Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Fri 10/06/2006 View Thu 10/05/2006 View Wed 10/04/2006 View Tue 10/03/2006 View Mon 10/02/2006 View Sun 10/01/2006 View Sat 09/30/2006
1
2006-10-06 Science & Technology
New Air Force bomber for 2018 timeframe.
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by 3dc 2006-10-06 01:50|| || Front Page|| [11128 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 I'm thinking of something a little less high tech, like a bug repellent for jihadists.
Posted by Captain America 2006-10-06 06:03||   2006-10-06 06:03|| Front Page Top

#2 ..This was actually a pleasant surprise, as I've thought for several years now that there'd never be another manned bomber for the USAF. I'm still not sure that it'll ever happen, though.

Mike
Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2006-10-06 06:23||   2006-10-06 06:23|| Front Page Top

#3 Let's hope a better job is done than with the B-2.
Posted by ed 2006-10-06 08:20||   2006-10-06 08:20|| Front Page Top

#4 Let's hope a better job is done than with the B-2.


Would you care to elaborate?

Posted by NoBeards 2006-10-06 10:40||   2006-10-06 10:40|| Front Page Top

#5 B-2 seems like a good aircraft except for a couple of problems. 1) It's real 'fragile' - have to pamper it a lot between missions. 2) It costs zillions of dollars. Unfortunately, these are not trivial problems.
Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore  2006-10-06 10:47||   2006-10-06 10:47|| Front Page Top

#6 It was also build decades ago with the technologies available then. Not surprising that something that pushed the state of the art so hard needed special care.
Posted by lotp 2006-10-06 10:49||   2006-10-06 10:49|| Front Page Top

#7 And hypersonic with people aboard for absolutely no conceivable reason isn't pushing the envelope? This is just a dumb idea that sends $$$ to the districts of key appropriations committee members and feeds the egos of bomber generals who should be retired now. When you look at the needs and opportunities for developing systems for the grunts on the ground that will be foregone for this Spruce Goose with the runs, it is simply unconscionable.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-10-06 10:56||   2006-10-06 10:56|| Front Page Top

#8 Spruce Goose with the runs

LOL! Gotta add that to my vocabulary. Thanks NS....

One wonders how much weaponry a hypersonic bomber can carry.
Posted by CrazyFool 2006-10-06 11:21||   2006-10-06 11:21|| Front Page Top

#9 Number one complaint is cost. Spent $45 billions (1990's dollars) developing the B-2 and then only buy 21, therefore guaranteeing the need to spend even more for another platform in the near future. At a flyaway cost of $350 million, each B-2 has a $2.2 billion R&D cost. That's just crazy to spend that much R&D without buying hundreds of B-2s.

But that is part of my general bitch of the proliferation of the number bleeding edge weapons designs (50-80% of program costs) while buying few or none of the weapons themselves. Classic cases: B-2, F-22, Comanche, Crusader. Better to buy large quantities of smaller numbers of platforms. A case in point: F-22 and F-35. Even with the very low production rates of the F-22, flyaway cost is $100 million. Program cost of the less capable F-35 is already over $100 million each. And the F-35 is presented as the bargain of the 21st century. Other weapons compare MUCH worse.

For the new bomber, I prefer a F-22 derivative for the penetration role. Since there is no expectation to penetrate Russian airspace after scrambling from US bases, intercontinental penetration bombers are not needed. An F-22 bomber with a 5-6000 mile range is enough to take care of any enemies. In addition such an aircraft could be ready in a few years. For the WoT role, since we are fighting primitives (and that goes for the governments themselves), I prefer bomber conversions of airliners. A 787 can carry a lot of ordnance a long ways. As a bonus, moving the engine pylons back and over the wings will likely give it low signature to ground radar.
Posted by ed 2006-10-06 12:01||   2006-10-06 12:01|| Front Page Top

#10 IIRC, The B2 was intended to be a redirectable, recallable, survivable nuclear deterrent, not a conventional bomber. Comparing it's cost to a conventional bomber is comparing (gold plated)apples to oranges. If it did find a role as a conventional bomber, that is out of necessity or desire, not design.

