US Air Force: Discussion and News

Such long range cruise missiles could be shot down with S-125s and would not be an enormous challenge really.

they r not in the RF & PRC inventories, & won't be effective against low flying JASSMs anyway.  Its stealthy airframe makes it extremely difficult to defeat.

The loss of C-130s might matter to their crews.

at >700-800km away from their targets, I doubt they'll be shot down; if modified unmanned old C-130s r used, their crews will be on the ground, other planes or on ships.

C-130s still have to operate from airfields so any airfields these C-130s are taking off from will likely be targeted by China with ballistic or cruise missile attack to stop the flow of subsonic cruise missiles.

They could fly from Australia &/ Hawaii, supported by tankers. Also, FYI,
Modified C-130 floatplanes r coming up for W. Pac ops: The development of a removable amphibious float modification for an MC-130J would enable "runway independent" operations, which, ..would extend the global reach and survivability of the aircraft and Air Commandos. "Seaborne operations offer nearly unlimited water landing zones providing significant flexibility for the Joint Force,"...Utilizing the MAC capability may provide unlimited operational access to waterways to distribute forces if land assets are compromised. "We believe MAC will be able to be used by our sister services, allies, and partners on various C-130 platforms... Further, expanding the operational use of an amphibious aircraft alongside other innovative tools will provide even more complex dilemmas in future battlespaces for our strategic competitors."

China does not have more ships than the US Navy has missile tubes... considering the shift in US focus they could move some of their fleets operating in different locations to the Pacific if there were any real expectations of a conflict.

many assets already been moved; if it wasn't worth it, that capability wouldn't be invested in. Planes r more mobile than ships, & they don't need large flight & ground crews. China has a huge fleet of Maritime Militia operated fishing boats that would be used around Taiwan too.

I remember a congressman saying that he was disgusted at the price of the F-15 and that never again will America ever spend 20 million dollars on a fighter plane.... HAHAHAHAHA... he was of course right... because they have never been that cheap since... but he meant it was too expensive for what it was... which led to the F-16 and F-18 programmes of lighter cheaper fighters... except they weren't cheaper at all.

it's called "the death spiral"; but until 6 gen. fighter ACAVs replace them, they'll have to foot that bill.

They can pour more money into failed products all they please...

if they were failed fighters, why prohibit their export even to UK, Japan, SK & Israel? r the F-4/15s they operate/d failures too?

India was never part of the Su-57 programme. It was part of a programme to create a new heavy stealth fighter based on the Su-57, but when they realised all the changes and modifications they wanted made to the Su-57 like better stealth and two seats... they would have to pay for themselves...

so, it wasn't good enough w/o extensive mods even for the Indians. No wonder they bought those Rafales instead!

even Finland ordered 64 F-35s for $9.4B, & Morocco Wants F-35 Fighters To ‘Ward Off’ Algeria That Plans To Acquire Russian Su-57 Jets.

And lets see how wonderful these two countries think these planes are after 10 years of service...

Finland can always get JAS-39s & Morocco can get Eurofighters or F-15/18s.

The obvious problem there is that S-400 can shoot down ballistic tactical nuke delivery platforms, and crossing the nuclear threshold against S-400 users like China and India and Turkey and Russia means they can then respond in kind... considering US SAMs can't deal with Iranian BMs, what are their chances against BMs and other weapons from other countries?

the US doesn't stand still & upgrades/develops the means to deal with them.

If the Su-57 was that good, China would be buying them to complement the J-20s, like they got the Su-35s.

Who said they are not negotiating to buy a batch?

if they did, we would hear about it; don't underestimate their ability in judging fighters!

They should include that in the advert to sell S-400s... so powerful that the US would resort to nuclear weapons in their presence... because all the other systems and weapons of that super power are impotent...

The Soviet VMF had 800km range supersonic Granit AShMs for years, but that didn't scare the USN from sailing the oceans & seas around Eurasia. Dozens of C-130/17s can release 100s of decoys/chaff to overwhelm their radars before they or others drop JDAMs & CMs on them. Besides, they could send attack helos & UAVs with LRMs.
Lastly there is The GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb that could be modified for stand off use.

they r not in the RF & PRC inventories , & won't be effective against low flying JASSMs anyway. Its stealthy airframe makes it extremely difficult to defeat .

The Soviets made SA-3s in enormous numbers as the mid to lower altitude air defence systems in partnership with the SA-2 for high altitude threats, they are still used for simulating targets and could be quickly set up in the case of high tensions to operate under the control of a new SAM system...

Stealthy targets like F-35 stealthy that can be detected 5,000km away with Russian radar?

The SA-3 missiles are command guided so the level of stealth of the target would not be very important.

Even just positioning them on the border with the EU and loading them up with nuclear warhead payloads might be interesting...

at >700-800km away from their targets, I doubt they'll be shot down; if modified unmanned old C-130s r used, their crews will be on the ground, other planes or on ships.

Once the first attack starts Russia does not have to remain fully defensive... they could actively target sources of enemy attacks like airfields and aircraft on airfields enormous distances from Russian borders let alone targets inside Russia.

Further, expanding the operational use of an amphibious aircraft alongside other innovative tools will provide even more complex dilemmas in future battlespaces for our strategic competitors."

Hahaha... new planes are now so expensive in the US that they find they have to cannibalise their storage cupboards of older planes for numbers attacks because newer planes are just too expensive.

How long will C-130s last in a salt water environment... what will enormous floats do to their already mediocre performance.... why do you think they would be safer in water than from motorways on land?

Sounds like they want more money to spend on old shit... this will be amusing.

many assets already been moved; if it wasn't worth it, that capability wouldn't be invested in . Planes r more mobile than ships, & they don't need large flight & ground crews. China has a huge fleet of Maritime Militia operated fishing boats that would be used around Taiwan too.

The fact that the US is shifting its forward deployment of murderers to Australia tells us that their current rogues gallery occupying South Korea and Japan are not enough and they need more warm bodies to throw at the Chinese...

Amusing you are fixating on what they are doing while ignoring the obvious question... why?

WTF does the US have to do with Taiwan... and how is Taiwan going to pay for all this... Oops... they aren't... the US Taxpayer is going to pay for it... that is you.

it's called "the death spiral"; but until 6 gen. fighter ACAVs replace them, they'll have to foot that bill.

