Monday, July 15, 2013
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Friday, February 8, 2013
.jpg)
.jpg)
Monday, January 28, 2013
.jpg)
.jpg)
Sunday, March 11, 2012
LET'S TALK FIGHTERS (by Riq Baldwin)
Due to the fiscal realities presented by the current administration, the United States Air Force (USAF) and her sister services have to make some tough decisions.
The USAF would like to trim some infrastructure, personnel and less-critical future agenda and weapon systems in order to preserve some essential programs that would retain her current capabilities (albeit on a smaller scale) as a successful war-fighting partner with her sea-, and ground-focused sister services. Included in these “essential programs” is continued production of the F-35 Lightning II fighter and life extension of the current F-16 Falcon fighter. So, let’s talk “fighters”...
A “Fighter,” simply put, is the term used for any aircraft that is designed to engage another aircraft in flight. If your side is going to attain air superiority over a combat environment, then you have to have a way of keeping enemy aircraft out. If enemy aircraft show up in the combat zone, it is USAF, USN, and USMC fighters that have to knock them down.
Following the Viet Nam conflict, the United States has always established dominance of the airspace over a battle environment before sending in the ground troops. As Republican Guard and Taliban fighting personnel can attest, it is difficult to operate when you always have to worry about being rained on by high-explosive weaponry. So the first order of business for any conflict is to send in the bomber, ground attack, and fighter aircraft to destroy enemy lines of communications, air defenses, airfields and aircraft so our ground-pounding brethren need concern themselves primarily with the fight in front of them, and not from above.
Clearing the airspace of enemy activity also assures air support of our ground forces, which (in part) is supplied by the same fighters that cleared the airspace to begin with. Today the Air Force has cold-war era 4th generation and more modern 5th generation jet fighters at their disposal, while the Navy and Marines have only generation 4 and 4.5 equipment. This has to change in the near future as China, Russia and India are developing their own 5th generation fighters. All right, let’s have a talk about this “generation” stuff as it applies to fighters…
The first generation of jet fighters comprised the initial subsonic jet fighter designs introduced late in World War II and in the early post-war period. The Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star, F-84 Thunderjet, and F-86 Sabre are USAF examples of our 1st generation jet fighter fleet. Guns remained the principal armament of these aircraft that operated during the Korean War and early on in the Viet Nam conflict until they could replaced by 2nd and 3rd generation aircraft.
Aircraft designers developed second-generation fighters leveraging technological breakthroughs and focusing on conducting operations in a nuclear warfare environment. Widespread use of afterburning turbojet engines allowed these aircraft to be the first to break the sound barrier and sustain supersonic speeds in level flight. Prime examples of second generation Air Force fighters are the F-100 Super Sabre, F-104 Starfighter, F-105 Thunderchief, and F-106 Delta Dart. Dogfighting maneuverability was traded for pure speed to intercept incoming aircraft and get weapons from point A to point B in a hurry.
Third-generation fighter innovations were marked by renewed emphases on maneuverability and traditional ground-attack capabilities. Enhancements to improve aerodynamic performance of these aircraft included canards, powered slats and blown flaps. The F-4 Phantom II (built initially for the Navy and also used extensively by the Air Force), F-5 Freedom Fighter, A-7 Corsair II, and the F-111Aardvark are classic examples of 3rd-generation fighters.
Fourth-generation fighter designs were significantly influenced by Energy-Maneuverability. This approach emphasized aircraft designs that were capable of performing quick changes in speed, altitude and direction. Other innovative technologies included head-up displays, multi-function displays and the ability to select weapons, navigation and displays while keeping hands on the throttle and stick. Bonded aluminum honeycomb structural elements and graphite epoxy laminate skins began to be incorporated into flight control surfaces and airframe skins to reduce weight. Aerodynamic innovations included variable-camber wings and exploitation of the vortex lift effect to achieve higher angles of attack through the addition of strakes (leading-edge extension devices).
The high cost of production led to the adoption of the "high/low mix" procurement concept which proposed a high-capability and high-cost core of dedicated air-superiority fighters (like the Air Force F-15 Eagle and Navy F-14 Tomcat) to be supplemented by a larger contingent of lower-cost, multi-role fighters like the Air Force F-16 Falcon and the Navy/Marine F/A-18 Hornet. The Air Force also sported a pure attack fourth-generation aircraft in the A-10 Thunderbolt II. These aircraft have been the mainstay of our fighter force since the late 1970s.
