. There simply is no area large eneogh to train there Fighter Pilots over here in Germany. They use Graffenwoer Training area but it is too small. It is even too small for my Helicopters to train in.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 22, 2006)

Yes I can. It has a big fat fuck off tail ... and it's a chunky mother fucker. Have you seen that thing snap roll? It's embarassing.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 22, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I thought the German Air Force needed Hollomon AFB as to have a large aerial training ground.
> 
> Besides the Canadian Cold Lake training ground, is their an equivelant NATO training range in Europe?


unless I've missed it Goose Bay is where the GAF does most of their NATO training its far more like the North european area and a far larger training area with around 50000 people in a area of aprox 300000 sq km


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 22, 2006)

plan_D said:


> Yes I can. It has a big fat fu*k off tail ... and it's a chunky mother fu*ker. Have you seen that thing snap roll? It's embarassing.



It looks good and you know it, I think you're a closet Tornadophile


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 2, 2006)

pbfoot said:


> syscom3 said:
> 
> 
> > I thought the German Air Force needed Hollomon AFB as to have a large aerial training ground.
> ...



Yes Goose Bay is used to for NATO Training but the German Airforce has a training squadron at Holloman Airforce Base and it has been used for years. It is a permanant squadron.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 27, 2006)

I agree will all FlyboyJ said about the F-35 and the X-32. However, the F-117 is NO fighter. It has NO air to air capability. It is subsonic. I have heard that it was call a "F" because funding was easier to get than an "A". I don't really know. It is a pretty basic aircraft with older avionics and no radar. I suspect Lockheed Martin would like to upgrade it. The F-35 will easily replace it in stealth and weapons. 

That Boeing plane was UGLY! Lockheed Martin engineers had a ball with jokes about that. One of the most telling comments I heard was to paint he X-35 and X-32 in Thunderbird and Blue Angel colors and the contest would be over. FlyboyJ forgot to say that the X-32 was going to have to be redesigned for the F-32 version with the addition of a horizontal stabilizer!! I can't believe they let them stay in the competition.

Also, for FlyboyJs info, the engineering guys at Ft. Worth was not exactly on a friendly basis with the Skunk Works. I suspect the feeling was mutual.

One on those listed aircraft will not be able to replace by the F-35 fully is the A-10. Fast fliers will just not be as effective as the get in your face and meet my 30 mm nose. I'm sure the grunts would agree. Iraq was an enlightenment to the supersonic jet jocks that run the AF. Still doesn't matter.

One last controversial comment. I think the Eurofighter will be made obsolete by the F-35 because of stealth.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 27, 2006)

I agree that the Eurofighter will be a step behind the F-22 and JSF, but compared to what else is out there it will still be a damn good aircraft.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 27, 2006)

I agree. It will be a major player for a long time as I believe the F-15 will continue to be a major player. The stealth players will take the high value targets and the Eurofighters et.al. will be taking care of the main forces.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 28, 2006)

> It is a pretty basic aircraft with older avionics and no radar



older avionics could be updated yes, but it doesn't have radar not as a design fault but becuase it can be tracked!



> The F-35 will easily replace it in stealth and weapons.



i don't know enough to say you're completely wrong but i do seriously doubt it, the F-117 has the RADAR cross section of a small bird, even the screws had to be specially designed and made for steath, and during peacetime operations she has to carry RADAR reflectors so she can be picked up, she is a real stealth aircraft, whereas the F-35 merely has stealth charactoristics, she has a smaller radar cross section than most fighters but she is far from invisible, especially if you start sticking external stores on her...........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 28, 2006)

I have friends that worked on the X-35 and are now F-35 program - the F-35 will be more stealthy than the F-117A.....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 28, 2006)

really? i wasn't sure hence why i didn't say he was wrong outwright........


----------



## davparlr (Mar 28, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I have friends that worked on the X-35 and are now F-35 program - the F-35 will be more stealthy than the F-117A.....