It really is a death spiral and the promise with every generation is that it will be cheaper... you know... like the F-35 isn't... and with each new generation the promise is that it will be a whole generation ahead of the enemy and it will be so superior that we wont need as many but we will still have way more than they can afford... but when it comes time to actually build these things reality hits home and they are much much more expensive than they promised and in many areas not superior at all.

Just on the face of things the Su-57 is not only superior to the F-35, it is also much much cheaper and it is the medium Russian stealth fighter... their light stealth fighter is going to be even cheaper... in fact cheaper than most US drones.

It is called a death spiral because of where you end up... death by having all your money sucked out of you...

if they were failed fighters, why prohibit their export even to UK, Japan, SK & Israel? r the F-4/15s they operate/d failures too?

The F-22 was prohibited from export because it probably had as many problems as the F-35 currently has, so letting other allies get their hands on them would mean their secrets would be revealed... not how stealthy they are... but how not stealthy they are... yet enormously expensive to buy and to operate...

The F-35 needs a large production run and wide deployment to break even let alone make a profit so it was designed as a plane all of Americas allies can buy so the US MIC can leech from the allied world instead of just the massive jugs of the US worker/taxpayer... which are starting get smaller and less reliable.

so, it wasn't good enough w/o extensive mods even for the Indians. No wonder they bought those Rafales instead!

They wanted modifications that would only make it twice as expensive to buy and rather more expensive to operate but only slightly more stealthy. They knew the Russians wouldn't want such changes itself so any real changes in that regard they would have to fund themselves, which they weren't prepared to pay for, so they decided to let the Russians complete development on their own and modify the resulting aircraft... pretty much what they did with the Su-30MK.

BTW they spent more on 36 Rafales than they spent on Ka-27s and Ka-31s and MiG-29Ks and an aircraft carrier they bought from Russia... in fact they spent three times more on the Rafales.... so for the price of 12 Rafales they got 14 MiG-29Ms, and about a dozen Helix helicopters of different types... and an aircraft carrier...

Finland can always get JAS-39s & Morocco can get Eurofighters or F-15/18s.

Not if they buy F-35s, because they wont be able to sell them to anyone else, and I doubt anyone else will want them considering their operational costs per hour.

the US doesn't stand still & upgrades/develops the means to deal with them.

You mean like the Israeli F-35 should be able to deal with any SAM system Syria is currently operating because the best they have are S-300s which are ancient and have been in service for 50 years...

if they did, we would hear about it; don't underestimate their ability in judging fighters!

Judging fighters based on what? How many have they flight tested?

The Soviet VMF had 800km range supersonic Granit AShMs for years, but that didn't scare the USN from sailing the oceans & seas around Eurasia.

500km range Granits... and if such a premise were true then the Urans the Russians operate would be enough to keep the Royal Navy and most HATO navies in port for good...

Dozens of C-130/17s can release 100s of decoys/chaff to overwhelm their radars before they or others drop JDAMs & CMs on them.

Overwhelm what radar?

Decoys and chaff launched from the aircraft releasing long range standoff weapons is just a really good indication that the attack has started and would be rather counter productive wouldn't it?

The whole point of using drone launch platforms would be being able to fly closer to the target than is safe to launch your weapons so they can take a longer and more indirect route to the target to try to surprise said target.

The problem of course is that when Russian long range radar starts to detect cruise missiles and standoff weapons being launched from transport aircraft then not only will they start preparing for defence by powering up air defence systems, they will also likely start preparing response attacks to take out airfields and HQs on enemy territory and neutralising enemy forces on enemy territory nearby too... MiG-31Ks will take off and attack any enemy ships without 2,500km of Russian territorial waters and MiG-31BMs might be launched with 300km range AAMs to shoot down those C-130s... the flight radius of a MiG-31BM at mach 2.4 is about 700km... and the only things probably able to shoot down MiG-31BMs would be AEGIS ships with long range AAMs, but they will be fighting for their lives against Kinzhal from MiG-31Ks launched from well beyond their vision or reach.

Besides, they could send attack helos & UAVs with LRMs .

Really? Which western attack helicopter has better flight speed and range than an F-15 or B-1B?

Lastly there is The GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb that could be modified for stand off use.

The thing weighs 11 tons... it would need the wings of a B-52 to fly with the engines as well... why would you waste time with such a ridiculous standoff weapon?

They already have Tomahawks...

You prove him his idea is stupid he comes up with a new one. Garry don't loose your time with him.

The Soviets made SA-3s in enormous numbers as the mid to lower altitude air defence systems in partnership with the SA-2 for high altitude threats, they are still used for simulating targets and could be quickly set up in the case of high tensions to operate under the control of a new SAM system...
Stealthy targets like F-35 stealthy that can be detected 5,000km away with Russian radar? The SA-3 missiles are command guided so the level of stealth of the target would not be very important.

does China have them to? the scenario of using C-130/17s is vs. the PRC in the China Seas, not the RF.

Even just positioning them on the border with the EU and loading them up with nuclear warhead payloads might be interesting...

r there nukes small enough to fit on an SA-3?

Once the first attack starts Russia does not have to remain fully defensive... they could actively target sources of enemy attacks like airfields and aircraft on airfields enormous distances from Russian borders let alone targets inside Russia.

I repeat: the scenario of using C-130/17s is vs. PRC in the the China Seas, not the RF.

Hahaha... new planes are now so expensive in the US that they find they have to cannibalise their storage cupboards of older planes for numbers attacks because newer planes are just too expensive.

not at all: those floats r new & can turn any C-130 into an amphib., no need to build extra planes or land/floating airfields & dedicate extra forces to maintain & defend them.

How long will C-130s last in a salt water environment... what will enormous floats do to their already mediocre performance....

the USN/MC & CG been using them for decades from shore bases near salt water; their performance will be~ =or better than the AG-600, even with floats; if any range is lost, they can use IRPs.  

why do you think they would be safer in water than from motorways on land?

they can use water instead of runways & bays/coves instead of hangars that can be bombed.

