Doesn't the USAF have bombers and standoff weaponry specifically for that reason, to attack ground targets from far away without endangering aircrew?
Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.
Absolutely. The USAF has a plethora of platforms that are capable of standoff strike, especially when combined with munitions like the JASSM which is a low observable cruise missile. I think that the general consensus was that adding JDAM and SDB to the F-22 was an attempt to save it from the budget battles that eventually killed it. The logic was something along the lines of, "Being able to drop bombs will make the F-22 relevant in todays conflicts."Originally Posted by bigross86
That kinda goes along with the effort a few years ago to have the F-22 labelled the "F/B-22" to make it more appealing to Congress, like you're getting two airplanes for the price of one. Essentially, you are, but you don't need to call it an "F/B".
"Yeah. See, we plan ahead, that way we don't do anything right now. Earl explained it to me." - Tremors, 1990
Boeing actually had a few designs for an FB-22, usually with huge wings that stretched to the back of the jet, replacing the horizontal stabilizers.
Yeah, the FB-22 idea was iced some time back. Lockmart is probably still dinking with it.
Boeing proposed an updated version of B-1B, and an unmanned bomber built in partnership with Northrup was tossed around for a while.
All of them have been scrapped in favor of the "Prompt Global Strike" nonsense of putting conventional warheads on ICBM's.
The silliness continues....
Kinda sounds like the F-117B proposal from the '90's.
"Yeah. See, we plan ahead, that way we don't do anything right now. Earl explained it to me." - Tremors, 1990
That sounds insanely dumb. How are Russia, China, India etc supposed to know that its a conventional warhead rather then thermonuclear?
Presumably we will tell them and they will say "okay then, go about your business..."
They don't, and that's why it's such a dumb idea; are they supposed to wait until it impacts their territory to see if it's a nuke or conventional? Or will they LOW and start WWIII?
"Yeah. See, we plan ahead, that way we don't do anything right now. Earl explained it to me." - Tremors, 1990
Point of impact can be predicted with high accuracy very soon after start. Also, does any other country besides Russia have an early warning system monitoring USA?
But the risk is still higher then without such weapon. Btw, any conventional ICBM still counts as nuclear in START-3 and limits the amount of nuclear weapons available.
Never fight a land war in Asia.
Maybe we turn everything in to a bomb truck to keep the pilots from dying of boredom due to their being nothing to shoot at by the 3rd day of any conflict...
USS North Dakota
Launch on Warning is a myth. There is no such thing. All N5 powers have at least a launch on impact orders and in the case of China, a launch after eval. Everybody else has a launch what I can find afterwards.
The reason being is that mistakes are all too frequent. Training exercises taken for the real thing. Satellite launches mistaken for nuclear launch. In one case during a mistaken launch, then President Carter would have had 2 minutes to decide before the 1st supposed nuke landed. The fact that the US waited for the 1st impact averted an accidental nuclear war.
Chimo
My understanding is that the USAF has decided that the F-22 is the best aircraft to attack an IADS on the first day of a war because it is steathier (IR and RF), flies higher, and flies faster than an F-35. Each of these things mean that the reaction time for the enemy to respond to an F-22 (from the air or the ground) will be less than that of an F-35 or B-2. Once a few F-22's punch a hole, F-35s can make short work of the rest. This (and additional funding) was probably the driving factor behind a ground attack capability, IMO.
Factsheets : F-22 Raptor
"The combination of reduced observability and supercruise accentuates the advantage of surprise in a tactical environment."
F-22 Raptor Team Web Site: Technology
"The combination of reduced observability and supercruise drastically shrinks surface-to-air engagement envelopes and minimizes threat capability to engage and shoot the F-22."