This is probably correct. It is at least equal. The F-117 was the first phase of stealth design which had some crude aerodynamic design limitations (slab side/screens over the inlet). It is a testimony to the design team that the plane performed as well as it did. The next phase started with the Northrop Tacit Blue aircraft now in AF museum. It pioneered blended body low RCS and aerodynamically efficient inlets which were also incorporated into the B-2. This technology flowed into the F-22 and F-35.

I doubt very seriously that there are any hard points on the F-117 wings.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> really? i wasn't sure hence why i didn't say he was wrong outwright........



 covering your bases.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 28, 2006)

> I doubt very seriously that there are any hard points on the F-117 wings



there wasn't i was talking about the F-35.........


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 28, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> covering your bases.



well it wouldn't do to be wrong now would it


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 28, 2006)

davparlr said:


> This is probably correct. It is at least equal. The F-117 was the first phase of stealth design which had some crude aerodynamic design limitations (slab side/screens over the inlet). It is a testimony to the design team that the plane performed as well as it did. The next phase started with the Northrop Tacit Blue aircraft now in AF museum. It pioneered blended body low RCS and aerodynamically efficient inlets which were also incorporated into the B-2. This technology flowed into the F-22 and F-35.
> 
> I doubt very seriously that there are any hard points on the F-117 wings.



Actually Lockheed was well aware of blended body and low RCS technology, they incorporated it in the SR-71, they went with the "Radar Deflecting" for ease of manufacture - The F-22 was on the drawing board in the mid-late 80s (I worked on the YF-22A).......


----------



## davparlr (Mar 28, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No I do not see that happening for the next 25 to 50 years. It will be handeled the way it has been. Bombing the shit out of them, and taking out there radar sites, then the aircraft go in.
> 
> Cruise Missles all the way baby!



Technical capability to replace fighters on Combat Air Patrol with UCAVs will probably exist in 10 to 15 years. Resistance by pilots, who run the AF and Navy, will be intensive (they are already fighting UCAVs) and will delay until your window. Politicians, however, will push for it because captured troops are too much of a drag on overall war effort. And the expense and risk of tring to recover downed airman is high. The overall military push will be to get the troops away from the battlefield. It will be an historical military revolution which we will probably have the priviledge to witness.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 28, 2006)

davparlr said:


> Technical capability to replace fighters on Combat Air Patrol with UCAVs will probably exist in 10 to 15 years. Resistance by pilots, who run the AF and Navy, will be intensive (they are already fighting UCAVs) and will delay until your window. Politicians, however, will push for it because captured troops are too much of a drag on overall war effort. And the expense and risk of tring to recover downed airman is high. The overall military push will be to get the troops away from the battlefield. It will be an historical military revolution which we will probably have the priviledge to witness.



They have allready started that, when I was in Iraq they were allready using UAV's with missles. I do not see this becoming the norm though for another 15 to 20 years though.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 30, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Actually Lockheed was well aware of blended body and low RCS technology, they incorporated it in the SR-71, they went with the "Radar Deflecting" for ease of manufacture - The F-22 was on the drawing board in the mid-late 80s (I worked on the YF-22A).......



The SR-71 was indeed a Low RCS blended design probably by intelligent engineers with good understanding of aerodynamics and radar reflection but few computer tools (1950s!). But it is my understanding that the computer technology and software capable of predicting radar reflections of curved surfaces did not exist until the after the F-117 was designed. I would be surprised that the F-117 slanted in the direction of manufacturing ease vs. RCS. As far as I know (some programs may still be classified) the Tacit Blue was the first DARPA program specifically designed for low RCS that used blended components. All of this was on government money. It would foolish to believe that the flow of information did not flow from F-117 to Tacit Blue to B-2 to YF-22/23 to JSF with the majority of data and tools being generated on the B-2 (in the early 80s) where billions of dollars was spent on technology. While the Lockheed B-2 competitor is still classified, I have heard it looked like an overgrown F-117.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 30, 2006)

davparlr said:


> The SR-71 was indeed a Low RCS blended design probably by intelligent engineers with good understanding of aerodynamics and radar reflection but few computer tools (1950s!). But it is my understanding that the computer technology and software capable of predicting radar reflections of curved surfaces did not exist until the after the F-117 was designed. I would be surprised that the F-117 slanted in the direction of manufacturing ease vs. RCS.