Sounds like they want more money to spend on old shit... this will be amusing.

no, they'll be saving huge $ & a lot of time. Dozens of old C-130s in storage can be reactivated to replace those used as float planes, if need be.

WTF does the US have to do with Taiwan... and how is Taiwan going to pay for all this... Oops... they aren't... the US Taxpayer is going to pay for it... that is you.

to prevent the PRC becoming a hegemon in the W. Pac; the US Taxpayer pays interest on US gov. loans, but I pay 0 as my income isn't big enough to be taxed.

if they were failed fighters, why prohibit their export even to UK, Japan, SK & Israel? r the F-4/15s they operate/d failures too?

The F-22 was prohibited from export because it probably had as many problems as the F-35 currently has, so letting other allies get their hands on them would mean their secrets would be revealed...

it's the latter rather than the former reason.

in fact they spent three times more on the Rafales.... so for the price of 12 Rafales they got 14 MiG-29Ms, and about a dozen Helix helicopters of different types... and an aircraft carrier...

I guess they had enough $ to get them now, instead of waiting for Su-57s that had to be produced & modified, which would take years that they don't have any liberty to waste.

Not if they buy F-35s, because they wont be able to sell them to anyone else, and I doubt anyone else will want them considering their operational costs per hour.

they could still sell them to UK, Norway, Israel, Japan or back to US- small price to pay to keep Finland in NATO's orbit.

Judging fighters based on what? How many have they flight tested?

well, don't they already have J-11/15/16s & Su-35s, common with their Su-30MKKs that r F-15E counterparts & J-20s (now in serial production)+J-31/35s that r rough Su-57 & F-35 counterparts? what's the point adding another type of a redundant fighter? there is even less reason to want it than the Indians now have.

The problem of course is that when Russian long range radar starts to detect cruise missiles and standoff weapons being launched from transport aircraft then not only will they start preparing for defence by powering up air defence systems, they will also likely start preparing response attacks to take out airfields and HQs on enemy territory and neutralising enemy forces on enemy territory nearby too...

I repeat: the scenario of using C-130/17s is vs. the PRC in the China Seas, not the the RF. Actually, some of those CMs have >925km range & they'll be used against ships, ports, airfields & troop concentrations along the Taiwan Strait & on the island itself if & after it's been invaded. If China strikes Guam, Okinawa & bases in Micronesia/Australia/Hawaii, she'll receive a return fire on Hainan, her new SCS/Mainland AF/N/BM bases, naval/civ. shipyards, & possibly the 3 Gorges Dam, killing many Ms of people. w/o nukes.

Besides, they could send attack helos & UAVs with LRMs.

Really? Which western attack helicopter has better flight speed and range than an F-15 or B-1B?

they can be based on ships & been trained for that in many exercises; even the old long range CH-53Es with or w/o IRPs could be armed with even more CMs than CH-64s & AH-1J Sea/Super Cobras. Attack & SF versions V-22s have the speed, range & IRPs. Old P-3s can carry 10 CMs each.

Lastly there is The GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb that could be modified for stand off use.

The thing weighs 11 tons... it would need the wings of a B-52 to fly with the engines as well... why would you waste time with such a ridiculous standoff weapon?

no, an old unmanned C-130 loaded with it would do it.
In 2022, the USAF is going to retire 47 F-16C/Ds, 48 F-15C/Ds, & 13 C-130Hs.
That's 108 total that could be used as armed drones.

does China have them to? the scenario of using C-130/17s is vs. the PRC in the China Seas, not the RF.

My point is that cruise missiles fly low but are relatively easy targets to shoot down... any old missile that is obsolete for hitting faster manouvering targets could be directed to take down these drones and cruise missiles.

Both the Soviet Union and China built old SAMs in enormous numbers and plenty of those are still used as target drones to test air defence units... it wouldn't take much to set up batteries able to launch enormous numbers to deal with large numbers of simple incoming threats... existing IADS are designed to share target information so the system that is detecting and tracking the target does not need to use its own missiles for the engagement... why not use old otherwise obsolete missiles for the job? Save the newer ones for more difficult targets.

r there nukes small enough to fit on an SA-3?

Are you joking? SA-3 had a warhead of about 60kgs and was used against bombers... they have nuke warheads for 152mm artillery, so 40kgs... so yes... nuke warheads should not be an issue really...

I repeat: the scenario of using C-130/17s is vs. PRC in the the China Seas, not the RF.

Their radars and systems should detect C-130s 800km away and their Flankers shouldn't have too much problem operating 1,000km out to sea patrolling for such threats...

not at all: those floats r new & can turn any C-130 into an amphib., no need to build extra planes or land/floating airfields & dedicate extra forces to maintain & defend them.

So why are they not already in use?

the USN/MC & CG been using them for decades from shore bases near salt water ; their performance will be~ =or better than the AG-600 , even with floats; if any range is lost, they can use IRPs.

Brilliant... reduce their range with floats and then risk inflight refuelling aircraft to give them a chance... the Chinese should be looking to join the MiG-41 project perhaps?

they can use water instead of runways & bays/coves instead of hangars that can be bombed.

Makes you wonder why more aircraft don't operate on floats from water...

no, they'll be saving huge $ & a lot of time. Dozens of old C-130s in storage can be reactivated to replace those used as float planes, if need be.

And where will these C-130s be operating from... where do they get their reloads of missiles? How will they avoid Chinese aircraft carriers?

to prevent the PRC becoming a hegemon in the W. Pac;

Yeah, because obviously the US should control that piece of real estate.... is it oil or lithium they are after?

I guess they had enough $ to get them now, instead of waiting for Su-57s that had to be produced & modified, which would take years that they don't have any liberty to waste.

They wanted a two branch airforce... Soviet/Russian planes and French planes. They wanted Mirage 2000s, but the French made them buy Rafales instead... they took 10-15 years to try to get them to sell Mirage 2000s or drop the price on the Rafales and they did neither... in fact in spite of the price cap of 10 billion for 126 aircraft they ended up spending 8.4 billion on 36 planes. They would be squealing like stuck pigs if it was a Russian plane, but it seems they expect it from France...

they could still sell them to UK, Norway, Israel, Japan or back to US- small price to pay to keep Finland in NATO's orbit.

Don't be silly... they wont be allowed to sell them...