Occasionally, you will hear about a 4.5, or half-generation aircraft. These are primarily 4th generation airframes that have been improved with advanced digital avionics, highly integrated systems/weapons, and modern aerospace materials. In the U.S., "half-generation" advances allowed production of the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet from the 1970s F/A-18 Hornet design. The same advances enabled the F-15E Strike Eagle, a ground-attack/multi-role variant of the venerable F-15 Eagle.
The fifth generation of jet fighters, ushered in by the Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor in late 2005, are designed to operate in a network-centric combat environment and feature extremely low, all-aspect, multi-spectral signatures employing advanced materials and shaping techniques (a.k.a. stealth). Maneuver performance remains important and is enhanced by thrust-vectoring, which also helps reduce takeoff and landing distances.
The stealth aspect of fifth-generation fighters is created by designing its layout and internal structure to minimize radar-cross-section over a broad bandwidth of detection and tracking radar frequencies and permit internal storage of its primary weapons (air-to-air/air-to-ground missiles, guns and gravity weaponry).
The Navy, Air Force and Marines still have a passel of 4th-generation fighters that would have a tough time surviving a combat environment against a modern enemy equipped with 4th and/or 5th generation capability. The Air Force is getting ready to take ownership of its 187th (and final) F-22 Raptor, the nation’s only operational 5th-generation fighter. All three fighter-equipped services are still waiting on the first operational F-35 Lightening II to supplement the Air Force’s F-22 Raptor, and give our Navy and Marine fighter pilots their first 5th-generation fighter, and a leg up in the modern aerial combat environment.
Unfortunately, the F-35 Lightning II is facing some severe acquisition issues (ranging from technical to political) that are slowing its initial delivery to the war-fighter…but that is another story.
The USAF would like to trim some infrastructure, personnel and less-critical future agenda and weapon systems in order to preserve some essential programs that would retain her current capabilities (albeit on a smaller scale) as a successful war-fighting partner with her sea-, and ground-focused sister services. Included in these “essential programs” is continued production of the F-35 Lightning II fighter and life extension of the current F-16 Falcon fighter. So, let’s talk “fighters”...
A “Fighter,” simply put, is the term used for any aircraft that is designed to engage another aircraft in flight. If your side is going to attain air superiority over a combat environment, then you have to have a way of keeping enemy aircraft out. If enemy aircraft show up in the combat zone, it is USAF, USN, and USMC fighters that have to knock them down.
Following the Viet Nam conflict, the United States has always established dominance of the airspace over a battle environment before sending in the ground troops. As Republican Guard and Taliban fighting personnel can attest, it is difficult to operate when you always have to worry about being rained on by high-explosive weaponry. So the first order of business for any conflict is to send in the bomber, ground attack, and fighter aircraft to destroy enemy lines of communications, air defenses, airfields and aircraft so our ground-pounding brethren need concern themselves primarily with the fight in front of them, and not from above.
Clearing the airspace of enemy activity also assures air support of our ground forces, which (in part) is supplied by the same fighters that cleared the airspace to begin with. Today the Air Force has cold-war era 4th generation and more modern 5th generation jet fighters at their disposal, while the Navy and Marines have only generation 4 and 4.5 equipment. This has to change in the near future as China, Russia and India are developing their own 5th generation fighters. All right, let’s have a talk about this “generation” stuff as it applies to fighters…
The first generation of jet fighters comprised the initial subsonic jet fighter designs introduced late in World War II and in the early post-war period. The Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star, F-84 Thunderjet, and F-86 Sabre are USAF examples of our 1st generation jet fighter fleet. Guns remained the principal armament of these aircraft that operated during the Korean War and early on in the Viet Nam conflict until they could replaced by 2nd and 3rd generation aircraft.