At this point is it seriously questionable whether manned military aircraft have any future at all.... Should we be making doctrine decision based on foolish procurement?

cf. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/1997/97-0604.htm

"The B-2 development program was initiated in 1981, and the Air Force was granted approval in 1987 to begin procurement of 132 operational B-2 aircraft, principally for strategic bombing missions. With the demise of the Soviet Union, the emphasis of B-2 development was changed to conventional operations and the number was reduced to 20 operational aircraft, plus 1 test aircraft that was not planned to be upgraded to an operational configuration. Production of these aircraft was concurrent with development and testing." from Globalsecurity.org



Posted by Mark E. 2006-10-06 12:18||   2006-10-06 12:18|| Front Page Top

#11 ...What really IS needed is a bomb 'dumptruck', with modular bays and pylon mounts - picture a modified C-17. ed's right, we don't need a new penetrator, and if we do, it needs to be an upgraded F-22. We need something that can take on the B-52's current role: something that can deliver huge explosive payloads under conditions of US air superiority.

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2006-10-06 13:59||   2006-10-06 13:59|| Front Page Top

#12 Much rather see a new super-tits A-10 ground support airframe and new Specter like gun ships. More ammo longer loiter time etc.
Posted by RD 2006-10-06 14:26||   2006-10-06 14:26|| Front Page Top

#13 Mark E. is right, both about the mission around which the B-2 was designed and about the future for UCAVs.

Re: the mission - it's easy to say the B-2 was overpriced, but in order to do so you have to ignore the victories it has won for use. Two at least come to mind. First, its presence in our arsenal was one reason the Soviet Union fell. They didn't get all the specs on the thing or its technology but they sure as hell knew more or less that it existed (especially after the B1-B) and they couldn't spend to try to counter it.

And second, do you for one minute think the Bush administration could have kept up the WOT if we had lost a plane over Baghdad in 2003??? Even if we only flew 10 sorties in the life of this plane, if they were critical wins enabled by the technology, that benefit must be counted when you consider the cost.

Consider that an investment that was well spent, by and large. And why build more than you need? Build what you need, ensure that the production line can be reactivated if need be in the future. R&D well spent.

Re: unmanned combat aerial vehicles (i.e. pilotless bombers, fighters) - they will come.

As with all such decisions, there are tradeoffs to be made between new systems and procuring more of older systems that fit our current mission and/or tactical doctrine. But note that that can be a trap, if it locks you into old ways of fighting that are not the most efficient for the current threat -- or if it keeps you from looking forward to the coming threat.

A-10s are fine for Afghanistan and such.

USAF is looking at where China is going.
Posted by lotp 2006-10-06 14:34||   2006-10-06 14:34|| Front Page Top

#14 Any SSTO bombers on the horizon? Now THAT would impress me.
Posted by mojo">mojo  2006-10-06 14:35||   2006-10-06 14:35|| Front Page Top

#15 Why don't we just sell our enemies blankets infected with smallpox?
Posted by bigjim-ky 2006-10-06 14:38||   2006-10-06 14:38|| Front Page Top

#16 The scramjet hypersonic designs being studied are SSTO, but as the general said, it's not clear the mission benefit is there yet. Hence the focus on metals, AI software and some other key technologies to understand that cost/benefit better.
Posted by lotp 2006-10-06 14:40||   2006-10-06 14:40|| Front Page Top

#17 USAF is looking at where China is going.

If USAF wants to know where China is going they should look at where the USAF is. Because stealing what we have developed is how they will get their advanced systems for the forseeable future. The Chinese can't even manufacture an export grade automobile. And they're developing systems that justify a boondoggle like this? Someday perhaps. I'll warn my grandson to worry about it when he's born.

This thing is a solution desperately in search of a problem. And it's not China. What conceivable target would this attack in China under what circumstances?

China is ultimately a naval problem, unless someone is suggesting we should invade insted of leaving that to the Indians. Instead, we are in the process of attriting our blue water naval forces because the admirals are almost as focused on their naval aviation navels as the Air Force generals are with their manned bombers, and the Navy's apparent contribution to GWOT is de minimis.

But we can't even afford to develop and deploy lethal a standard rifle or sidearm for our infantry. This kind of thinking is what gave rise to the term clusterflight.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-10-06 15:11||   2006-10-06 15:11|| Front Page Top

#18 Hypersonic is sooo yesterday; we have already developed that technology if you believe the persistent Aurora stories. And the earlier comment about a bomb dump truck is just about right, but you can bet the between now and 'whenever' the requirements page will get so loaded up that the cost will spiral way out of control. give us a B-52 V 2.0 type of thing; leave the stealth to the fighters and escorts; they can neutalize the threats or blind the radars and then when BUFF Jr. comes calling and levels about 3 zip codes worth of bad guy country, they will then know who and what hit them. And lets dump that precision ordnance crap and go back to carpet bombing; Mass quantities of dumb bombs are more fun and the smoke looks so much more impressive and would help demoralize the citizenry of the bad guy's country. Cut out their desire to fight and you win.
Posted by USN, ret. 2006-10-06 15:56||   2006-10-06 15:56|| Front Page Top