Congress is full of spiteful people who hold grudges and love to use revenge as a tool...

well, don't they already have J-11/15/16s & Su-35s, common with their Su-30MKKs that r F-15E counterparts & J-20s (now in serial production)+J-31/35s that r rough Su-57 & F-35 counterparts? what's the point adding another type of a redundant fighter? there is even less reason to want it than the Indians now have.

How many of these aircraft does China actually have in service... if they had the chance of getting a rather better fighter of course they would take it... do you think if Russia offered to sell China some brand new production Blackjacks at a reasonable price that China would say no thanks... we have Tu-16s in production already so we don't need more bombers...

possibly the 3 Gorges Dam, killing many Ms of people. w/o nukes.

Such an attack would justify a nuclear response...

Actually, some of those CMs have >925km range & they'll be used against ships, ports, airfields & troop concentrations along the Taiwan Strait & on the island itself if & after it's been invaded.

If the US wants to interfere in what is essentially a civil war then they should be prepared for the fact that Russia will help China and they can do that by sharing information about approaching threats... aircraft and cruise missiles... if Russian radar on Russian territory can detect F-35s on the Iran Iraq border then they can probably also detect C-130s from enormous ranges too...

If China strikes Guam, Okinawa & bases in Micronesia/Australia/Hawaii,

US attacks against China would justify attacks on these places and more...

they can be based on ships & been trained for that in many exercises; even the old long range CH-53E s with or w/o IRPs could be armed with even more CMs than CH-64s & AH-1J Sea/Super Cobras . Attack & SF versions V-22s have the speed, range & IRPs. Old P-3s can carry 10 CMs each.

But why? They would be pathetic missile carriers... slow... low altitude... very vulnerable to any air defence system on islands or even very small ships...

A modern fighter flying at medium altitude could launch simultaneous attacks on 4-6 of them at a time with a good chance of killing all 4-6 with each volley and they don't have the speed or range to run away...

no, an old unmanned C-130 loaded with it would do it.

An old C-130 would never get close enough to drop it on anything but the weakest and most unprotected target.

Might be useful over Afghanistan assuming they have no aircraft in the air... but even then it makes more sense to use a better bomber.

That's 108 total that could be used as armed drones.

The ones they withdraw will likely be the most worn out pieces of crap they have in service and they will likely have most of their parts stripped out of them to support other aircraft still in use.

At best they would be ground targets for air attack practise...

My point is that cruise missiles fly low but are relatively easy targets to shoot down...

not these small stealthy ALCMs.

r there nukes small enough to fit on an SA-3?

Are you joking? SA-3 had a warhead of about 60kgs and was used against bombers... they have nuke warheads for 152mm artillery, so 40kgs... so yes... nuke warheads should not be an issue really...

as soon as the 1st Chinese  nuke goes off anywhere in that conflict, the US will be free to use theirs.

Their radars and systems should detect C-130s 800km away and their Flankers shouldn't have too much problem operating 1,000km out to sea patrolling for such threats...

they'll need their own big tankers to do that, & they would be shot down by ROC/US/JSDAF F-15/16/22s.

not at all: those floats r new & can turn any C-130 into an amphib., no need to build extra planes or land/floating airfields & dedicate extra forces to maintain & defend them.

So why are they not already in use?

there was no need for them until recently.

Brilliant... reduce their range with floats and then risk inflight refuelling aircraft to give them a chance...

they won't decrease range by much; 1-2 engines could be shot off to reduce fuel burn; refueling points could be set up by other C-130s/ships, if need be.

they can use water instead of runways & bays/coves instead of hangars that can be bombed.

Makes you wonder why more aircraft don't operate on floats from water...

when was the last big war in the W/S. Pacific? CV/Ns & land based planes were good enough to deal with NK & Vietnam. But those didn't have IRBMs & bombers to destroy distant airfields.

no, they'll be saving huge $ & a lot of time. Dozens of old C-130s in storage can be reactivated to replace those used as float planes, if need be.

And where will these C-130s be operating from... where do they get their reloads of missiles?

 from numerous islands in Philippines, Indonesia & Micronesia, & from ammo ships &/ storage sites on islands.

How will they avoid Chinese aircraft carriers?

they won't be sailing that far past the 1st Island Chain, to avoid the USN & AF planes & SSNs on the high seas, not to mention their allies planes, subs & ships.

to prevent the PRC becoming a hegemon in the W. Pac;

Yeah, because obviously the US should control that piece of real estate....

open H2O isn't a real estate; losing Taiwan would mean losing Japan & SK, not to mention Philippines. With Japan in China's shadow, US bases there eventually will be gone & Russia will get stronger in the FE. 5 US States & 2 territories r on/in the Pacific, & California on the West Coast is the most populous. No wonder the US & UK r beefing up Australia that is treated like crap by the Chinese & courting India.

in fact in spite of the price cap of 10 billion for 126 aircraft they ended up spending 8.4 billion on 36 planes. They would be squealing like stuck pigs if it was a Russian plane, but it seems they expect it from France...

France sold Mirages to Taiwan & they were very happy with them & after market support. If Russia had a similar product  when the Indians needed it, India would order them, just like all those MiG-21/23/27/25s, Su-30s, IL-38/76/78s & Tu-142s.

they could still sell them to UK, Norway, Israel, Japan or back to US- small price to pay to keep Finland in NATO's orbit.

Don't be silly... they wont be allowed to sell them...

the uS won't antagonize Finland by prohibiting sales to other US allies, lest she goes back to the RF orbit or full neutrality. If she has problems with F-35s, they'll be taken back & newer/st F-15/16/18s would be offered.

How many of these aircraft does China actually have in service...

they r, or will be, producing more, if need be.

if they had the chance of getting a rather better fighter of course they would take it...

perhaps they don't see the Su-57 ready/fitting their req's or much better than their own J-20s.

do you think if Russia offered to sell China some brand new production Blackjacks at a reasonable price that China would say no thanks...

that's a different animal; I heard a rumor that China offered to build a few Type 55 ships in exchange for Tu-160 blueprints & production rights.

possibly the 3 Gorges Dam, killing many Ms of people, w/o nukes.

