Wednesday, December 14, 2011
F-22...want to save it? Here's how!
![]() |
| Last F-22 off the assembly line..via Lockheed Martin |
But to those that do think that its worthwhile, I have a two birds with one stone solution...a solution that surprises because no one has mentioned it in a long time.
Why not build the FB-22 for the next gen bomber? That would get the airplane into USAF service rather quickly...would maintain aspects of F-22 production and with the distances involved in the Pacific could easily form the basis for the next generation fighter.
Boeing would howl but hey...who cares?
UPDATE:
This is the Wikipedia entry on the FB-22...
In 2002, Lockheed Martin began studying a modified bomber version of the F-22 Raptor fighter, featuring a delta wing, longer body and greater range and payload.[1] The FB-22 medium bomber is based on existing and planned capabilities of the F-22 fighter, a heritage that would limit development costs and risks should the idea go into production. The FB-22 was planned to serve as a regional bomber, a role previously covered by the General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark.[2]I can tell you one thing. Extended development times is the killing our military.
The FB-22 differs from the original F-22 design significantly. A lengthened fuselage and larger delta wing provide greater fuel capacity for greater range of some 1,600 miles (2,600 km).[2] This also allows room for a larger internal weapons bay, better suiting long range attack missions and improved stealth.[3] Changing to an improved engine such as the F-35 Lightning II's Pratt & Whitney F135, or the General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 is possible.[4] The FB-22 would have a maximum speed of Mach 1.92.[5]
One early FB-22 concept featured no tailplanes.[5] The FB-22 design incorporated twin tailplanes and likely would have fixed engine nozzles as opposed to the thrust vectoring nozzles on the F-22.[5] The FB-22 design could carry 30 Small Diameter Bombs (SDB), which weigh just 250 pounds (110 kg), compared with the F-22's payload of eight.[1]
10 years and we have an aborted EFV? FCS was in development for a similar amount of time before it was taken down to the river and drowned. Same with Crusader...same with F-22...F-35...you get the point.
The only programs that are getting it done and out the door is the much maligned LCS, AH-1Z/UH-1Y (and the original design proposal for the AH-1Z first appeared in the 90's in the form of the Super Viper) and even the promising and much needed CH-53K is being delayed--even though they're ready to start churning them out....
To start from scratch for a next gen bomber when the proposed FB-22 fills the bill is beyond stupid. Setup the specs, get it done and get it into squadron service. That is if we really need it. And listening to all the airpower guys we really do.
UPDATE 1:
Paulicus found this study on the FB-22. Seems that at one time the USAF was beyond gung-ho about the idea. A light quick read so enjoy.
RS21848
The Russians just got 6 more of the most deadly planes in their arsenal...
via Defense Talk...
The SU-27 and its clones might get all the press but the SU-34 is the real heavy hitter of the bunch. Fast. Big. Massive payload. Crazy range.
If you're onboard an LHD, LPD or LSD sailing into harms way you better hope the guys on the destroyers are up to speed on anti-air...and whatever plane you're talking about...whether F-35 or F-18, you won't have the range to hit them before they can launch their missiles.
The SU-34. The most underrated airplane in the Russian arsenal. When the Chinese start buying these then you know they're serious about making a push in the Pacific.
Today, four serial Su-34 frontline bombers went up in the sky from the runway airport of the Novosibirsk Aircraft Production Association (NAPO) and off to the place of their deployment at the air base in Voronezh. Two more aircraft will arrive there in the next few days. The aircraft delivery is carried out in the framework of the five-year state contract signed in 2008 to supply 32 Su-34 frontline bombers to the Russian Defense Ministry.Read the whole thing but from my view point (Navy and Marines) the deadliest airplane the Russians currently possess is the SU-34.
The SU-27 and its clones might get all the press but the SU-34 is the real heavy hitter of the bunch. Fast. Big. Massive payload. Crazy range.
If you're onboard an LHD, LPD or LSD sailing into harms way you better hope the guys on the destroyers are up to speed on anti-air...and whatever plane you're talking about...whether F-35 or F-18, you won't have the range to hit them before they can launch their missiles.
The SU-34. The most underrated airplane in the Russian arsenal. When the Chinese start buying these then you know they're serious about making a push in the Pacific.
Exercise Kilat Eagle
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
I am not a Sheep Dog.
via Vuurwapen Blog...
I wasn't carrying a gun to stop a school shooter and become some sort of hero. I was carrying a gun to preserve my own life. Just as I always carried a loaded Beretta 9 mm tucked inside my uniform when with Iraqi policemen inside their "station," I didn't trust that anyone else would be looking out for me first. It's not that I didn't think that the University of Arizona Police Department wouldn't do their very best to stop any potential shooting as soon as possible. I simply knew all too well how quickly such situations could play out, and how help nearby could be no help at all.Read the whole thing. It should open up many eyes to the dangers of stumbling into situation where you don't have all the information.
My carry philosophy has not changed much since that first day. My parents taught me to be responsible for myself. Scouting taught me to be prepared. Combat taught me to be aware.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Marine air interdiction force supports Afghan Border Patrol from above
Australia picks its JLTV...
