-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
B-1's and B-52's as flying arsenals of air to air missiles?
- Thread starter Randy Daytona
- Start date
That doesn't address what he said...
Yeah, no kidding. I think the point is lost on him.
Dogpatch09
Member
I thought currently it was 4 with plans to up that to 6 internally.
He asked about air to air missiles while preserving stealth. You posted a picture of a bunch of gbu-12's on pylons. You know what's worse than saying something dumb? Sounding like a douche while you're doing it. Context.
Two AAM's along with two 1000 or 2000lb bombs internally dependent on the version, it is meant to be mainly a strike aircraft. I wouldn't put it past us to fill up the space for the bombs with AAM's in the future.
I read it. What's your point Brett. He isn't pushing for anything. The article infers that we are talking about A/A and that is the part that I am interested in.
Your statements show a complete lack of understanding about Super Hornet capes and I expect that from a first tour CAPT who thinks he knows everything, but is only getting 8 hours a month and probably doesn't have his div ld qual yet. I never said F-15Cs couldn't handle their own. I said, "In the lane as well." If you two fucksticks would learn how to read you would have seen that. I don't want F-15Cs sharing the lane. They can have their own. What I really don't want is a mixed division of Legacy and Supers. This isn't an APG65/73 fight. You're out of your lane here. I don't know about Strike Eagles. I've never worked a dual lane DCA with them. I have seen that Block II Supers and 63v3 F-15Cs can both handle their own equally. Throw JSF in the mix and I'm sure it only gets better. It isn't always about getting high and fast but you wouldn't know that yet.
I've wasted enough time on you fucktards so I will end with this. Having a missile truck high and fast would be a nice compliment to what we already have and is something that could be pretty easy to do. It will allow better FI by allowing the 5th gen platforms to stay on station longer.
What SECDEF actually said:
This could mean A/A, but it could also mean a lot of other things in the A/G arena - especially in the short term. The article goes on to speculate (or infer) on a lot of the A/A proposals out there, but SECDEF doesn't go there at all.
pilot_man said:
It's great to speculate, or even discuss the advantages and disadvantages of that kind of capability, but you're acting as though this is a program of record and we had all better climb onboard. Based on the text SECDEF's speech, none of us has any idea what he's pushing.
No Brett. I am not. I just said I like the idea and maybe people should open their minds instead of saying its a dumb fucking idea.
Do you know what you call an airborne arsenal plane carrying A/S ordnance? It's called a bomber Brett. Your points, like usual, are pointless.
Do you know what you call an airborne arsenal plane carrying A/S ordnance? It's called a bomber Brett. Your points, like usual, are pointless.
Thank all of you for the insights. As a helo bubba, my concern was manpads, heavy machine guns and RPG's - this concept seemed plausible but thought I would let y'all explain the good and bad. If I am reading this theory correctly, the B-1's would not be with the fighters but would be hanging a safe distance back having magazines full of bigger, longer ranged missiles (or perhaps a regular missile with a booster stage?) since the bomb bays I assume would be bigger.
Don't be a douche. My question was pretty straight forward. You posted a picture with no explanation which seemed to indicate that you didn't understand that all of the shit hanging off of the wings reflects RF energy.
What is it that you're trying to say?
Weird how easily I found two articles covering the very same SECDEF speech that talked about cooperative use of the F-35 and an arsenal plane in an A/G role.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...62/pentagon-announces-arsenal-plane-platform/
http://newstangle.com/the-us-air-fo...lanes-to-improve-the-f-35s-limited-firepower/
Don't look now... I may have a point.
Grumpy much? This is just a discussion on the internet... Not that serious.
Lots of assumptions there... Which are incorrect. Nonetheless, no one here needs to prove himself to some one over an internet forum.
And I wasn't making the APG-73 argument... But if you've done much (any?) FI, I can't for the life of me ponder how you'd make that statement.
Throw the JSF in here... We have. We fly mixed with them often. And no it's not always required, but it's always nice to have.
Weird how easily I found two articles covering the very same SECDEF speech that talked about cooperative use of the F-35 and an arsenal plane in an A/G role.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...62/pentagon-announces-arsenal-plane-platform/
http://newstangle.com/the-us-air-fo...lanes-to-improve-the-f-35s-limited-firepower/
Don't look now... I may have a point.
Again Brett, I am not saying this thing couldn't have a huge roll in A/S missions. So your links, and your point are kind of moot. What I am saying is that I like the possibilities of this idea in an A/A role. I think that is where it really becomes a game changer.
I have done a lot of FI and I don't want APG-65/73s anywhere near my lane. That is just my opinion and I am entitled to it. You can have yours.
Now picture that FI you did with JSF and put a couple of B1s at the near side of the FEZ lobbing missiles over your head and destroying the A/A picture at the other end. Of course nothing is required. I can go man a lane with a section of Rhinos for as long as I have gas and missiles left. In my view this thing could be a good COMPLEMENT to the tech that we have today. I'm not advocating a section of Lancers manning a FEZ on their own. Which is what some of you are implying when you start taking about ACM.