DOCSLIB.ORG

Eagles, Ravens, and Other Birds of Prey a History of USAF Suppression of Enemy Air Defense Doctrine, 1973-1991 by James L. Young

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Eagles, Ravens, and Other Birds of Prey a History of USAF Suppression of Enemy Air Defense Doctrine, 1973-1991 by James L. Young Eagles, Ravens, and Other Birds of Prey A History of USAF Suppression of Enemy Air Defense Doctrine, 1973-1991 by James L. Young Jr. B.A., United States Military Academy, 1997 M.A., Kansas State University, 2008 AN ABSTRACT OF A DISSERTATION submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of History College of Arts and Sciences KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY Manhattan, Kansas 2018 Abstract During the Cold War, the United States’ foreign policy relied heavily on its ability to project military power. More often than not, the central component of force projection rested on the United States military’s effectiveness in employing air power both by establishing air superiority and through accurate delivery of ordnance. As the primary service tasked with conducting aerial warfare, the United States Air Force (USAF) was expected to maintain this capability either to achieve deterrence or, when necessary, to military action. In January 1973, the USAF seemed incapable of performing the latter task due to the North Vietnamese Integrated Air Defense System’s (NV-IAD’s) effectiveness in Operation Rolling Thunder and its successor, Operation Linebacker. Eighteen years later, Air Force aircraft spearheaded the Coalition’s air attack on the Iraqi Integrated Air Defense System (I-IADS) in January 1991. Considered by many to be the most effective air defense system outside the Soviet Union’s, the I-IADS was expected to exact heavy casualties from the allied forces. Instead, in less than twenty days, the USAF’s dominance was so complete that politicians, analysts and military historians quickly proclaimed a “Revolution in Military Affairs” (RMA). The majority of the current historiography credits advances in precision-guided munitions (PGMs), airframes, and computer technology as the impetus for the RMA. Others have claimed that the USAF’s training methodology and construction of advanced training sites such as the Red Flag complex at Nellis Air Force Base were the primary drivers for the Air Force’s success. While acknowledging the role all of these factors played, this dissertation also demonstrates the key role played by the development of Suppression of Enemy Air Defense (SEAD) doctrine from January 1973 through August 1991. In the aftermath of the American war in Vietnam, the Air Force considered defense suppression a tactical task that was secondary to the primary mission of putting ordnance on target. At the end of Desert Storm, proponents of the Air Force’s SEAD doctrine had convincing evidence that an enemy IADS was not just an ancillary weapons array, but functioned a critical national system just like manufacturing, government, or the people’s will. The process by which this viewpoint changed had effects on the development of the United States Air Force’s Cold War conventional capability in general, and the development of training methods, electronic warfare platforms, and modern airframes specifically. Eagles, Ravens, and Other Birds of Prey A History of USAF Suppression of Enemy Air Defense Doctrine, 1973-1991 by James L. Young Jr. B.A., United States Military Academy, 1997 M.A., Kansas State University, 2008 A DISSERTATION submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of History College of Arts and Sciences KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY Manhattan, Kansas 2018 Approved by: Major Professor Donald J. Mrozek Copyright © James Young 2018 Abstract During the Cold War, the United States’ foreign policy relied heavily on its ability to project military power. More often than not, the central component of force projection rested on the United States military’s effectiveness in employing air power both by establishing air superiority and through accurate delivery of ordnance. As the primary service tasked with conducting aerial warfare, the United States Air Force (USAF) was expected to maintain this capability either to achieve deterrence or, when necessary, to military action. In January 1973, the USAF seemed incapable of performing the latter task due to the North Vietnamese Integrated Air Defense System’s (NV-IAD’s) effectiveness in Operation Rolling Thunder and its successor, Operation Linebacker. Eighteen years later, Air Force aircraft spearheaded the Coalition’s air attack on the Iraqi Integrated Air Defense System (I-IADS) in January 1991. Considered by many to be the most effective air defense system outside the Soviet Union’s, the I-IADS was expected to exact heavy casualties from the allied forces. Instead, in less than twenty days, the USAF’s dominance was so complete that politicians, analysts and military historians quickly proclaimed a “Revolution in Military Affairs” (RMA). The majority of the current historiography credits advances in precision-guided munitions (PGMs), airframes, and computer technology as the impetus for the RMA. Others have claimed that the USAF’s training methodology and construction of advanced training sites such as the Red Flag complex at Nellis Air Force Base were the primary drivers for the Air Force’s success. While acknowledging the role all of these factors played, this dissertation also demonstrates the key role played by the development of Suppression of Enemy Air Defense (SEAD) doctrine from January 1973 through August 1991. In the aftermath of the American war in Vietnam, the Air Force considered defense suppression a tactical task that was secondary to the primary mission of putting ordnance on target. At the end of Desert Storm, proponents of the Air Force’s SEAD doctrine had convincing evidence that an enemy IADS was not just an ancillary weapons array, but functioned a critical national system just like manufacturing, government, or the people’s will. The process by which this viewpoint changed had effects on the development of the United States Air Force’s Cold War conventional capability in general, and the development of training methods, electronic warfare platforms, and modern airframes specifically. Table of Contents Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ xi Dedication ..................................................................................................................................... xii Chapter 1: Centuries and Linebackers ............................................................................................ 