Aircraft designers developed second-generation fighters leveraging technological breakthroughs and focusing on conducting operations in a nuclear warfare environment. Widespread use of afterburning turbojet engines allowed these aircraft to be the first to break the sound barrier and sustain supersonic speeds in level flight. Prime examples of second generation Air Force fighters are the F-100 Super Sabre, F-104 Starfighter, F-105 Thunderchief, and F-106 Delta Dart. Dogfighting maneuverability was traded for pure speed to intercept incoming aircraft and get weapons from point A to point B in a hurry.
Third-generation fighter innovations were marked by renewed emphases on maneuverability and traditional ground-attack capabilities. Enhancements to improve aerodynamic performance of these aircraft included canards, powered slats and blown flaps. The F-4 Phantom II (built initially for the Navy and also used extensively by the Air Force), F-5 Freedom Fighter, A-7 Corsair II, and the F-111Aardvark are classic examples of 3rd-generation fighters.
Fourth-generation fighter designs were significantly influenced by Energy-Maneuverability. This approach emphasized aircraft designs that were capable of performing quick changes in speed, altitude and direction. Other innovative technologies included head-up displays, multi-function displays and the ability to select weapons, navigation and displays while keeping hands on the throttle and stick. Bonded aluminum honeycomb structural elements and graphite epoxy laminate skins began to be incorporated into flight control surfaces and airframe skins to reduce weight. Aerodynamic innovations included variable-camber wings and exploitation of the vortex lift effect to achieve higher angles of attack through the addition of strakes (leading-edge extension devices).
The high cost of production led to the adoption of the "high/low mix" procurement concept which proposed a high-capability and high-cost core of dedicated air-superiority fighters (like the Air Force F-15 Eagle and Navy F-14 Tomcat) to be supplemented by a larger contingent of lower-cost, multi-role fighters like the Air Force F-16 Falcon and the Navy/Marine F/A-18 Hornet. The Air Force also sported a pure attack fourth-generation aircraft in the A-10 Thunderbolt II. These aircraft have been the mainstay of our fighter force since the late 1970s.
Occasionally, you will hear about a 4.5, or half-generation aircraft. These are primarily 4th generation airframes that have been improved with advanced digital avionics, highly integrated systems/weapons, and modern aerospace materials. In the U.S., "half-generation" advances allowed production of the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet from the 1970s F/A-18 Hornet design. The same advances enabled the F-15E Strike Eagle, a ground-attack/multi-role variant of the venerable F-15 Eagle.
The fifth generation of jet fighters, ushered in by the Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor in late 2005, are designed to operate in a network-centric combat environment and feature extremely low, all-aspect, multi-spectral signatures employing advanced materials and shaping techniques (a.k.a. stealth). Maneuver performance remains important and is enhanced by thrust-vectoring, which also helps reduce takeoff and landing distances.
The stealth aspect of fifth-generation fighters is created by designing its layout and internal structure to minimize radar-cross-section over a broad bandwidth of detection and tracking radar frequencies and permit internal storage of its primary weapons (air-to-air/air-to-ground missiles, guns and gravity weaponry).
The Navy, Air Force and Marines still have a passel of 4th-generation fighters that would have a tough time surviving a combat environment against a modern enemy equipped with 4th and/or 5th generation capability. The Air Force is getting ready to take ownership of its 187th (and final) F-22 Raptor, the nation’s only operational 5th-generation fighter. All three fighter-equipped services are still waiting on the first operational F-35 Lightening II to supplement the Air Force’s F-22 Raptor, and give our Navy and Marine fighter pilots their first 5th-generation fighter, and a leg up in the modern aerial combat environment.
Unfortunately, the F-35 Lightning II is facing some severe acquisition issues (ranging from technical to political) that are slowing its initial delivery to the war-fighter…but that is another story.
LET'S TALK BOMBERS (by Riq Baldwin)
The Secretary of the Department of Defense recently requested from Congress permission to conduct another BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure). Last week Congress understandably balked at it (but it is still being discussed). Because of fiscal realities presented by the current administration, the United States Air Force (USAF) and its sister services have to make some tough decisions.
The USAF would like to trim some infrastructure, personnel and some less critical future programs in order to preserve some essential programs so as to retain its capabilities (albeit on a smaller scale) as a successful war-fighting partner with her sea-, and ground-focused sister services. These “essential” programs include:
- Produce the KC-46 tanker
- Continue production of the F-35 fighter and life extension of the current F-16 fighter
- Develop new space launch capability; & advanced infra-red/ultra high frequency satellites;
- Pave the way for an advanced bomber.