It did - I was on the program.....
There were design engineers I knew who stated at the time they could build a better product, many were told to "save it for the ATF and other programs."


davparlr said:


> As far as I know (some programs may still be classified) the Tacit Blue was the first DARPA program specifically designed for low RCS that used blended components. All of this was on government money. It would foolish to believe that the flow of information did not flow from F-117 to Tacit Blue to B-2 to YF-22/23 to JSF with the majority of data and tools being generated on the B-2 (in the early 80s) where billions of dollars was spent on technology. While the Lockheed B-2 competitor is still classified, I have heard it looked like an overgrown F-117.


 I believe little data was shared with Northrop - remember Have Blue was developed privately by Lockheed. Northrop's R&D expense was rolled into the cost of the finished product (The B-2) and that's one of the reasons the thing costs so much...

It was the Lockheed "ATB" was an oversized F-117, flatter and with a way longer wingspan. At that time Lockheed was partnered with Rockwell. I understand a mock up was completed before Northrop was awarded the program....


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 30, 2006)

I think Northrup also saw some low observability benifits in their B35/B49 flying wing designs.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 30, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> I think Northrup also saw some low observability benifits in their B35/B49 flying wing designs.


 That was know from the getgo - they also knew that wood and fabric aircraft were harder to detect on radar...


----------



## davparlr (Mar 31, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> It did - I was on the program.....
> There were design engineers I knew who stated at the time they could build a better product, many were told to "save it for the ATF and other programs."
> I believe little data was shared with Northrop - remember Have Blue was developed privately by Lockheed. Northrop's R&D expense was rolled into the cost of the finished product (The B-2) and that's one of the reasons the thing costs so much...
> 
> It was the Lockheed "ATB" was an oversized F-117, flatter and with a way longer wingspan. At that time Lockheed was partnered with Rockwell. I understand a mock up was completed before Northrop was awarded the program....



I was working at Northrop on Tacit Blue when this all took place. This is the story I heard. During one of our reviews with the AF on Tacit Blue, we, not knowing that the AF was pursuing a strategic bomber, made an unsolicited presentation on a long range bomber. After that, the AF wanted to know more and more. Finally they said that they had a sole source bomber work in progress and wanted us to bid to keep the competition although they we had a very small chance of winning the contract. I was then transfered to the B-2 team. There were more VPs around than workers! Anyway as the proposal work went on, we began to think the AF was more and more interested. By the time we got the contract, it didn't seem to be surprising. The rumors we heard, and some debriefings, was that the identified competition, Lockheed, seemed to have missed the AFs desires. The was a big plane, much bigger than Lockheeds with larger payload and range. This seems to have been what the AF was looking for. In addition, the AF perfer ed our avionics suite (my area, yeah!). I had no insight into RCS performance comparisons which would probably still be classified. I continued on the B-2 as avionics controls and displays manager. I worked on the B-2 almost to my retirement. I was with the plane from proposal till bombs falling on the enemy. Not too many people can say that now days. It was a great honor to have worked on the most technologically advanced aircraft in its day. And very rewarding to hear the debrief by the pilots of its exceptional performance over Kosovo.