1 MiG Alley Assumptions ................................................................................................. 1 The Seven Centuries of the Apocalypse ......................................................................... 3 The Role of Doctrine................................................................................................... 4 U.S. Tactical Fighter Acquisition, 1953-1965 ............................................................ 6 USAF Fighter Pilot Training, 1953-1965 ................................................................... 8 Operation Rolling Thunder ........................................................................................... 11 “Handcuffing” the Incapable .................................................................................... 12 North Vietnamese Weapons...................................................................................... 15 Command and Control .............................................................................................. 16 AAA Systems ............................................................................................................ 17 SAMs ........................................................................................................................ 18 Guerillas of the Sky: MiGs ....................................................................................... 19 Fighting the IADS: USAF SEAD Doctrine During Rolling Thunder ...................... 20 The State of the Air Force, November 1968 ............................................................. 23 Chapter 2: SEAD Doctrine, 1968 through 1972 ........................................................................... 25 Thoughts on Air Defense .............................................................................................. 28 Explaining the Excluded ............................................................................................... 33 Air Force Leaders...................................................................................................... 35 The Linebacker Operations ........................................................................................... 40 Measuring Effectiveness ........................................................................................... 41 Goal #1: Battlefield Interdiction ............................................................................... 42 Goal #2: Punishment ................................................................................................. 43 Goal #3: Conventional Deterrence ............................................................................ 49 Goal #4: Preserving the Manned Strategic Bomber Deterrent ................................. 51 Nadir ............................................................................................................................. 57 Chapter 3: Reflections and Atonement ......................................................................................... 58 vi The State of TAC, January through October 1973 ......................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NATO Expansion: Benefits and Consequences
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 2001 NATO expansion: Benefits and consequences Jeffrey William Christiansen The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Christiansen, Jeffrey William, "NATO expansion: Benefits and consequences" (2001). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 8802. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/8802 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ■rr - Maween and Mike MANSFIELD LIBRARY The University of M ontana Permission is granted by the author to reproduce this material in its entirety, provided that this material is used for scholarly purposes and is properly cited in published works and reports. **Please check "Yes" or "No" and provide signature** Yes, I grant permission X No, I do not grant permission ________ Author's Signature; Date:__ ^ ^ 0 / Any copying for commercial purposes or financial gain may be undertaken only with the author's explicit consent. MSThe»i9\M«r«f»eld Library Permission Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. NATO EXPANSION: BENEFITS AND CONSEQUENCES by Jeffrey William Christiansen B.A. University of Montana, 2000 presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts The University of Montana 2001 Approved by: hairpers Dean, Graduate School 7 - 24- 0 ^ Date Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.
    [Show full text]
  • B6 Report During the Afternoon of March 3, Advisers to Muammar
    UNCLASSIFIED STATE DEPT. - PRODUCED TO HOUSE SELECT BENGHAZI COMM. U.S. Department of State SUBJECT TO AGREEMENT ON SENSITIVE INFORMATION & REDACTIONS. NO FOIA WAIVER. Case No. F-2015-04841 Doc No. C05739546 Date: 05/13/2015 RELEASE IN PART B6 From: B6 Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2011 9:45 PM To: Subject: H: Latest How Syria is aiding Qaddafi and more... Sid Attachments: hrc memo syria aiding libya 030311.docx; hrc memo syria aiding libya 030311.docx CONFIDENTIAL March 3, 2011 For: Hillary From: Sid Re: Syria aiding Qaddafi This memo has two parts. Part one is the report that Syria is providing air support for Qaddafi. Part two is a note to Cody from Lord David Owen, former UK foreign secretary on his views of an increasingly complex crisis. It seems that the situation is developing into a protracted civil war with various nations backing opposing sides with unforeseen consequences. Under these circumstances the crucial challenge is to deprive Qaddafi of his strategic depth—his support both financial and military. I. Report During the afternoon of March 3, advisers to Muammar Qaddafi stated privately that the Libyan Leader has decided that civil war is inevitable, pitting troops and mercenary troops loyal to him against the rebel forces gathering around Benghazi. Qaddafi is convinced that these rebels are being supported by the United States, Western Europe and Israel. On March 2 Qaddafi told his son Saif al-Islam that he believes the intelligence services of the United States, Great Britain, Egypt, and France have deployed paramilitary officers to Benghazi to assist in organizing, training, and equipping opposition forces.