Today, let’s talk bombers. During World War II, the United States built over 34,000 heavy bombers (B-24 Liberators, B-17 Flying Fortresses, and B-29 Super Fortresses) that could go downtown and drop iron where the enemy, his leadership, his industrial base and his Mama lived. The last of these aircraft retired from USAF duty in 1960.
Since that time, the United States has built just under 3,400 long-range bombers to carry on the mission of their WWII-era brethren. Time and technology, however, always take their toll. The last of the 380 monstrous B-36 Peacemakers, which could fly intercontinental distances without refueling, retired in 1959. Over 2,000 B-47 Stratojets, capable of delivering both conventional and nuclear weapons, saw their last days in 1960. The B-58 Hustler, of which only 116 were built, was the world’s first supersonic nuclear bomber. They closed out their career in the Air Force in 1969.
Today, only 180 long-range bombers built by the United States since WWII remain in service. For those of you just out of high school, these would include 94 of your Grandfather’s B-52 Stratofortresses, 66 of your Dad’s B-1 Lancers and a whopping 20 modern era B-2 Spirits. Although these aircraft are a bit long in the tooth, (the B-52, B-1, and B-2 are roughly 50, 26, and 18 years old respectively) they do receive the best of care regarding maintenance and upgrades. The Air Force believes the B-52s and B-1s will be safe to operate through 2040 and the B-2s another 15 to 20 years after that.
However, the nemesis of the strategic-capable bomber has always been the potential adversary’s ability to acquire better defenses. Today, only the B-2 can be expected to get through a modern, well-defended airspace and survive while delivering gravity weapons. Against the same air defenses, the B-52 and B-1 would be most likely be used in a standoff role, launching cruise missiles and other self-propelled weaponry…which we’re running out of, by the way.
As time goes by, the B-2’s ability to transit over an enemy’s defended position will also go by the wayside. A quick perusal of the internet will turn up articles that brush on laser, ultra high frequency radar, passive detection, Doppler, line-of-sight and other interesting technologies that could make our current stealth capability inadequate in the foreseeable future. So we need something in the wings that can go deep, put any number of weapons on target, and still retain the flexibility of: (1) being able to retarget weapons while en route, (2) being recalled (bringing both the launch platform and weapons home), and (3) being used more than once.
In a recent interview with Air Force Magazine, Lt.Gen Christopher D. Miller, deputy chief of staff of strategic plans and programs, alluded that of all the myths circulating about USAF’s plans for long-range strike, the biggest one "is that the nation doesn’t need a new bomber."
Lt.Gen Miller said that the new bomber is needed in the mid-2020s, a goal both he and industry officials believe can be feasibly initiated this year, provided the new design is based on extant technology. Miller does not want a repeat of the development of the B-2, where technologies that gave the aircraft its capabilities had to be developed in parallel with the airframe itself. That, combined with gearing industry for rapid production, then slowing that production to a trickle, exploded the price of each weapon system into the billion- dollar range.
For future reference, the new bomber program is called the LRS-B, for Long-Range Strike-Bomber. Despite the Air Force knowing that it needs the new weapon system in the relatively near future, it seems to be exercising some of its more tongue-in-cheek conventions in doing so. For example, “Flexibility is the key to success, and indecision is the key to flexibility” seems to reflect the fact that to this day, there is still no operational requirements document (ORD) specifying the LRS-Bs characteristics and capabilities, despite the bomber getting the go-ahead well over a year ago.
While I attended the USAF Academy, one of the tortured sayings we espoused was “anything worth doing well, is worth doing at the last minute”. This rule also has an interesting corollary; “if you wait till the last minute, it only takes a minute”. Having worked in the Air Staff at the Pentagon, I can tell you with some certainty that the AF is working like mad developing more than one ORD (or an ORD with several options) for the LRS-B, so that when Congress gives them the opportunity, they will have the “flexibility” to make a very intelligent decision at the “last moment”.