#19 "What really IS needed is a bomb 'dumptruck', with modular bays and pylon mounts"

Isn't that a description of the b1-b?
Posted by Mark E. 2006-10-06 16:11||   2006-10-06 16:11|| Front Page Top

#20 And hypersonic with people aboard for absolutely no conceivable reason isn't pushing the envelope? This is just a dumb idea that sends $$$ to the districts of key appropriations committee members and feeds the egos of bomber generals who should be retired now.

At present? Absolutely. Manned hypersonic craft are a ridiculous waste of money. So long as we utilize carrier-based aircraft to project power, hypersonic crewed vehicles are unnecessary and represent a very poor return on investment. Take a moment to consider how hypersonic aircraft could obviate the need for those insanely expensive aircraft carriers and things begin to snap into focus. But that is decades down the road, if only because we need to milk out all of our expenditure on these costly naval platforms.

Now, as to hypersonic guided missiles, that is something we need to pursue immediately. R&D into this weapons format will drive all of the prototyping needed for eventual deployment of crewed hypersonic vehicles. I envision hypersonic missiles as the ultimate bunkerbuster. With properly shaped penetration profiles their burrowing capability should be the stuff of legends. Additionally, hypersonic guided missiles will be able to start displacing some of our carriers in projecting small-scale force for one-shot solutions. This will enable us to eventually de-emphasize the need for building any more of these expensive boats.

An F-22 bomber with a 5-6000 mile range is enough to take care of any enemies. In addition such an aircraft could be ready in a few years. For the WoT role, since we are fighting primitives (and that goes for the governments themselves), I prefer bomber conversions of airliners. A 787 can carry a lot of ordnance a long ways.

Great post, ed. I agree with you and Mike about the need for a "bomb dump-truck". However, I draw the line at scaling back on smart munitions. Future sorties will require an emphasis on avoiding unnecessary demolition of surrounding infrastructure, if only to save us from financing any rebuilding. It also makes us look good by not creating excessive collateral loss of civilian life, unless we so desire. Additionally, massive bombing runs create their own obscuring atmospheric conditions that interfere with second pass efficacy.

All in all, smart ordnance allows us to adopt a much more economical policy of just dropping by to break the bad boy's toys without deployment of occupying ground forces or spending a cent on any reconstruction afterwards. This is an operations profile that must become standard procedure as we go forward. We can always use dumb munitions when there is a need for simple catastrophic destruction, but JDAMs own the future. I’d also be interested in seeing some sort of fuel-air “vacuum” bomb with minimal explosive force but maximum enemy casualties. Perhaps a columnar detonation profile would create the isobaric drop without the massive peripheral blast damage. I want us to have a way of deading lots of terrorists without making boatloads of rubble.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2006-10-06 16:47||   2006-10-06 16:47|| Front Page Top

#21 PS: "when BUFF Jr. comes calling and levels about 3 zip codes worth of bad guy country"

Great one, USN, ret.!
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2006-10-06 16:48||   2006-10-06 16:48|| Front Page Top

#22 NS,

One potential use would be for targets such as The Big Dam (Three Gorges). Where you need to get in really fast and get out really fast.

Pilot is there to have complete awareness and flexibility.

I can see a need, but understand the cost concerns.
Posted by bombay">bombay  2006-10-06 18:46||   2006-10-06 18:46|| Front Page Top

#23 USN, ret: "Cut out their desire to fight and you win."

Why do I feel like our current military strategy re: Iraq/the WOT is lacking in this regard?
Posted by eltoroverde 2006-10-06 19:11||   2006-10-06 19:11|| Front Page Top

19:34 Muhammad Abu-Africa
23:59 anon
23:58 Zenster
23:55 FOTSGreg
23:54 Angie Schultz
23:52 Zenster
23:49 Quana
23:48 anon
23:40 RD
23:39 anon
23:38 RD
23:32 trailing wife
23:26 Zenster
23:19 hutchrun
23:15 Thinemp Whimble2412
23:14 anon
23:09 rjschwarz
23:08 trailing wife
23:08 Thinemp Whimble2412
23:06 wxjames
23:06 anon
23:06 rjschwarz
23:04 hutchrun
23:03 Old Patriot









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com