Such an attack would justify a nuclear response...

the mere expressed threat of its destruction would be enough to chill some hot heads in the PLA & Beijing.

if Russian radar on Russian territory can detect F-35s on the Iran Iraq border then they can probably also detect C-130s from enormous ranges too...

not if they fly normal corridors as before or low before they release their CMs. "War is deception!"

If China strikes Guam, Okinawa & bases in Micronesia/Australia/Hawaii,

US attacks against China would justify attacks on these places and more...

not if only invasion force & related targets r attacked.

But why? They would be pathetic missile carriers... slow... low altitude... very vulnerable to any air defence system on islands or even very small ships...

certain targets would be best attacked by certain of those aircraft.
Recall that AH-64s killed SAM sites before other aircraft followed into Kuwait.

no, an old unmanned C-130 loaded with it would do it.

An old C-130 would never get close enough to drop it on anything but the weakest and most unprotected target.

I bet they could send EW UAVs/planes/helos before a few armed C-12321 stored/130 drones flying low like CMs.

That's 108 total that could be used as armed drones.

The ones they withdraw will likely be the most worn out pieces of crap they have in service and they will likely have most of their parts stripped out of them to support other aircraft still in use.

not necessarily any/all of them; at least some could make a few more flights w/o much repairs & be good enough for drone conversion.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/43545/hypersonic-strike-aircraft-capability-is-part-of-air-forces-shadowy-project-mayhem

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/06/23/air-force-plans-cut-45-planes-its-workhorse-c-130-fleet-upgrade-others.html

The U.S. Air Force believes it can sustain and upgrade 92 of its oldest C-130 military transport aircraft even as it aims to downsize the overall Hercules fleet over the next few years, according to top brass.

During a Senate Armed Services Airland subcommittee hearing Tuesday, the Air Force reiterated budget plans to reduce its C-130 fleet to 255 aircraft in the near future from about 300 currently.

Advertisement
Of those 255, 163 would be newer J-models the service already has or are on order from Lockheed Martin Corp., said Lt. Gen. David Nahom, deputy chief of staff for plans and programs, adding that 92 older H models would receive necessary modifications to keep them viable. He first disclosed these figures at a House Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces hearing earlier this month.

Read Next: Seven Top Generals Object to Taking Military Prosecutions Out of Commanders' Hands

"To get to 255 is a stretch goal. That's if we can get that with mutually agreeable replace missions," Nahom said. He was referring to state National Guard and Reserve units that fly C-130s someday transitioning to a new mission. Nearly half of the service's current C-130 aircraft, or 149, are flown by the Guard, according to an Air National Guard fact sheet.

Advertisement
"And we may not get there. We understand that, but we believe that 163 is a good number," Nahom said. J-models typically have new engines and better propellers; they also have more lift capability, can fly faster and have a longer range.

The service also maintains some special mission C-130s -- such as EC-130 airborne communications jamming aircraft and the LC-130 "Skibird," which can land on ice and snow for Antarctic missions. It was not immediately clear how these aircraft would be affected by the potential fleet downsizing. However, in its fiscal 2022 budget request, the Air Force is already looking to mothball 20 of the oldest C-130 Hercules transport H-models, which includes two EC-130H and five MC-130H special operations aircraft.

As the service brings in new C-130J models, it will incur additional costs to sustain those aircraft in the future, Nahom said. "That comes obviously at an added cost to what we can do with that money for other areas that we're frankly carrying greater risks than on the C-130," he added.

The C-130 serves as the airlift workhorse for supply missions around the world, largely due to its tactical advantage: Much more flexible and agile than its larger cousin, the C-17 Globemaster III, the C-130 can carry approximately 45,000 pounds and airdrop loads up to 42,000 pounds.

C-130s also have been reconfigured for crucial missions stateside, such as the Modular Airborne Fire Fighting System to battle wildfires; the Modular Aerial Spray System aircraft to spray for pests such as mosquitoes; and the WC-130 "Hurricane Hunter" aircraft for weather reconnaissance.

Last month, Lt. Gen. S. Clinton Hinote, the Air Force's deputy chief of staff for strategy, integration and requirements, said lumbering C-130s might be vulnerable as they deliver supplies or transport personnel during a near-peer conflict.

Instead, the Air Force should look to more innovative solutions, such as a high-speed vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, he told Military.com in an interview. He made similar comments during the seapower and projection forces hearing earlier this month.

"[The] C-130 capability is not well-suited to address this risk," Hinote said during that panel. "That's why we feel we need to retire a certain number of the older C-130s, while addressing this airlift risk in new ways, with new capabilities."

In May, Army Gen. Daniel R. Hokanson, head of the National Guard Bureau, told lawmakers he's against sizable C-130 cuts just for the stateside missions alone.

The Guard must "retain every single one of those flying squadrons because of what they bring for our nation," he said during a May 4 House Appropriations Defense subcommittee hearing.

Senators haven't jumped to support a potential cut, nor have they been quick to back high-speed vertical takeoff and landing aircraft or other innovative solutions as a trade-off for more modernized equipment.

Instead, Sens. Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth, both Illinois Democrats, have urged the Senate Appropriations Committee to support the procurement of extra C-130Js, known as the Super Hercules, for the Air National Guard.

"We support strong funding for the quick modernization of all Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve C-130H aircraft that are not recapitalized with the newer C-130J models," they said in a June 4 letter to the committee with nine other signatories.

The service has asked for five new C-130Js this budget cycle. Durbin and Duckworth want "at least eight additional" aircraft, according to the letter.

"Such robust funding will help our brave service members have the best, newest equipment to provide for their safety, as well as our vital airlift capability and national security needs," they wrote.

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2021/12/f-35-the-best-stealth-fighter-jet-on-earth/

Whatever its shortcomings, it'll help other aircraft, ships, etc. to accomplish their missions.

not these small stealthy ALCMs.

Physical size is not as relevant to RCS as you seem to think... the B-2 is stealthier than the F-22 or F-35...

as soon as the 1st Chinese nuke goes off anywhere in that conflict, the US will be free to use theirs.

That really does not help America at all... it just leaves American cities exposed to nuclear strike... cities full of law abiding tax paying Americans who probably couldn't find Taiwan on a map, and even the ones that can couldn't give a shit about them at all.