The USAF would like to trim some infrastructure, personnel and some less critical future programs in order to preserve some essential programs so as to retain its capabilities (albeit on a smaller scale) as a successful war-fighting partner with her sea-, and ground-focused sister services. These “essential” programs include:
- Produce the KC-46 tanker
- Continue production of the F-35 fighter and life extension of the current F-16 fighter
- Develop new space launch capability; & advanced infra-red/ultra high frequency satellites;
- Pave the way for an advanced bomber.
Today, let’s talk bombers. During World War II, the United States built over 34,000 heavy bombers (B-24 Liberators, B-17 Flying Fortresses, and B-29 Super Fortresses) that could go downtown and drop iron where the enemy, his leadership, his industrial base and his Mama lived. The last of these aircraft retired from USAF duty in 1960.
Since that time, the United States has built just under 3,400 long-range bombers to carry on the mission of their WWII-era brethren. Time and technology, however, always take their toll. The last of the 380 monstrous B-36 Peacemakers, which could fly intercontinental distances without refueling, retired in 1959. Over 2,000 B-47 Stratojets, capable of delivering both conventional and nuclear weapons, saw their last days in 1960. The B-58 Hustler, of which only 116 were built, was the world’s first supersonic nuclear bomber. They closed out their career in the Air Force in 1969.
Today, only 180 long-range bombers built by the United States since WWII remain in service. For those of you just out of high school, these would include 94 of your Grandfather’s B-52 Stratofortresses, 66 of your Dad’s B-1 Lancers and a whopping 20 modern era B-2 Spirits. Although these aircraft are a bit long in the tooth, (the B-52, B-1, and B-2 are roughly 50, 26, and 18 years old respectively) they do receive the best of care regarding maintenance and upgrades. The Air Force believes the B-52s and B-1s will be safe to operate through 2040 and the B-2s another 15 to 20 years after that.
However, the nemesis of the strategic-capable bomber has always been the potential adversary’s ability to acquire better defenses. Today, only the B-2 can be expected to get through a modern, well-defended airspace and survive while delivering gravity weapons. Against the same air defenses, the B-52 and B-1 would be most likely be used in a standoff role, launching cruise missiles and other self-propelled weaponry…which we’re running out of, by the way.
As time goes by, the B-2’s ability to transit over an enemy’s defended position will also go by the wayside. A quick perusal of the internet will turn up articles that brush on laser, ultra high frequency radar, passive detection, Doppler, line-of-sight and other interesting technologies that could make our current stealth capability inadequate in the foreseeable future. So we need something in the wings that can go deep, put any number of weapons on target, and still retain the flexibility of: (1) being able to retarget weapons while en route, (2) being recalled (bringing both the launch platform and weapons home), and (3) being used more than once.
In a recent interview with Air Force Magazine, Lt.Gen Christopher D. Miller, deputy chief of staff of strategic plans and programs, alluded that of all the myths circulating about USAF’s plans for long-range strike, the biggest one "is that the nation doesn’t need a new bomber."
Lt.Gen Miller said that the new bomber is needed in the mid-2020s, a goal both he and industry officials believe can be feasibly initiated this year, provided the new design is based on extant technology. Miller does not want a repeat of the development of the B-2, where technologies that gave the aircraft its capabilities had to be developed in parallel with the airframe itself. That, combined with gearing industry for rapid production, then slowing that production to a trickle, exploded the price of each weapon system into the billion- dollar range.
For future reference, the new bomber program is called the LRS-B, for Long-Range Strike-Bomber. Despite the Air Force knowing that it needs the new weapon system in the relatively near future, it seems to be exercising some of its more tongue-in-cheek conventions in doing so. For example, “Flexibility is the key to success, and indecision is the key to flexibility” seems to reflect the fact that to this day, there is still no operational requirements document (ORD) specifying the LRS-Bs characteristics and capabilities, despite the bomber getting the go-ahead well over a year ago.
While I attended the USAF Academy, one of the tortured sayings we espoused was “anything worth doing well, is worth doing at the last minute”. This rule also has an interesting corollary; “if you wait till the last minute, it only takes a minute”. Having worked in the Air Staff at the Pentagon, I can tell you with some certainty that the AF is working like mad developing more than one ORD (or an ORD with several options) for the LRS-B, so that when Congress gives them the opportunity, they will have the “flexibility” to make a very intelligent decision at the “last moment”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)