B-17's in space next, I suppose...

3 posts ยท Aug 3 2001 to Aug 6 2001

From: Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@j...>

Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 15:16:57 EDT

Subject: B-17's in space next, I suppose...

Okay, I need some ideas on how to fit this into my DS2 games...

Actually the B-17 Redux thing was so... strange I just had to share it.

Gracias,
Glenn/Triphibious
This is my Science Fiction Alter Ego E-mail address.

--------- Begin forwarded message ----------
From: <wilsong@nima.mil>
To: <triphibious@juno.com>
Subject: News from www.strategypage.com
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 22:14:41 -0600
Message-ID: <SWPRODTm0BBh3kKysJn0000019c@swprod.strategyworld.com>

Sent to you by Glenn from www.strategypage.com. Enjoy!
<p><b>WARPLANES: B-17 Redux</b></p>
<p><br>
August 2, 2001; Vision Force To Include B-17s?- As the Air Force
continues to study what weapons it wants in its "toolbox" for conflicts in the
future, one old idea is coming back into serious consideration, the Long Range
Strike Platform (LRSP). This would be a cargo plane already in production
modified to carry three dozen or more cruise missiles. Such a platform would
have to have a range of 9,000 miles with one refueling. It would need the
advanced Joint Tactical Information Distribution System. It
would not need to be armed or stealthy (if its missiles were long-ranged
enough for it to stay outside the envelope of the Russian-built S300
missile). With advanced missiles and communications, it could abort an attack
after the missiles were launched, or change the target selection while the
missiles were in flight. (This could create interesting tactics. If the
aircraft fired 30 of its missiles in the first wave and the other 10 half an
hour later, there would be time to retarget the second wave on targets that
escaped destruction in the first wave. This would be more effective than
reattacking the missed targets the next day.) New hypervelocity missiles
(which do not exist today, even as prototypes) could in theory destroy enemy
missiles carrying weapons of mass destruction before they hit their targets,
or rip apart air defenses to allow manned fighters access to the enemy
heartland. If the US dominates the enemy skies and has destroyed its air
defenses, the LRSP could fly directly over the enemy with vast numbers of
Joint Direct Attack Munitions, Small Diameter Bombs, Joint Standoff Weapons,
or Joint Air to Surface Missiles. The aircraft might even fire its weapons out
of the rear cargo hatch, allowing it to serve as a regular transport aircraft
in peacetime. Top choice of the generals is a missile armed version of the
C-17 cargo plane, of which not enough are on order to satisfy military
needs. The generals have already taken to calling it "the new
B-17".--Stephen V Cole<br>
<br>
July 30, 2001; China has ordered 100 Russian Zhuk-8-2 multi-mode radars
to
refit its fleet of 100 J-8II fighters. This will allow the J-8IIs to use
the same Russian missiles (AA-10 Alamo and AA-12 Adder) as the Su-27s
and
Su-30s being bought from Russia.--Stephen V Cole<br>
<br>
July 29, 2001; There is great unhappiness with the Bush Administration's
plan to reduce the B-1B bomber fleet from 93 aircraft to 60. The cut
would eliminate the 18 aircraft in the hands of the Georgia and Kansas
National Guards, and this would mean less defense spending in those states
(and is seen as a first move toward closing some Air National Guard bases).
While the Air Force says the move will save $163 million a year (which will be
plowed into upgrades for the remaining B-1Bs), critics of the move say
it will actually cost rather than save money due to more operations by the
smaller force and promises to keep the Guard bases open even without their
bomber squadrons.--Stephen V Cole<br>
<br>
<br>
July 28, 2001; India has been offered Russian-built Myasishchev-55
(Mystic-B) high altitude recon planes under its recent defense deal with
Russia. Development of this aircraft has been stalled by the post-Cold
War collapse of the Russian military budget, and the Russians feel that if
they can sell a few to India, they will be able to field the aircraft for
their own forces.--Stephen V Cole<br>
<br>
July 27, 2001; The Anglo-French JOANNA project, to develop an advanced
electro-optical targeting pod that could be used by Typhoon and Rafale,
will probably expand to include Italian and Spanish Typhoons.--Stephen V
Cole<br>
<br>
July 26, 2001; Russia's highest-priority aircraft program, the Su-27IB
long-range tactical bomber, will be delayed to 2004 because the
electronic equipment and software don't work and there is not enough money to
fix
them quickly.--Stephen V Cole<br>
<br>
July 25, 2001; Sagem is developing a new high-speed recon drone known as
HV. The drone is 4.2 meters long with a wingspan of 2.4 meters. The wings are
swept forward to improve agility and fuel efficiency. The aircraft can fly for
12 hours at 400 knots at 33,000 feet. Its data links have a range of 400km but
it could operate 600km from base in "silent mode". It would have two missile
approach sensors to warn the aircraft to take evasive action. Payload is 50kg
(110 pounds) and could be an&nbsp;
electro-optical/infrared sensor, synthetic aperture radar, or laser
targeting designator.--Stephen V Cole&nbsp;<br>
<br>
July 24, 2001; South Africa's Kentron is developing Seraph, a stealthy
recon drone that would be 18 feet long, have a 9-foot wingspan, and fly
at
Mach-0.86. The aircraft would be designed for the low-cost market (for
countries that cannot afford superior but more expensive US-built
drones). The company (now part of British Aerospace) says it is now trying to
develop inexpensive stealth materials that could bring Seraph to
market.--Stephen V Cole<br>
<br>
July 23, 2001; The F-22 program is in cost trouble again. Congress has
demanded that the Air Force buy 339 aircraft for $37.6 billion (not counting
development costs, which are also under a Congressional limit). The Air Force
has been saying for a year that it will be $2 billion over this limit, and now
says that the actual cost overrun will be closer to
$9
billion. The Air Force says that with more money NOW it can reduce future
costs, saving $7 for every $1 extra it gets next year.--Stephen V
Cole<br>

--------- End forwarded message ----------

From: Michael Llaneza <maserati@e...>

Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 10:25 -0700

Subject: Re: B-17's in space next, I suppose...

That's not completely unreasonable. There's been some talk (an article
in Proceedings) about developing a twin-prop ground support aircraft
similar to the F-7. You get larger payloads and longer loiter times than
a four ship division of Harriers... and for less money.

> ------------ Original Message -----------
It
> would need the advanced Joint Tactical Information Distribution

From: <s666@f...>

Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 22:58:39 -0600 (MDT)

Subject: Re: B-17's in space next, I suppose...

> On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Michael Llaneza wrote:

> That's not completely unreasonable. There's been some talk (an article

Couldn't they just bring back the Skyraider? Didn't it have an ungodly payload
and loiter time. (These date back to Korea, don't they? I don't have a
reference to check at the moment.)