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 -----------
> From: Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@juno.com>
> Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 15:16:57 EDT
> 
> 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.
> 
> --------- 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>