And why should they? Is it written in the constitution that the American government needs to defend Taiwan? Pretty sure the people writing the US constitution were afraid of the US becoming an imperial power like the British forces they fought to get independence from.

The very idea that the US is now worse than the British is rather amusing don't you think... sorry... all these years in America you probably don't think.

Not allowed.

they'll need their own big tankers to do that, & they would be shot down by ROC/US/JSDAF F-15/16/22s.

No they don't. With external fuel tanks and an air to air missile load out they should be able to operate 1,500km from base for a good period of time... Taiwanese and Japanese planes will not have any air bases to operate from... those anti carrier ballistic missiles will also likely work well against airfields too...

there was no need for them until recently.

Still no need... but by all means continue to make them...

they won't decrease range by much; 1-2 engines could be shot off to reduce fuel burn; refueling points could be set up by other C-130s/ships, if need be.

Fuel ships refuelling an air armada of attack drone carrying aircraft would be an excellent target for ballistic anti ship missiles.

when was the last big war in the W/S. Pacific? CV/Ns & land based planes were good enough to deal with NK & Vietnam. But those didn't have IRBMs & bombers to destroy distant airfields.

China also has BM to target ships...

from numerous islands in Philippines, Indonesia & Micronesia, & from ammo ships &/ storage sites on islands.

And how happy to host US murderbots will those countries be when China starts attacking the airbases the attacks are coming from?

I would say in those places there would be enough pro Chinese people to attack US forces and destroy their equipment in place as guerillas...

they won't be sailing that far past the 1st Island Chain, to avoid the USN & AF planes & SSNs on the high seas, not to mention their allies planes, subs & ships.

If you are mounting swarm drone and missile attacks then ships wont be that important... ballistic missiles will be flying to the US and Japan and Australia...

open H2O isn't a real estate; losing Taiwan would mean losing Japan & SK, not to mention Philippines .

Bullshit. China are not interested in SK or Japan or the Philippines and have never said they would invade any of those countries.

This is like the bullshit that got US troops in to Vietnam... was that not enough fun for you... 50K bright fair haired American boys dead... five times that physically and mentally damaged... not to mention how many million natives murdered brutally, and their land and their very blood poisoned by Agent orange and agent purple and all the other "agents" they poisoned that country with.

Any other country did that it would be a war crime...

With Japan in China's shadow, US bases there eventually will be gone & Russia will get stronger in the FE.

US bases in Japan are for Japan to decide and no one else... not even the US. Eventually Japan will work that out and throw away the chains that hold them and become a free country... but until then they live in a prison of their own design.

Russia is already getting strong in the Far East and the Far North... Taiwan doesn't make any difference in that regard.

5 US States & 2 territories r on/in the Pacific, & California on the West Coast is the most populous.

Yep... nice easy fresh targets you are happy to sacrifice for some Taiwanese people...

No wonder the US & UK r beefing up Australia that is treated like crap by the Chinese & courting India.

Hahahaha... it was Australia badmouthing China at the demand of the US that got China to do an America on them and say well if you think we are so bad and so evil we will look elsewhere for all that coal and other material we buy from you... BTW the US was no so anti China as to not try to sell some things they stopped importing from Australia... but of course it is China that is the bad guy.

France sold Mirages to Taiwan & they were very happy with them & after market support.

India bought Mirage 2000s from france and liked them very much and not only wanted more but wanted to buy a licence to build more... but France demanded they buy Rafales because that would help them reduce the production price for the French military who are not interested in buying M2Ks any more... they could also charge a huge amount more for the newer aircraft design...

the uS won't antagonize Finland by prohibiting sales to other US allies, lest she goes back to the RF orbit or full neutrality.

You mean like they wont antagonise Turkey because US nuclear weapons are based there and it critically controls the entrance to the Black Sea and also occupies a place very close to Russia... yet they were quite happy to totally screw them over by knocking them out of the F-35 deal for which they were making parts, and also deny them delivery of the 100 f-35s they ordered and also refused to return the money they paid...

Real world buddy... the US would **** over absolutely anyone including its own poor and middle class...

If she has problems with F-35s, they'll be taken back & newer/st F-15/16/18s would be offered.

What if she wants Rafales or Typhoons?

perhaps they don't see the Su-57 ready/fitting their req's or much better than their own J-20s.

Well I can see them not knowing anything concrete about the Su-57 so of course they wont think it fits their requirements because it is as unknown to them as the J-20 is to the west...

I heard a rumor that China offered to build a few Type 55 ships in exchange for Tu-160 blueprints & production rights.

Hahaha... beware Chinese whispers. Why would Russia adopt a foreign designed and foreign made warship that does not use their own weapons.... that would be the sort of ridiculous rumour a fanboy would make up and try to sell on the internet...

the mere expressed threat of its destruction would be enough to chill some hot heads in the PLA & Beijing.

Or cause them to triple its air defence protection and seriously consider a pre-emptive self defence strike... perhaps a 50 megaton ground burst detonation along the San Andreas fault or Yellowstone park?

not if they fly normal corridors as before or low before they release their CMs. "War is deception!"

What normal corridors... and the west leaks like a sieve.... there are too many honourable people who realise such stupid fucking idiot ideas will just get everyone killed.

not if only invasion force & related targets r attacked.

Why do you think that?

What if that invasion force changes course and attacks Japan instead?

US forces fighting Chinese forces would lead to Chinese land based forces attacking US forces in the region... simply for self defence.... they don't know what your intentions are and having all those forces available to use becomes a threat to China taking back its disputed territory...

certain targets would be best attacked by certain of those aircraft.
Recall that AH-64s killed SAM sites before other aircraft followed into Kuwait.

They used helicopters to fly very low below radar levels of the main radar sites... civilian and military... that was 1990 and their radars were not that good.

Modern Radars tend to see right to the wave tops over water so taking a helicopter just makes you really slow and really really easy for a fighter to shoot you down.

Even a modern MiG-21 would massacre helicopters... load them up with R-77s or the Chinese equivalent and fly at 800km/h at medium altitude... they will detect helicopter at long range and be able to engage them at long range too... fire your four missiles and turn back and refuel and rearm and repeat... those helicopters and troop transport planes would get murdered.