    [Show full text]
  • According to Wikipedia 2011 with Some Addictions
    American MilitMilitaryary Historians AAA-A---FFFF According to Wikipedia 2011 with some addictions Society for Military History From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Society for Military History is an United States -based international organization of scholars who research, write and teach military history of all time periods and places. It includes Naval history , air power history and studies of technology, ideas, and homefronts. It publishes the quarterly refereed journal titled The Journal of Military History . An annual meeting is held every year. Recent meetings have been held in Frederick, Maryland, from April 19-22, 2007; Ogden, Utah, from April 17- 19, 2008; Murfreesboro, Tennessee 2-5 April 2009 and Lexington, Virginia 20-23 May 2010. The society was established in 1933 as the American Military History Foundation, renamed in 1939 the American Military Institute, and renamed again in 1990 as the Society for Military History. It has over 2,300 members including many prominent scholars, soldiers, and citizens interested in military history. [citation needed ] Membership is open to anyone and includes a subscription to the journal. Officers Officers (2009-2010) are: • President Dr. Brian M. Linn • Vice President Dr. Joseph T. Glatthaar • Executive Director Dr. Robert H. Berlin • Treasurer Dr. Graham A. Cosmas • Journal Editor Dr. Bruce Vandervort • Journal Managing Editors James R. Arnold and Roberta Wiener • Recording Secretary & Photographer Thomas Morgan • Webmaster & Newsletter Editor Dr. Kurt Hackemer • Archivist Paul A.
    [Show full text]
  • Law and Military Operations in Kosovo: 1999-2001, Lessons Learned For
    LAW AND MILITARY OPERATIONS IN KOSOVO: 1999-2001 LESSONS LEARNED FOR JUDGE ADVOCATES Center for Law and Military Operations (CLAMO) The Judge Advocate General’s School United States Army Charlottesville, Virginia CENTER FOR LAW AND MILITARY OPERATIONS (CLAMO) Director COL David E. Graham Deputy Director LTC Stuart W. Risch Director, Domestic Operational Law (vacant) Director, Training & Support CPT Alton L. (Larry) Gwaltney, III Marine Representative Maj Cody M. Weston, USMC Advanced Operational Law Studies Fellows MAJ Keith E. Puls MAJ Daniel G. Jordan Automation Technician Mr. Ben R. Morgan Training Centers LTC Richard M. Whitaker Battle Command Training Program LTC James W. Herring Battle Command Training Program MAJ Phillip W. Jussell Battle Command Training Program CPT Michael L. Roberts Combat Maneuver Training Center MAJ Michael P. Ryan Joint Readiness Training Center CPT Peter R. Hayden Joint Readiness Training Center CPT Mark D. Matthews Joint Readiness Training Center SFC Michael A. Pascua Joint Readiness Training Center CPT Jonathan Howard National Training Center CPT Charles J. Kovats National Training Center Contact the Center The Center’s mission is to examine legal issues that arise during all phases of military operations and to devise training and resource strategies for addressing those issues. It seeks to fulfill this mission in five ways. First, it is the central repository within The Judge Advocate General's Corps for all-source data, information, memoranda, after-action materials and lessons learned pertaining to legal support to operations, foreign and domestic. Second, it supports judge advocates by analyzing all data and information, developing lessons learned across all military legal disciplines, and by disseminating these lessons learned and other operational information to the Army, Marine Corps, and Joint communities through publications, instruction, training, and databases accessible to operational forces, world-wide.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2 HISTORY and DEVELOPMENT of MILITARY LASERS
    History and Development of Military Lasers Chapter 2 HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF MILITARY LASERS JACK B. KELLER, JR* INTRODUCTION INVENTING THE LASER MILITARIZING THE LASER SEARCHING FOR HIGH-ENERGY LASER WEAPONS SEARCHING FOR LOW-ENERGY LASER WEAPONS RETURNING TO HIGHER ENERGIES SUMMARY *Lieutenant Colonel, US Army (Retired); formerly, Foreign Science Information Officer, US Army Medical Research Detachment-Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, 7965 Dave Erwin Drive, Brooks City-Base, Texas 78235 25 Biomedical Implications of Military Laser Exposure INTRODUCTION This chapter will examine the history of the laser, Military advantage is greatest when details are con- from theory to demonstration, for its impact upon the US cealed from real or potential adversaries (eg, through military. In the field of military science, there was early classification). Classification can remain in place long recognition that lasers can be visually and cutaneously after a program is aborted, if warranted to conceal hazardous to military personnel—hazards documented technological details or pathways not obvious or easily in detail elsewhere in this volume—and that such hazards deduced but that may be relevant to future develop- must be mitigated to ensure military personnel safety ments. Thus, many details regarding developmental and mission success. At odds with this recognition was military laser systems cannot be made public; their the desire to harness the laser’s potential application to a descriptions here are necessarily vague. wide spectrum of military tasks. This chapter focuses on Once fielded, system details usually, but not always, the history and development of laser systems that, when become public. Laser systems identified here represent used, necessitate highly specialized biomedical research various evolutionary states of the art in laser technol- as described throughout this volume.
