Military historian and DT bud Barrett Tillman forwarded this photo along with this thought:
“Well, so much for The Growing Russian Threat. Raptors now can take their historic place posing with Bears, just as F-106s, Electric Lightnings, Phantoms, Eagles and Tomcats did over the last 40 years.”
That’s the kind of progress $200-plus million unit flyaway cost buys you. That’s how DoD rolls, baby!
And that Stealth technology sure comes in handy during an escort, don’t it? Here’s hoping the Russians don’t look out the window.
– Ward
Ward,
It just struck me looking at that photo and reading Barrett’s commentary.…the Bear Bomber is the military equivilant of Fidel Castro! I mean Fidel just keeps looking at new US Presidents (and he just very might see yet another one)and the Bear just keeps staring down the newest interceptors/fighters the West throws at it.
LOL! I’ts hard to believe that the Russians are still flying the ole Bear. The F-22 sure looks cool along side it, though. I’m wondering if the pilot of that Bear was ‘freaking out’ a bit having that Raptor so close.
> I’m wondering if the pilot of that Bear was ‘freaking out’ a bit having that Raptor so close.
I suspect he was saying “Cool!!!” in Russian and taking pictures for his blog.
you know what i would just shoot that POS down. last time i checked FRIENDLY ALLIES dont fly nuclear bombers over each others air space. if this is over sovereign they should send that mfer into the ground. a while ago the ruskies did the same to the uk. they have to learn that their old ways and not acceptable any more and will not be meet without reaction.
Pretty cool picture. I wonder if the Raptor flew across the bow to give the Bear a good view on air to air radar? If so his mission was accomplished. That’s the point of their flying these routes; to gather valuable intel and there is no doubt that would be a most valuable piece of data for them.
at this point I think I should remind everyone that the F22 was not designed with mission in mind (though it is within its design capabilities). it was designed to shoot down any other fighter that could conceivably be built with todays technology.
think of it this way, you invested a trillion dollars to make shure that anyone who wants to have air superiority in a conflict with america will need to spend more. only the EU, and only with unanimous consent, can put that kind of cash together. even then a potential aggressor will need to invent new technology which ex-hypothesi does not exist.
in short, you spent that money so that Russia would not even bother trying to update their equipment.
Evangeline
“you spent that money so that Russia would not even bother trying to update their equipment.“
and well done it worked! they’ve resumed flights with that old thing, enjoy your recession
Does it look like the Raptor is carrying external fuel tanks?
Just curious?
DC2
@sIntax: I doublt that the russians are flying their bomber *into* anyone’s souvereign airspace (allies excluded). Just approaching it is considered serious enough though.
Shoot it down, if it violates our airspace shoot it down. Im sick of Russia playing games with us, how many of our airplanes did they shoot down for even getting close to their airspace. Lets shoot one down.
Hell I worked on this in the late ‘60s. I guess Russian paranoia will never cease. Great picture too. I’ll add it to the collection I have of NATO escorts through the years.
Ward:
Great pic! Do you have a link to a high-res version? Would make a nice screen saver.
Thanks!
Believe it or not, that “ole Bear” is about the same vintage as our B-52. Like B-52s, Bears are expected to stay in service through 2040-ish
you know what i would just shoot that POS down. last time i checked FRIENDLY ALLIES dont fly nuclear bombers over each others air space. if this is over sovereign they should send that mfer into the ground. a while ago the ruskies did the same to the uk. they have to learn that their old ways and not acceptable any more and will not be meet without reaction.
um dude if you shoot down a nuke equiped bomber you get that nuke raining down on your soil and thats a bad thing
plus all this is is propaganda so the russkis can start feeling good about themselves again just like there doing with there navy
i agree we dont need 381 f22
considuring the ability of todays and future anti-missile/aircraft/arty shells/santas weapons i see a decrease in the effective use of aircraft and a return to the days when artillay was a god that and space based weapons
lasers sound like a joke until you look at how powerful there becoming
as for stealth i think they alreagy have figured out one way to neutralize it
Since this is in my major area of interest, forgive me for making a couple of unrelated musings here.
First, this scene makes me nostalgic. My squadron in 80–82′, the 57FIS (Black Knights of Keflavik!), broke all the records for intercepting Soviet equipment during the Cold War, to the point that we were so low on Phabulous Phantoms at one time that we had to scramble one out of the paint barn once in zinc chromate yellow (forever earning it the name ‘Screaming Yellow Zonker’. You never saw a unit with more seriousness or pride in its mission. We had LIFE magazine come through and they did a big photo article on our operations, which got us in a bit of trouble afterwards because we took the LIFE guy in REALLY close for some photos.
Second, the BEAR is a standoff weapon and ELINT platform, not a penetrating bomber. It has been a standoff platform forever. The BUFF was a viable penetrator much longer than the Bear ever was so we obviously made the right concept and design decisions. We could have easily built our own
Quote-“I wonder if the Raptor flew across the bow to give the Bear a good view on air to air radar?“
Yes. Why would you give the Russians an up close of your most secret stealth fighter?
Is this photo real?
Sorry, Longneck. What you see is what I got.
SMSgtMac,
Fair enough on the providing the fuding facts. Let’s start with this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
Note midway down the page that eighteen 2007 Procurement items totalled over $84 billion. The Army’s portion of those big ticket items was just 2 items totalling $4.9 billion. Also note the “by service” overall spending percentages of 29.5% for the USAF and 25.1% for the Army.
Please note this article as well from ArmyTimes:
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/02/army_grow_080204w/
The Army’s efforts to expand force structure in the next few years to relieve stress on deploying units, is already being questioned by the GAO…indicating that perhaps in future years, the Army will need more than the 25.1% that it had in overall budget in 2007.
Meanwhile the Army plans to begin fielding FCS brigades in 2015. The earlier Air Force Association article indicates that the Air Force would unnecessarily like to buy more than 48 F-35s a year. Naturally that would cost more money. The stated but unjustified need for 200 additional F-22s would cost more money beyond 2011 when the line was originally to end. That would cost more money. The Air Force says it needs a new bomber by 2018. That would cost more money. Of course we know about the tankers which we do need but the Air Force also wants more C-17s instead of fixing C-5s. I actually may agree with that too.…but it will cost more money. Shall I go on?
I’m a happy camper because the Giants are about to win the Superbowl.
But the bottom line is that when you start out saying you want the best and nothing but the best for your %62 billion…and that ends up being not 700 F-22s, but just 183 F-22 aircraft, you don’t then turn around and say that you want your cake and want to eat it to…i.e. big quantities of the best equipment.
The US Army faced that dilemma with Comanche and wisely chose lots of other aircraft instead of a few high quality Comanches. Perhaps the USAF could learn from that example…but in this case, at least it gets the 183 top quality F-22s which are more than sufficient for the threat when SLEPed F-15Cs along with lots of F-35s are added to the mix.
Is it really so hard to believe the Russians fly 1950’s technology? Someone check the expiration date on the B-52 and pretty much our entire tanker fleet. B-52 is not the most cost effective aircraft to fly but the development costs of a new model would be outrageous, given the typical procurement strategy of going bleeding edge. So, we will soldier on until the bombers are piloted by the original pilot’s gransons– or even great grandsons.
Quoting Wiki as a source, dude i didn’t now some people were so dumb. Wiki is never an accredited source, EVER. About the USAF, get over it, When nukes start flying, only the USAF (besides a few nuke subs in the Navy) is going to be able to do anything about it. Lets face it, the USAF is extremely vital and I wouldn’t care if they got 50% of the budget, they do a dang good job. That said, an F-22 costs a little more money than a new tank or rifle so technically they need more money than the army.
DC 2Jennings, ARES has a different photo and it sure looks like the F-22 is carrying at least underwing tanks
22lr from what body orifice did you draw that line of thinking from? The argument is about the Air Force being caught up in a procurement death spiral. Gold plated weapon systems require BIG BUCKS. Choices must be made and with the damage being done to the US Army by this continuing war on terror, those choices require that the Air Force have fewer shiny toys. What is the justification for over 300 F-22’s? How will the additional aircraft increase our safety? If your mythical future opponent is the Chinese, then more attention should immediately be focused on the Army, Navy and Marines. In that match up we are already superior in terms of force structure regarding our aerial forces. Be a student of the military and not a worshiper of the Air Force.
The total number F-22s will most likely be under 100 planes,& with the F-15s(except the F-15Es) permanently grounded & retired & our F-16s not that far from joining them,& with the total cancellation of the F-35 JSF program,the U.S. Air Force will be reduced to having to buy & fly F/A-18E/F Super Hornets &/or (gasp) a U.S. licensed copy of the Eurofighter,locally produced of course.Never doubt the evilness of the NWO.
What does this mean?
“The report also looked at Lockheed Martin’s F-22A Raptor fighter plane, which was grounded during testing after cracks were found in its canopy that stemmed from manufacturing problems.“
I got that little slice(not trying to take anything out of context) from this article.
“Defense Dept.‘s Weapons Programs Faulted
GAO Report Cites Cost Overruns, Years-Long Delays in Acquisitions“
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/01/AR2008020103388.html
Icchan,
You are exactly right about using second line planes against the Bear.The Indians are bringing their Su-30s to train against us.But they are not going to use their first line radar with those jets because they don’t want to reveal its capabilities(which would let us know whether it sucks or not & how to counter it in wartime if we ever had to meet up against them).You can be sure that the Su-30s WILL NOT be training against the F-22s because we also need to keep our cards hidden too.
The F-22 is carrying drop-tanks for a reason. I’m sure it has some extra radar reflectors as well precisely so that you cannot estimate its true RCS. The Bears are actually much younger than the BUFFs. I think the ones that are flying now were built in the early 80s. However, while the plan is to keep them around for decades, they may not last as long as B-52s because these pointless patrols are wearing them out. And parts, of course, are an issue — no boneyard in Russia. I’d expect the flight rate to go down significantly after the Russian Presidential election in March.
Making fun of the ruskies on the account of the old TUs is kind of stupid. USA flyies the B52s still. And those B1 and B2 as aircraft aren’t that great.
I don’t think the Tu-95 was used in afghanistan, but the Tu-22m was (to a limited degree). Neither was as much use as might be hoped;
The current fleet of Tu-95s is fitted for cruise missiles only. Tu-22 Blinders were used for carpet bombing in 1987 in response to Stingers. A lot of people were killed.
Close escort of a Tu-95 just isn’t the same without those massive “U.S. AIR FORCE” or “NAVY” markings on the fuselage sides.
I repeat with emphasis on the key point this time:
“WE aren
MAC,
I would agree with you and the GDP issue if we weren’t projected to hit over $400B in debt this year. Also, the other arms of our power that make us the most powerful nation in the world are falling behind: education and innovation. So we are left with what we have.
What Cole does not recognize is the supplemental appropriations that Congress has given mostly to the Army and Marines over the past six years. That has funded more body armor, up armored humvees, MRAPs, refurbishing or replacing spent equipment, etc.
And it would seem natural that the Navy and Air Force have a larger piece of the defense budget pie. The most expensive piece of equipment for the Army is either the tank or helicopter. That’s peanuts compared to the price of an aircraft or ship.
But all of this is off topic.
Perhaps the drop tanks are on the F-22 to give it a longer loiter time. This pic could have been taken while the F-15s were grounded. It might have made more sense to have two F-22s trail the Bear instead of sending another pair up to switch off (if they had that many planes available).
DC2
Found this article on Strategypage.com
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20080203.aspx
“Keeping F-22s On The Ground
February 3, 2008: One advantage of wartime operations, is that pilots spend more time in the air. Thus the U.S. Air Force now has two active duty (and 21 reservists) who have spent more than 4,000 in the air flying F-16s. Most career pilots only spend 2,000–3,000 hours in the air over a twenty year career. This is because air force pilots typically spend a large chunk of their career in school or non-flying jobs. In peacetime, pilots assigned to a flying job, will get 200–400 hours in the air each year. These days, transport pilots are getting 500–1,000 hours a year, and even fighter pilots are in the air for 400 or more hours.
Some pilots are just lucky, like the two active duty guys who have over 4,000 hours. They spent a lot of time in training jobs, and stayed healthy (air force doctors will ground pilots for lots of reasons). Many pilots will retire after twenty, or simply leave earlier, and continue to fly in the reserves. That’s how a lot of pilots who got to 3,000 hours in 20 years of active duty, eventually got to over 4,000.
There are also two active duty F-15 pilots with over 4,000 hours, and six A-10 pilots. There may never be any F-22 pilots to rack up 4,000 hours. That’s because F-22 pilots are spending much less time in the air than pilots of older aircraft (mainly because the F-22 is so expensive to operate).
Concerning drop tanks,the Israelis are already designing drop tanks & conformal fuel tanks for the F-35 JSF they plan on getting.
Would conformal fuel tanks help the F-22 without compromising stealth? It would seem like drop tanks & conformal fuel tanks are only suitable on strike fighters like the F-16s & F-15Es for long range bombing missions & there is currently no supersonic stealth Strike Fighter/Fighter Bomber(I had to add that to counter the argument that the F-117 is a Strike Fighter/Fighter-Bomber).
Sintax,
That was the whole point of his argument.
DC2
And parts, of course, are an issue — no boneyard in Russia.
Really? They sure have enough space, and enough dry desserts.
Their whole force was in mothballs in the ’90’s effectively–
Since the subject is really old bombers, many of you may not realize that on January 17, 1966, a B-52 collided with a KC-135 off Spain, destroying both aircraft and dropping four each 4 megaton bombs!!
I was almost 11 at the time so would not have known about it except for visiting my retired Command Sergeant Major father-in-law who spends winters in his trailer in Destin, FL. He happened to get the story first-hand from a survivor aboard the B-52 who parachuted to safety. Most to include those on the KC-135 were not so lucky. Only 4 survived on the B-52.
22IR doesn’t like Wikipedia, but as long as you note the endnote sources, I find it generally pretty credible and informative…and an easy source that has more detail readily at hand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palomares_hydrogen_bombs_incident
My mother-in-law tried to convince me that the bombs exploded which I knew was unlikely…and knew she was probably partially correct, as in diry bomb. It is interesting to see the photos of old nukes in the link, and can only imagine how intense it was as they searched for one bomb in the ocean.
Guess this incident ended years of B-52s flying around the Mediterranean with nukes on board!! And the U.S. ended up digging up 1400 tons of contaminated soil and bringing it to the U.S.
As an aside to DC2/22IR etc, while it may be true that the Army has no need to fund $160 Billion dollar fighters or $2 Billion bombers, when you start buying lots of less expensive helicopters and top of the line armored vehicles it can rapidly add up to those kinds of sums. We just spend tax dollars buying 3,300 quality aircraft useful for the long war, instead of 183 F-22s.…or 21 B-2s with a one-time 35% readiness rate!
This may be a slap in the face of worshippers at the alter of technology,but I’ve just read an article about Kenyans building “simple weapons” to defend themselves.What are those “no-tech(compared to all of the modern electrical/nuclear powered,computer driven weapons we all seem to love) weapons”,why bow & arrows of course.They don’t even look like the modern aerodynamic arrows or the fiberglass bows with target sites that our hunters use.They look like simple “back to the stone age” bow & arrows.When we can’t even agree on what our defense make up should be or how much it costs,leave it to the Africans to go back to simple weapons of mass destruction like machetes,stones,& bow & arrows & show how they can be “mass produced” at pennies to the dollar.Now I’m sure that our JDAMS could wipe their bow & arrows off the face of the earth,but until we ever become united as a nation to fight a common cause(Berkely protesting the presence of a Marine Corps recruiting office anyone?),then bow & arrows will win the day.Thats because for all of our modern technology,our government cannot be reasoned with to keep our forces modern & fresh.
For those looking for higher resolution pics (only 1024 x 768):
http://www.irandefence.net/showthread.php?t=28077
If anybody wants a lesson in how arrogance & believing your own hype that you are the greatest in the world can come back to bite you in the ass,you need to look no further than the New England Patriots.When they had a simple 3 point field goal to make,they blew it by deciding to throw another pass instead.Also,when they ONLY NEEDED to get close enough for a 3 point field goal,they had to keep throw long bomb incomplete passes.
What does this have to do with our national defense? Everything,because that is our attitude about national defense.Instead of paying for unglamorous things like capable lift aircraft & tankers,we have to have the big glamorous F-22s.Like the Patriots stupidly thinking they need to throw another bomb when a simple field goal will do,we have to design our battle tactics around the F-22 & literally everything else be damned.The New York Giants won with simple “low tech” stuff,& the enemy is beating us with low tech IEDs & snipers…AND there ain’t nothin’ an F-22 can do to counter that(because they don’t drop bombs yet).Maybe we should call our battle tactics & National Defense Plan the “F-22 Defense”.
& if anybody disputes my argument that IEDs & snipers are defeating us,then why are our troops buttoned up like turtle in a shell & unable to freely walk up & down roads & ally ways in Iraq? Oh,I forgot,the surge is WORKING.
Cole,
The USAF continued flying “Chrome Dome” missions for a few years after the Palomares incident. I dont know if they still flew into the Med after that, but they definately continued the northern chrome dome flights until the Thule incident in 1968.
Hell I worked on this in the late ‘60s. I guess Russian paranoia will never cease. Great picture too. I’ll add it to the collection I have of NATO escorts through the years.
Posted by: Tony von Krag at February 3, 2008 05:38 PM
Paranoia?! When the world bully encircles us with milbases, bristling with more and more weapons, funding regime change in our country, always trying to teach us how to live, what’s the option, but showing teeth?
Mongols, French, German .… do you want to add Americans to this list? Yes, we are weak now… but I assure you we’ll take you to hell with us if we are forced too. So continue your efforts … to feed our “paranoia”.
I just can’t beleive that you are so dumb to accuse others of your our sins. Who is the world most armed nations… do I need to remind you?
Cole,
You bring up a good point regarding nuclear weapons that directly reflects on the defence budget allocations:
How many nukes does the US Army have? These things aren’t cheap to maintain and the Air Force and Navy have all of them, which they take care of out of their budget.
Of course I guess we should get rid of all of these too since nuclear war will never occur.
DC2
I read this occurred around Thanksgiving. That would mean the F-15s were grounded at the time. So that would explain the use of drop tanks for additional loiter/escort time instead of having another two F-22s show up an relieve this set. They had to keep some F-22s on the ground in case more Bears showed up.
Which just reinforces the fact we need more F-22s. It’s kind of like having two armored divisions. That would be enough to take on any potential enemy (and then some if we are talking about insurgencies AKA the long war), but that would be about it and with no reserve capacity just in case.
DC2
I stand corrected. DOE takes care of maintaining the warheads. However, all other equipment is maintained by the individual services (SSBNs, B-2s, ICBMs, etc.).
DC2
Cat or Mouse?
The B2/F22 cannot fly in US airspace without RCS enhancements. I watched a piece on the B2 and each time the plane enters our airspace it puts the curtain up for air traffic controllers. Much like a sailboat so that they are seen by others. Additionally, I’d like to believe if they won’t land the F22 at air shows as to make the technology more difficult to study then it could be assumed that they are not spoon feeding this technology to our esteemed competitors. Although, there was a post from some dude having a meltdown about how stupid the DOD is so maybe I am wrong.
Blake,
I have seen the F-22 on static display at an airshow.
I seriously doubt, contrary to opinions here, that the Bear had any sort of air to air radar. It may have had measures for detecting radar energy and such, but I doubt the F-22 radiated. It was more likely directed by ground radar.
DC2
DC Good Point.
I was thinking more in line of its natural RCS or lack there of. Although I would like to see a static display, the show it puts on is RFG.
Back to the intent of this DT post: I forgot to include that my office mate has the same picture but with an A-4. (Albeit a Navy experience) So the F22 joining the ranks is indeed an historic event. Put a smile on his face.