I bet they could send EW UAVs/planes/helos before a few armed C-123 21 stored /130 drones flying low like CMs.

Newer fighters to take down the EW aircraft... manned or unmanned.... and old fighters for everything else... it would be a massacre.

BTW I love how powerful US carriers are that you don't even mention using them... how much did they cost and you are not even considering using them?

Instead, the Air Force should look to more innovative solutions, such as a high-speed vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, he told Military.com in an interview. He made similar comments during the seapower and projection forces hearing earlier this month.

Sounds like they have a hard on for tilt rotor aircraft.

Honestly I am surprised they haven't built a four engine quad tilt rotor design aircraft yet... it would be more stable and likely rather safer too... and presumably better weight performance.

Whatever its shortcomings, it'll help other aircraft, ships, etc. to accomplish their missions.

Take the blinders off mate... it is the most expensive military programme on record and it has delivered a dog... the faster they make them the quicker the US and her allies fold.

Tsavo Lion wrote:https://www.19fortyfive.com/2021/12/f-35-the-best-stealth-fighter-jet-on-earth/

Whatever its shortcomings, it'll help other aircraft, ships, etc. to accomplish their missions.

As someone that facilitated logistics for the F-35 in my millitary:
It really is a piece of shit.

I was an part of an Team that needed to prepare our airbases for the F-35, so i heard a lot, and experienced a lot during this project.
Also there was a lot of "negative" experiences on the training base Luke in Arizona with my nations pilots training with the F-35.

1. It needs exorbinant of maintenance hours for its flight hours, not to mention its damn stealth coating.
2. Because it got too heavy, they removed the self-isolating foam from the fuel tank. that is build around the engine.
3. the F-35 failed multiple times to win an dogfight against an F-16...with fully loaded external fuel tanks.
4. dont fly it in thunder, ironically the F-35 is called "Lightning" but it can not handle lightning. it results in avionic's failure of control.
5. Thales Netherlands discovered that Lockheed builds sattelite kill-switches at random positions into the F-35 export models. Just not the one's Israel is receiving.
6. it is too slow, and has an too limited payload to ever defend itself from anything fixed wing. Russians fly circles around this thing and puts its very airfields into strike-range of enemy craft.
7. as mentioned before, extremely limited payload. two bomb bays with one bomb. otherwise you need to hang ordnance on external payloads what defeats the purpose of Stealth.
8. it needs runway's in pristine conditions, seriously?. ever heard of wartime conditions?. the F-35 should be able to accept an piece of highway as an runway.
9."but it's VTOL". yes...just exactly like the harrier that could only do that with very, very limited payload. So you need an runway for max payload and by that the 'VTOL" Arguement is defeated.

Bonus: you know Lockheed buy'd this design from the Russians after the fall of the soviet union right?. the YAK-141?.
They did not came up with it themselves.
You know why the russians sold it?. because it does not work. It is not an weapon anymore because of its complexity, pricetag and lack of offensive capability.
.



I could go on for a bit here...the F-35 should have had it's neck twisted while it was still maturing in the crib.

I assume you did not know all of the above Tsavo, so you are welcome.

To be fair the F-35 is an improvement on the Yak-141... the fan lift system means it is cold air that is blown down at the front of the aircraft, with the Yak-141 it is hot air that is depleted in oxygen because the two small turbojet engines the air just passed through consumed the oxygen and converted it into carbon monoxide... that hot oxygen starved air near the front of the aircraft is a serious problem when landing vertically because as you approach the ground your main engine intakes start sucking in thin hot oxygen depleted air and choke and an engine stall 10m above the ground is fatal to a 15-20 ton object.

The Americans didn't buy the whole design from Yakovlev, what they bought was the engine nozzle design for the main engine.

The rear engine on the Yak-141 is an 18-22 ton thrust turbofan capable of operating in full Afterburner with the exhaust nozzle rotated downwards by 95 degrees... so not just vertically down but 5 degrees forward...

The British Harrier did not have afterburner, so the Americans had nothing comparable.

The Yak-141 also had an auto ejection system like the Yak-38 and Yak-38M which saved a lot of lives.

With current technology and current methods the idea of VSTOL is flawed and a bit of a dead end.

Perhaps electric jet engines could solve some of the problems like hot jet exhaust making belly mounted fuel tanks and weapons impossible... limiting weapons to wing pylons... and vectored exhaust nozzles with full 3D motion so wing tip and nose and tail puffer jets are no longer needed...

Would add that the shaft driven lift fan on the F-35 is what gives it a bad shape for a high speed aircraft and massively increases internal volume but no in a useful way... increasing drag and reducing speed potential...

..a very expensive project by the Americans.

Meeting the B-21 Raider: 2022 to bring new bomber’s eagerly awaited rollout

By Stephen Losey
Dec 23, 2021



WASHINGTON — The coming year will see the U.S. Air Force’s most anticipated new aircraft rollout in recent memory as the service debuts its next stealth bomber. But 2022 will also bring what are expected to be tough choices and retirements as part of the upcoming budget proposal for the following fiscal year. The B-21 Raider will be rolled out to the public in 2022, though there is no concrete date. Several months afterward, the Raider will make its first test flight. “We’ll do something special as we bring out the B-21,” such as a ceremony for the unveiling or the follow-on first flight, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. CQ Brown said in September during Defense One’s online State of Defense conference. This will be the first public unveiling of a new Air Force bomber in more than three decades, since Northrop Grumman’s B-2 Spirit bomber was revealed to the public at Air Force Plant 42 in Palmdale, California, in November 1988. The B-2′s first public flight took place the following year, in July 1989.

defensenews.com/air/2021/09/20/northrop-grumman-now-has-five-b-21-stealth-bombers-in-production

The future Air Force Northrop Grumman B-21 stealth strategic bomber will cost $203 billion over 30 years

Dec. 9, 2021

The average cost of a B-21 strategic bomber is about $550-million in fiscal 2010 dollars, or about $639 million in 2019 dollars. WASHINGTON – The U.S. Air Force’s next-generation B-21 stealth bomber program will likely cost taxpayers at least $203 billion to develop, purchase and operate 100 aircraft over 30 years, according to new service estimates. Bloomberg reports. The figure represents the most complete estimate to date for the heavily classified B-21 strategic bomber program won by Northrop Grumman Corp. in 2015. The total cost, priced in fiscal year 2019 dollars, includes $25.1 billion for development, $64 billion for production, and $114 billion for 30 years of sustaining and operating a fleet of 100 bombers. Those costs are part of a huge bow wave of spending facing the U.S. military and American taxpayers as the Pentagon seeks to upgrade the nation’s land-sea-air triad of nuclear weapons, and for systems like new Ford-class aircraft carriers, Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines, and nearly 2,500 F-35 jet fighter-bombers for the Air Force, Navy, and Marines.

militaryaerospace.com/defense-executive/article/14222047/b21-bomber-costs

Still wanking themselves silly with delusions about doing bombing runs over Russian territory.