    [Show full text]
  • USAF USAF Weapons 2008 USAF Almanac by Susan H.H
    Gallery of USAF USAF Weapons 2008 USAF Almanac By Susan H.H. Young Note: Inventory numbers are total active inventory figures as of Sept. 30, 2007. Bombers B-1 Lancer Brief: A long-range, air refuelable multirole bomber capable of flying missions over intercontinental range, then penetrating enemy defenses with the largest pay- load of guided and unguided weapons in the Air Force inventory. Function: Long-range conventional bomber. Operator: ACC, AFMC. First Flight: Dec. 23, 1974 (B-1A); Oct. 18, 1984 (B-1B). Delivered: June 1985-May 1988. IOC: Oct. 1, 1986, Dyess AFB, Tex. (B-1B). Production: 104. Inventory: 67. Unit Location: Dyess AFB, Tex., Ellsworth AFB, S.D., Edwards AFB, Calif. Contractor: Boeing; AIL Systems; General Electric. Power Plant: four General Electric F101-GE-102 turbo- fans, each 30,780 lb thrust. B-1B Lancer (Richard VanderMeulen) Accommodation: four, pilot, copilot, and two systems officers (offensive and defensive), on zero/zero ACES II ejection seats. B-1B. Initiated in 1981, the first production model of Unit Location: Whiteman AFB, Mo. Dimensions: span spread 137 ft, swept aft 79 ft, length the improved variant B-1 flew in October 1984. USAF Contractor: Northrop Grumman; Boeing; Vought. 146 ft, height 34 ft. produced a total of 100. The active B-1B inventory was Power Plant: four General Electric F118-GE-100 turbo- Weights: empty equipped 192,000 lb, max operating reduced to 67 aircraft (from the remaining 92) with con- fans, each 17,300 lb thrust. weight 477,000 lb. solidation to two main operating bases within Air Combat Accommodation: two, mission commander and pilot, Ceiling: more than 30,000 ft.
    [Show full text]
  • World Air Forces Flight 2011/2012 International
    SPECIAL REPORT WORLD AIR FORCES FLIGHT 2011/2012 INTERNATIONAL IN ASSOCIATION WITH Secure your availability. Rely on our performance. Aircraft availability on the flight line is more than ever essential for the Air Force mission fulfilment. Cooperating with the right industrial partner is of strategic importance and key to improving Air Force logistics and supply chain management. RUAG provides you with new options to resource your mission. More than 40 years of flight line management make us the experienced and capable partner we are – a partner you can rely on. RUAG Aviation Military Aviation · Seetalstrasse 175 · P.O. Box 301 · 6032 Emmen · Switzerland Legal domicile: RUAG Switzerland Ltd · Seetalstrasse 175 · P.O. Box 301 · 6032 Emmen Tel. +41 41 268 41 11 · Fax +41 41 260 25 88 · [email protected] · www.ruag.com WORLD AIR FORCES 2011/2012 CONTENT ANALYSIS 4 Worldwide active fleet per region 5 Worldwide active fleet share per country 6 Worldwide top 10 active aircraft types 8 WORLD AIR FORCES World Air Forces directory 9 TO FIND OUT MORE ABOUT FLIGHTGLOBAL INSIGHT AND REPORT SPONSORSHIP OPPORTUNITIES, CONTACT: Flightglobal Insight Quadrant House, The Quadrant Sutton, Surrey, SM2 5AS, UK Tel: + 44 208 652 8724 Email:LQVLJKW#ÁLJKWJOREDOFRP Website: ZZZÁLJKWJOREDOFRPLQVLJKt World Air Forces 2011/2012 | Flightglobal Insight | 3 WORLD AIR FORCES 2011/2012 The French and Qatari air forces deployed Mirage 2000-5s for the fight over Libya JOINT RESPONSE Air arms around the world reacted to multiple challenges during 2011, despite fleet and budget cuts. We list the current inventories and procurement plans of 160 nations.
