Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac,att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: pms2@jaguar.uofs.edu (STOCKSCHLAEDER PETER M) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: B-2's, F-117's, and other necessary stuff Message-ID: <1991Mar18.132743.14476@cbnews.att.com> Date: 18 Mar 91 13:27:43 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (william.b.thacker) Organization: University of Scranton Lines: 59 Approved: military@att.att.com From: pms2@jaguar.uofs.edu (STOCKSCHLAEDER PETER M) Well, now that I have found about this, I find that, whenever I am checking on my VAX account, I am here!! Glad to say that I would like to contribute to the fray. Concerning the F-117....Well, why the hell didn't they call it the FB-117? It seems that this is all they do - bomb militarily significant targets but with a remarkable amount of precision. What I'd like to know is, why was this plane designed with only a 4,000 pound bomb load? Is the thrust rating of the F404 engines that bad, or is it something I'm missing? I don't think the latter is true (or maybe it is). Another point to ponder - how many of these babies did Lockheed build? I have heard approx. 60, but a friend on my floor says about 130. What is the truth? In reference to the B-2, at this point it seems direly necessary to build it. With the last B-52 built (I think back in 1963, bu I'm not sure) being about 28-29 years old, something is going to be needed soon (but in the next ten years; I think they can last at least that long). The B-1B was the supposed answer, but, in this respect, I think DoD screwed up. Had Reagan ordered another batch of, say 350 B-1C, B-1D and B-1F (my hypothesis), the problems that they are having now - wings, tanks, engines, ECM - would've been solved, say, in 1986. By not ordering more - which would've helped find the defects in the B-1B, obviously - DoD has had to commit themselves to buying 75 or 100 (or whatever crazy number it is) B-2's. Considering how the F-117 did in the Gulf, though, it would seem a wise choice. I have only glanced at the articles on AURORA, but the concept is a good one. If DoD can keep the F-117 secret for so long, maybe an AURORA is flying. It is none-too-soon, though - I think the USAF dug itself a hole by retiring all of the SR-71's. TR-1's/U-2's can't do the job themselves; we need a plane capable of Mach 5-6 with real-time capability. Satellites just won't cut it. Anyone know anything about the F-22/F-23 project? When's the winner to be selected? Will this be a competent replacement for the F-15? What about the loser (only in the sense that USAF won't buy it)? Is it in the realm of possibility that, with suitable mods, it would be a replacement for the F-14 ten years down the road? (With the cancellation of the F-14D, they better damn well do it!) As a final tidbit - one which is sure to start some debate - I bandy about the F-15G concept. That is, an F-15 "WILD WEASEL." Seems to me that the F-22/-23 would free up 200 or so F-15A/B/C models for this purpose. I mean, the F-4G is an awesome plane, but it deserves a worthy successor soon. With the diminuation of circuitry in the '80's, certainly the F-15 could carry twice the gear (computers, antennaes, HARM's, all that jazz) in the same space - maybe three pods (one centerline & two wing stores) and six or eight HARM's (two on each wing, the rest under the plane ala' F-14's with Phoenix missles). Now, if only we fellow VAXers can sell it to Congress & Cheney....... Any mail is appreciated! Criticism is well handled, also...isn't that what life is about? Peter Stockschlaeder University of Scranton PMS2@jaguar.uofs.edu