**** they manage to sell again the B-2 but more expensive...

That's impressive how stupid they are and how good is their marketing department.

Isos wrote:**** they manage to sell again the B-2 but more expensive...

That's impressive how stupid they are and how good is their marketing department.

Agree is B-2 2.0, but this time it should be cheaper and more similar to a real weapon than the most legendary hangar queen the world has known, or that is the idea at least. Another proof of the "success" of their stealth fleet deployment is them having to substitute platforms in the middle of their life like they are planing to do with the F-22

100 bombers. We shall see. This is "cheaper"? Well I guess there is inflation but if they built 100 B-2s I doubt it would have cost more per unit.
I put more faith in the B-52 re-engine program. Perhaps it will still be used in the XXIInd century.

I recall the F-22 and B-2 being promised in vast quantities making them cheap per unit. This never happened and will not happen
for this new wonder waffle either.

Their numbers means 2 billion per aircraft from a to z.

It's close to B-2 IMO

Remember also it's just some guesses and actual price will be much higer.

100 bombers are supposed to cost 200 billion over the course of 30 years?

Why do I have a feeling that extra digit will be added to that pricetag?

Agree is B-2 2.0, but this time it should be cheaper and more similar to a real weapon than the most legendary hangar queen the world has known, or that is the idea at least.

Last time they said a brand new plane was going to be cheaper... was the JSF which led to the F-35...

They want a stealth bomber to attack land targets in Russia... it would be cheaper to fit four weapon pylons under each wing of a 747 with two tandem triple clusters of cruise missiles on each.... 6 missiles per pylon and 8 pylons per subsonic plane... 6 x 8 = 48 missiles...

Cheap to fly around... long flight range... during peace time it could be used as a troop transport to shift troops around in relative comfort...

Replace the cruise missiles with 2,000lb bombs and you have a serious bomber...

Why do I have a feeling that extra digit will be added to that pricetag?

An extra digit for each of those 30 years I suspect...

This guy Tsavo lion was attacked by many AMUR TIGERS...
Don't get me wrong Tsavo (respect for you) but the Airbornewolf has killed every other conversation about the F-35 - he tore everything down literally. Respect, Airbornwolf, your knowledge is impeccable - i think. I'm not a pilot, but that man seems to know what he's writing about. And i agree with him that Yak-141 was unfinished project which was not completed and that aircraft never went into series production and the USSR disintegrated in the meantime. It is probably also true that the Americans were in negotiations with the Yakovlev. So why not to sold that to US. We all love weapons on this forum, there is no reason to quarrel. .
I don't know if you'll see this message, Airbornwolf, but I would like taht you give me your opinion on the following...
Are there any chances that the F-35 will become a reliable and worthy replacement for F-16 in the future ? Maybe its "unfinished" yet, but what about future ?
i try to be realistic because some praise and some criticize that plane.

The F-35 was destroyed at birth because of the greed of the US MIC.

It was supposed to be built in large numbers in three versions so no other type of fighter would really be needed.... it was going to be the new HATO fighter... used by HATO members and HATO allies alike in huge numbers... the automated support system was going to be state of the art and because everyone was using essentially the same aircraft they could pool all their spare parts together and make them cheaper... all the benefits of standardisation and unification.

Except they wanted more.

They wanted it to be totally cancel proof, and they found with the C-17 programme... well known for being expensive but not really needing to be expensive... what they found is that if you built factories that made parts for your white elephant... in this case the F-35... in the voting districts where the congressmen that had voting or veto powers over pentagon funding, then they would never cancel orders.... in fact they will order more planes every year so the Pentagon could "save money" by not including C-17s in the budget because they knew the congressmen who controlled the purse strings would put in a few planes to make sure that factory in his district kept working... the pentagon could shave billions off of what it asked for by not asking for C-17s but orders for billions of dollars for C-17s would be added by the guy who was supposed to be approving the budget.

The problem of course is that spreading production into high unemployment areas of random congressmens states was the opposite of centralisation and parts were coming in from all over the place and coordinating it was a nightmare and despite making all these parts now super expensive they weren't necessarily well made, and often they were not good at all because to make them slightly less expensive they had to go for cheaper materials...

These things are expensive without the quality you would get if you were spending that money on better materials and quality skilled workers... most of the money probably went on distribution and transfers and trucking things around the country.

They achieved their goal of making it cancel proof... but ignored the more important goals of actually being a good plane, and being affordable...

Tried to spot one from my garden about 10 minutes ago but to no avail!

https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/regional-news/raf-fairford-live-american-b-6632491

Final preparations are underway for the arrival of a number of America's iconic bomber planes, the B-52s, to RAF Fairford.

Speculation began to mount at the start of the week, when US Air Force (USAF) crew and cargo were transported from the B52's North Dakota home to Gloucestershire.

With a C5 Galaxy military transporter plane arriving early this morning, packed with US air crew and supplies, the wait for eager aviation enthusiasts is nearly over.

Sources say that four B-52s set off from their Minot Air Base around 2am GMT, with a brief refuelling over Nova Scotia before making their way over the Atlantic.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/american-b-52-bombers-practice-bombing-over-scotland/?fbclid=IwAR2Das4FQ52GkHYkphrRHQSu-i1NF1ShQ5a_vP0Z_IrjteWax5AOiv2PbAE

US B-52s practise bombing over Scotland... has Wales, England, Ireland and France been warned?