Jonathan (thanks again!) sent me this article that shows the silliness of US ground vehicle procurement programs. The Aussies have gotten their JLTV pick selected and we're still wandering around dazed and confused. Good for them, pathetic for us. Read it here but a tidbit...
Australia aims to buy up to 1,300 of the high-mobility Hawkei, to be built in Bendigo where Thales Australia also produces the larger Bushmaster infantry vehicle, used by Australian, British and Dutch troops in Afghanistan.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Pic of the day.
Silencers in use by Designated Marksmen
Just noticed in these pics that I posted earlier that either an assigned Sniper or a unit Designated Marksman is using a silencer on his weapon.
Absolutely awesome.
I do wonder what happened to the initiative that was to see silencers become widely used by all Infantry Marines though. It would make sense and its something that we can get done today.
Is the US Army relevant in the near term?
National Defense Blog has a titillating article on the relevance of the US Army in the near term and a interesting view of the Air-Sea Battle concept in general. Definitely worth the read. Check it out here but a tidbit.
Another topic of discussion was how the Army would maintain its presence in strategic areas of the world, such as Asia, when it will have fewer foreign bases and most of its forces will be stateside.A few points just jump out at me.
This concern harkens back to the late 1990s, when the Army feared for its relevance as its forces were deemed to slow and heavy to deploy to urgent crises. For a U.S.-based force, the ability to rapidly move troops is “going to be a problem for the Army,” said Steven Metz, a strategist at the Army War College.
Another theme that emerged from the seminar is the notion that, barring a major war, the Army might not be needed, or even wanted, in many parts the world. In Africa, for instance, foreign allies typically need help building roads, hospitals or assistance in humanitarian relief, but they do not always welcome U.S. military presence. “How to you work with someone who needs you but doesn't want you?” asked Lt. Col. Thomas Talley, an advisor at U.S. Africa Command.
First we're back to transformation. God help us we're back to Rumsfield's transformation. Air-Sea Battle smacks of it.
Second, we have a US Army that's still too damn heavy! The JLTV that's being pushed on the Marine Corps is the most obvious example of it. The double hulled Stryker is another example. Lastly the biggest villain is the Ground Combat Vehicle. US Army procurement today is killing it for tomorrow.
Lastly the US Army is extremely relevant, just not in the way that it wants. Its relevance is in its Soldiers. They need to make a strong move back to its old format of a couple of Divisions of Light Infantry. Change the 25th back to Light Fighters. Make the 1st ID Light Fighters. You get the idea. Heck even consider an additional Air Assault Division but understand that a heavily mechanized force with little balance is not the way forward...especially if you're going to have to fight world wide....not just the desert but in the jungles and mountains too.
UPDATE!
B. Smitty hit on something and it got me to thinking. The warfare in Afghanistan for the past decade has sowed the seeds of success for the US Army. How? By forcing them to operate as essentially motorized infantry. Stryker brigades deploy without their Strykers and operate out of MRAPs. And just like with HUMVEEs or more specifically with the failed 9th ID motorized experiment, when your infantry just uses the vehicle as transports and are less wedded to them then they have a chance of maintaining infantry proficiency. If the Army is to be mechanized then lets adjust and have a portion motorized instead.
The Role of the US Marine Corps...
The Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., spoke to the Center for Strategic and International Studies Dec. 7. ...via USMC
The Role of the Marine CorpsSo in short, what is the Marine Corps mission or rather role in the defense establishment?
Dunford explained that the WWII draw down was crafted by the day’s best strategists, and they got it wrong. Their predictions about the future were wrong. And historically, we don’t have a good track record of making accurate predictions about what the future holds. The one thing we can safely say is that the future security environment is complex, dynamic and most importantly, uncertain.
This is why the mission of the Marine Corps as it was crafted in the early 1950’s by the 82nd Congress makes sense. In 1951 and 1952, Congress held hearings about what had happened in early days of the Korean War. They were horrified that we as a nation had sent men into harm’s way so unprepared. After hearing from witnesses and influenced by the actions of Marines on the Korean Peninsula, they determined that the nation needed a crisis response force and that that force should be the United States Marine Corps.
A little more than a year ago, then Secretary of Defense Gates challenged the Marine Corps to define its unique role in a post-Operation Enduring Freedom world. The Marine Corps convened a group of senior leaders called the Force Structure Review Group. That group looked at what the Marines’ mission was as described by the 82nd Congress, they looked at what the Marines had done in the recent past (to include 130 amphibious operations since 1990), and assumptions about the future security environment. They concluded that the mission of the Marine Corps was unchanged and that America still need a crisis response force in readiness, a force that could deter potential adversaries, demonstrate commitment, buy time for decision makers, respond to crises and enable joint/interagency operations.
To be most ready when the nation is least ready.
To provide a full spectrum force that is capable of arriving at far off shores and win.
The nation needs the Marines to be the Marines.
Subscribe to:
Comments
(
Atom
)





