    [Show full text]
  • Operation Odyssey Dawn (Libya): Background and Issues for Congress
    Operation Odyssey Dawn (Libya): Background and Issues for Congress Jeremiah Gertler, Coordinator Specialist in Military Aviation March 30, 2011 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R41725 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Operation Odyssey Dawn (Libya): Background and Issues for Congress Summary This report provides an overview of military operations in Libya under U.S. command from March 19 to March 29, 2011, and the most recent developments with respect to the transfer of command of military operations from the United States to NATO on March 30. The ongoing uprising in Libya against the government of Muammar al Qadhafi has been the subject of evolving domestic and international debate about potential international military intervention, including the proposed establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya. On March 17, 2011, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1973, establishing a no-fly zone in Libyan airspace, authorizing robust enforcement measures for the arms embargo established by Resolution 1970, and authorizing member states “to take all necessary measures … to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory.” In response, the United States established Operation Odyssey Dawn, the U.S. contribution to a multilateral military effort to enforce a no-fly zone and protect civilians in Libya. Military operations under Odyssey Dawn commenced on March 19, 2011. U.S. and coalition forces quickly established command of the air over Libya’s major cities, destroying portions of the Libyan air defense network and attacking pro-Qadhafi forces deemed to pose a threat to civilian populations.
    [Show full text]
  • A-Cr-Ccp-803/Pf-001 Chapter 11 Po 320
    A-CR-CCP-803/PF-001 CHAPTER 11 PO 320 – PARTICIPATE IN CANADIAN FORCES (CF) FAMILIARIZATION ACTIVITIES A-CR-CCP-803/PF-001 ROYAL CANADIAN AIR CADETS PROFICIENCY LEVEL THREE INSTRUCTIONAL GUIDE SECTION 1 EO M320.01 – DESCRIBE THE ROLE OF CANADA’S AIR FORCE Total Time: 30 min PREPARATION PRE-LESSON INSTRUCTIONS Resources needed for the delivery of this lesson are listed in the lesson specification located in A-CR-CCP- 803/PG-001, Chapter 4. Specific uses for said resources are identified throughout the instructional guide within the TP for which they are required. Review the lesson content and become familiar with the material prior to delivering the lesson. Update the information sheets located at Annexes A to D using the reference. Photocopy the updated information sheets, ensuring there is one copy at the learning stations for each cadet in the largest group. Photocopy the worksheet located at Annex E for each cadet in the class. PRE-LESSON ASSIGNMENT N/A. APPROACH An in-class activity was chosen for TP 1 as it is an interactive way to present the role of Canada’s air force and stimulate interest among cadets. A group discussion was chosen for TP 2 as it allows the cadets to interact with their peers and share their knowledge, experiences, opinions, and feelings about Canada’s air force. INTRODUCTION REVIEW N/A. OBJECTIVES By the end of this lesson the cadet shall have described the role of Canada’s air force. IMPORTANCE It is important for cadets to know the role of Canada’s air force.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded April 22, 2006
    SIX DECADES OF GUIDED MUNITIONS AND BATTLE NETWORKS: PROGRESS AND PROSPECTS Barry D. Watts Thinking Center for Strategic Smarter and Budgetary Assessments About Defense www.csbaonline.org Six Decades of Guided Munitions and Battle Networks: Progress and Prospects by Barry D. Watts Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments March 2007 ABOUT THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) is an independent, nonprofit, public policy research institute established to make clear the inextricable link between near-term and long- range military planning and defense investment strategies. CSBA is directed by Dr. Andrew F. Krepinevich and funded by foundations, corporations, government, and individual grants and contributions. This report is one in a series of CSBA analyses on the emerging military revolution. Previous reports in this series include The Military-Technical Revolution: A Preliminary Assessment (2002), Meeting the Anti-Access and Area-Denial Challenge (2003), and The Revolution in War (2004). The first of these, on the military-technical revolution, reproduces the 1992 Pentagon assessment that precipitated the 1990s debate in the United States and abroad over revolutions in military affairs. Many friends and professional colleagues, both within CSBA and outside the Center, have contributed to this report. Those who made the most substantial improvements to the final manuscript are acknowledged below. However, the analysis and findings are solely the responsibility of the author and CSBA. 1667 K Street, NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 331-7990 CONTENTS ACKNOWLEGEMENTS .................................................. v SUMMARY ............................................................... ix GLOSSARY ………………………………………………………xix I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 1 Guided Munitions: Origins in the 1940s............. 3 Cold War Developments and Prospects ............