As for cost. Many things weighed in to make it expensive. The largest single thing was the AFs insistence on changing the B-2 from a high flyer to a low flyer. The two concepts do not have a natural compatibility. Strengthening the B-2 to endure a high "q" cost a billion bucks, lots of max altitude, and lots of bomb load/range (due to increase structural work), all the things the AF would like to have back. Nuclear hardness, EMI limits, vibration endurance (due to the low altitude flight), were other requirements which made almost every part specially designed for the B-2. Almost no government furnished equipment. Mix in typical missmanagement and government meddling and then reduce the buy from 132 to 21 and you had a huge cost. Of note, if the original buy of B-2 would have remained, the proportional cost to the economy of the US would have been less than the B-52 buy. Of course, the soviet threat to the US did not warrant such numbers. We had a difficult time justifying more than 40 just because of the target per sortie capability of the plane. However, 21 is too small, not because it is ineffective, with the new weapons becoming available, hundreds of targets per airplane can be individually hit, but because the B-2 fleet has no attrition tolerance. If two planes taxi into each other, 10% of the fleet would be unavailable.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 31, 2006)

WOW Great Info!!! Did you ever work up in Palmdale? I worked for Boeing on the project and worked AV3 - 7. This was the summer and fall of 1990. We used to call either 4 or 5 "Christine" after the movie - I lay claim for that name as it was the same name as my -ex at the time!

I always "heard" about the ATB "mock-up" and a "friend" mistakenly saw it. "My friend" was told that Lockheed engineering brass wanted some thing quick and simple (kind of the skunk works way of thinking) and it almost seems that many thought just because we had the -117 that we were going to build "the big bomber." Around 1983 or 1984 (I can't remember) there was a spell with a lot of unhappy people in the skunk works and even some lay-offs as "something happened - it all makes sense!!!

What I always laughed about was the Skunk Works producing something in quantity - I remember when there were masses of people working in Burbank on the "secret program." It was exciting times, 25 years go so quickly!!!

If you were ever in Palmdale we might of crossed paths, who knows!!!

Yea "my friend" also can't believe how time flys!!


----------



## davparlr (Mar 31, 2006)

I spent a couple of full time tours in Palmdale, both six months long. In 1990 I may have still been in Pico working the Multistage Improvement Program. Also, in 91 or so I started working half time on the JSF proposal for Lockheed. Up there I continued to work in flight avionics (not flight controls).

The program was a dream for an aerospace engineer, but oh the stress at first flight! Its a lot of fun coming up with ideas, a whole new world when it comes to making those ideas work.

What did you do at Palmdale


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 31, 2006)

davparlr said:


> I spent a couple of full time tours in Palmdale, both six months long. In 1990 I may have still been in Pico working the Multistage Improvement Program. Also, in 91 or so I started working half time on the JSF proposal for Lockheed. Up there I continued to work in flight avionics (not flight controls).
> 
> The program was a dream for an aerospace engineer, but oh the stress at first flight! Its a lot of fun coming up with ideas, a whole new world when it comes to making those ideas work.
> 
> What did you do at Palmdale



When I worked for Boeing I was an inspector. By trade I was a QE....

I knew a few pico guys, one of them went to lockeed on the JSF - Terry Dagy, Ron Naylor - ring any bells?


----------



## davparlr (Apr 1, 2006)

I didn't get too involved in the manufacturing end. The names don't sound familar but I forget easy.

One other B-2 story you may have heard. After the contract was let, the AF cleared Jack Northrop one day to see the program. He said "Now I know why God has kept me alive." He was crushed when the AF destroyed the YB-49 and never again ran the company. I saw him that day from afar. He was in a wheel chair.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Apr 1, 2006)

davparlr said:


> I didn't get too involved in the manufacturing end. The names don't sound familar but I forget easy.
> 
> One other B-2 story you may have heard. After the contract was let, the AF cleared Jack Northrop one day to see the program. He said "Now I know why God has kept me alive." He was crushed when the AF destroyed the YB-49 and never again ran the company. I saw him that day from afar. He was in a wheel chair.


 I heard that they showed him a model of the B-2 and he wept...


----------