No One Kicks A$! Without Tanker Gas
That seems like quite a gamble for a few reasons. Will you be able to deploy enough F-22A’s to deal with the air thread and also take out the major IADS components? Highly doubtful given that there are only 120 combat capable F-22A’s and that some will likely remain stateside. Your also given the first day of war bombing mission to the platform that has the least accurate bombs in the entire USAF. The F-22A can only deploy GPS guided weapons. I’m not saying that these would not be sufficient for the job, just perhaps not ideal. Lastly, I said when the F-22A supposedly took over the mission of the F-117A Nighthawk that it would never be able to replace its capabilities. This is not due to the capability of the aircraft, but training. The F-117A was a single mission plane, and trained as such. How much training do F-22A squadrons dedicate to air-to-ground mission in general, never mind this specific tasking.
It seems to me that the USAF is really in a pickle. They should have opted for a balls to the wall F-22A design that retains its current impressive air-to-air capabilities while incorporating some of the new technologies that will make the F-35 a superb strike platform. Then filled out the fleet with brand new F-15/16/18’s. Of course this would probably have left the USN, USMC, and allies up the creek because it’s doubtful that the F-35 could survive without its largest customer. I do understand the USAF’s desire to only procure 5th generation aircraft, their eyes are on the future and it may turn out for the best. The fast jet force of the entire US military is in a real bind right now though, although I would stop far short of saying they couldn’t get the job done in spite of the current problems.
Boomer, respectfully, I have to disagree with some of your points. Please note that I am no expert in these things so if I am misinformed please let me know!
First, I would agree that this would be a gamble if we were talking about F-22s taking out an entire IADS and performing Air Superiority. This is not the case. I am talking about a small number of F-22's flying as tip of the spear for a much larger strike package. I see no reason this would require vast numbers of F-22s.
Second, the F-22 will carry the SDB Increment I. This is hardly the "least accurate weapon in the entire USAF (the USAF does still use dumb bombs after all). While laser guided bombs are more accurate than their GPS-guided counterparts, the SBD is far from inaccurate or ineffective (and has much greater range).
Third, while I agree 100% with your point that the F-117 has the training edge in ground attack, I do not think the F-117 can be considered a more effective asset overall in attacking an IADS. The F-117 would go into an IADS subsonically, at 40,000 feet, no self-escort ability, unable to identify targets in realtime, with all communications off. In contrast, the F-22, by block 35, will fly into the teeth of an IADS at Mach 1.7+, 50,000+ feet, smaller RCS, can provide self escort in and out, can use its AESA to paint very detailed SAR maps to find mobile targets realtime, and can use MADL or IFDL to coordinate with other assets without giving away its position (correct me if I am miss informed on any of this). The F-22 will have 8 SDBs versus the F-117s 2 laser guided bombs. This seems like vast and increase in capability to me.
This is how I see it going down (assume block 35 raptors)... Three 4-ship formations of F-22s are tasked to lead a much larger strike package by taking out 2 SAM sites and a Command and Control bunker. This should be enough to punch a small hole for F-35s and B-2s. Each of the 12 Raptors carries 4 SBDs, 2 AIM-120s, and 2 AIM-9s. This is a total of 48 SBDs, 24 AMRAAMs, and 24 Sidewinders. The Raptors use AN/APG-77 to paint SAR maps and find the mobile SAM sites. On the way in, they encounter fighter resistant but are able to handle this (greater altitude, more energy, stealth, combined 48 A2A missiles, better SA). After the fighters are gone, The F-22s launch a volley of SDBs from 50,000 feet and Mach 1.7 at the SAM sites and C&C bunker. With the targets destroyed, a very large number of F-35s and a couple B-2s fly through the "hole" in the enemy's front line and take out other targets. If F-22s have more missiles, they can stick around and help defend the strike package. Otherwise, they can egress and let the F-35s prove that they can hold their own in A2A. This required only 12 F-22s. Even if that number was doubled to 24, I don't see that as unreasonable in a high-profile conflict. The second batch of 12 F-22s could be in full A2A loadout and defend the entire strike package. The loadout of F-22s in the three 4-ships could be changed to any other combo of SBD, AIM-120, AIM-9s.
This seems like a great capability for the American warfighter. Am I way off base here?
No One Kicks A$! Without Tanker Gas
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: