ch1466, I'd think you'd be a fan of the B-58, as it was so effective at culling the jet-jockey population
B-58 was a really amazing aircraft in some ways, and certainly looked stunning, but it was very prone to making large smoking craters in the ground,
and not with ordnance. 26 out of 116 built were lost in accidents, a stunning loss rate for a plane that never saw combat.
I have a fondness for the Hustlers lines though I generally don't like 'podded' airframes (one of the reasons I'm not fond of airliners) as it is
such a 1950's cowardly solution to the problem of enclosing power and gas within an aerodynamic shape.
In fact, I'm still hoping 'someone, somewhere, someday' will turn up a picture of the sole aircraft painted (for a single day!) in a modified
SEA/SIOP hybrid scheme as a black-bellied pathfinder for 'Nam.
Given the Iraqi's supposedly used MiG-25RBs to sling-bomb Iranian oil platforms from over 60 miles out using nothing more than Peleng radionav
triangulation systems, I think we missed a big chance to exploit the high-fast envelope and 'forget penetrating by SEAD -or- Stealth' here.
Indeed, I would have enjoyed seeing the North Vietnamese scramble to defend their Capital with 15-20nm systems against bombers that were 'pulling off
target' some 40-50 miles out overwater.
Goodbye Rail Yards. So long, GT Powerplant. Ooops, there goes the Parliament and Hanoi Radio. So sorry about the dykes over the rice fields. Throw
as many flunk-rock Guidelines as high as you like folks, I really enjoy the fireworks.
With _no lost crews_.
That's the difference between what people assume of my dislike of inhabited systems today and what I acknowledge of the shortcomings in technical
capabilities and misinterpreted historical lessons inherent to 'getting here' through previous conflicts.
When you fight a war, you FIGHT TO WIN.
And no kidding about with the political consequences of seeing a principle strategic deterrent shot down like any other high-slow-stupid-repeat-track
Most especially when the best way to stop an externally motivated insurgency within your ally's turf is through terrorizing the foreign sourced
'volunteer' populace into realizing that the propoganda of 'a long walk South to your grave' is no longer a dying-place reality they can
dissociatively count upon their flawed leadership to save them from.
Make physical change happen by changing peoples minds. I think Mau said that in his little red book. And we never have 'gotten' how to do that
with the overkill available to us.
Having lost the will to 'fight for the honor of our name' and made wars a vicariously moral spectator sport instead; the concept of terror as an
'active deterrent' is somehow remains alien to us. Even as the rise of laser weapons and a spiralling escalation in asset values will never let a
conventional bomber penetrate a defended airspace alone, _period_. I don't care how 'sexy' it looks.
Which brings you back to tactical aircraft making better fragged-sortie use of gas and apertures.
Frankly, given the kinds of global threats we face today, even a Mach 2 class platform is not going to give a president the kind of reactive-spank
options he needs, IMO (though there are equal dangers related to commitment vs. need when you give him a Mach 15 ASP skip bomber). Which is why
LRSA/B-3 studies based on these systems are still a mistake.
Because the best way to stop war (among barbarians who see nukes as big-boy toys) is STILL to put a horror of _conventional_ annihilation on the
threat population base in such a way as to deny a dictator 'leadership' of a functioning society. And that cannot happen so long as we don't have
the ability to project an immediacy of overwhelming firepower, on target, within 3-5 hours ANYWHERE.
To discourage anything like another PGW-I or II, India-Pak 1967 or Nork-ROK 1950.
Should we continue to persist in a Global Cop belief in Pax Americana, it had better come a lot cheaper than 1 Trillion Dollar Deployments of forces
to save the savages from themselves.