    [Show full text]
  • Usafalmanac ■ Gallery of USAF Weapons
    USAFAlmanac ■ Gallery of USAF Weapons By Susan H.H. Young The B-1B’s conventional capability is being significantly enhanced by the ongoing Conventional Mission Upgrade Program (CMUP). This gives the B-1B greater lethality and survivability through the integration of precision and standoff weapons and a robust ECM suite. CMUP will include GPS receivers, a MIL-STD-1760 weapon interface, secure radios, and improved computers to support precision weapons, initially the JDAM, followed by the Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW) and the Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM). The Defensive System Upgrade Program will improve aircrew situational awareness and jamming capability. B-2 Spirit Brief: Stealthy, long-range, multirole bomber that can deliver conventional and nuclear munitions anywhere on the globe by flying through previously impenetrable defenses. Function: Long-range heavy bomber. Operator: ACC. First Flight: July 17, 1989. Delivered: Dec. 17, 1993–present. B-1B Lancer (Ted Carlson) IOC: April 1997, Whiteman AFB, Mo. Production: 21 planned. Inventory: 21. Unit Location: Whiteman AFB, Mo. Contractor: Northrop Grumman, with Boeing, LTV, and General Electric as principal subcontractors. Bombers Power Plant: four General Electric F118-GE-100 turbo fans, each 17,300 lb thrust. B-1 Lancer Accommodation: two, mission commander and pilot, Brief: A long-range multirole bomber capable of flying on zero/zero ejection seats. missions over intercontinental range without refueling, Dimensions: span 172 ft, length 69 ft, height 17 ft. then penetrating enemy defenses with a heavy load Weight: empty 150,000–160,000 lb, gross 350,000 lb. of ordnance. Ceiling: 50,000 ft. Function: Long-range conventional bomber.
    [Show full text]
  • RSAF Best UNITS OTHER FEATURES : SAF DAY 2017 | Ex Maple Flag ISSUE NO
    Republic of Singapore FULL SPECTRUM . INTEGRATED . READY Issue No. 146 2017 RSAF bEST UNITS OTHER FEATURES : SAF DAY 2017 | ex maple flag ISSUE NO. 146 / 2017 AFN MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE Chairman COL Lim Kok Siong Members LTC Cindy Chua LTC Lily Foo LTC Koh Boon Tih RSAF Best Unit Competition LTC Cecilia Ong PG 4 LTC Tan Giam LTC Michael Wong Ms Heng Ai Buay Ms Loh Seok Chen Editors LTC Melvyn Tan LTC Charles Chua Assistant Editor CPT Seow Feng Chang Staff Writers & Photographers CPL Christopher Tan CPL Ivan Chua CPL Samuel Chua PG 12 SAF Day 2017 REC Bradley Gerard REC Sng Qiyang REC Darren Tan The opinions and views herein are those expressed by the writers and do not necessarily reflect the Pg 4 — 11 official views of the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) or the Ministry of Defence. The material in Pg 12 — 13 Air Force News is not to be reproduced in whole or Pg 14 — 16 in part without the written consent of the RSAF. Pg 17 We Value Your Feedback! Pg 18 — 19 If you have any feedback or comments about Air Force News, please email Pg 19 — 25 [email protected] Pg 26 — 30 Like Us on Facebook! Pg 31 Facebook.com/TheRSAF Pg 32 Follow Us on Pg 33 Twitter & Instagram! EX Maple Flag Pg 34 — 35 @TheRSAF | #TheRSAF PG 14 Pg 35 2 FEATURED WRITERS Sultan of Brunei CDF Visit to 1 AELG Pg 18 Visit Pg 19 – CPL Samuel Chua – s an aviation enthusiast, being able to Adocument the RSAF in action has been a dream come true to me.
    [Show full text]