The B-52 and the future

[Burncycle360]

Could a non-stealthy version of B-2 be made?

[Samson]

Could a non-stealthy version of B-2 be made?

266213[/snapback]

 

Yes.

 

[Guest pfcem]

I'm a big fan of UCAVs. If you are going to fly an aircraft in heavily defended airspace, so much of the expense and mission constraints are associated with bringing the crews home alive. Removing the crew from the aircraft makes lot of sense. We've lost boatloads of Predators, and who could care? If you are taking about big airplanes that are not going to fly in hostile airspace like my "B-3" why would you go with a UCAV? Less reliable and no benefits. Bombers should not be penetrating hostile airspace in the missile age. Trying to do that has given us the XB-70 (too expensive, cancelled), the B-1A (too expensive, cancelled), the B-1B (very expensive, only 100 built), and the B-2A (extremely expensive, only 21 built). Do you see the pattern? Missiles should penetrate, not bombers. A missile can always be made to be faster or more stealthy than a big bomber. In 2006, it's long past time to hang up the white scarves and build lots of big trucks for smart weapons and missiles.

266084[/snapback]

According to SILL2 the rising cost of modern weapons systems is irrelevant.

 

 

 

If I were appointed King of the USAF, here is what I would do.

1. Cancel the F-35. We don't need lots of fighters, the present ones will do until UCAVs become ready which is coming soon enough. That would free up hundreds of billions of dollars. That's a lot of money even for the USAF.

2. Build several hundred B-3s based on airliners. Relatively economical to operate and maintain. Maybe a squadron or two would be B-2Bs with a nuclear capability with the ACM.

3. Retire the B-52H force and B-1B force when the B-3 becomes available. The cost savings would be enormous.

4. Develop and field some neat new things to be carried by the B-3: a hypersonic conventional strike missile, stealthy missiles including some with large payloads, air-launched recon UAVs.

5. Network the whole thing together: the B-3, its payloads, offboard sensors on other aircraft and spacecraft, GPS, guys on the ground, satcom, etc.

6. Build into the B-3 provisions for a big AESA radar and retracting launchers for AAMs and ARMs. Big, slow and unstealthy need not mean a sitting duck.

7. Keep the B-2As as a "silver bullet" force for specialized mission, such as dropping massive penetrators to attack deeply buried targets.

8. Lots of modern tankers, also based on airliners.

9. Ditto for the ISR fleet, based on airliners and big bizjets (G550, etc.).

10. I didn't address airlifters, but clearly global mobility is a key.

266084[/snapback]

1. It will be a long time before UCAVs will be capable of completely replacing the manned fighter (maybe the 2nd half of this century). The F-35 is going to be the Air Force's bread & butter during the early-middle part of this century.

2. A relatively inexpensive (airliner-based or not) replacement for the B-52 is a good idea but you will still need some more expensive/capable bombers (such as the B-2).

3. I agree but maybe keep ~50 B-1s unless you intend to build more B-2s (bringing the number of B-2 up to ~50). Eventual bomber force could be ~50 B-2/B-2 replacement & ~150 "B-3"/B-52 replacement. It would be nice to be able to double the size of this force but, unfortunately, not very realistic.

4. I agree.

5. I agree.

6. I agree, but that would probably be a good role for the B-1s too/instead.

7. I agree, probably build another 30 of them as well (recent cost calculations show another 20-40 could cost half as much as the 1st 21)

8. I agree.

9. I agree.

10. Refurbish the C-5s, build more C-17s & procure a replacement for the C-130 already! The C-130 replacement should be capable of lifting a 30-40 ton payload.

 

 

 

If we had the force that I described in service today, it could probably devastate Iran's nuclear and missile capabilities in a matter of weeks, operating exclusively from sovereign American territory (Guam).

266084[/snapback]

Yeah but we can do the same today with our current forces (B-1, B-2 & B-52).

[Smitty]

The C-17 would be a lousy and expensive bomber. It has relatively short legs because of all the engineering trade-offs made to give it a STOL, austere field capabilty. That capability is irrelevant to the bomber mission.

 

Well, I would shoot for a modular system permit bombing from C-17s on a sortie-by-sortie basis, not a full conversion. That way you could use existing aircraft.

 

Modifying an airliner fuselage for use as a bomber is essentially designing the fuselage from scratch, so extensive would be the modifications. That the structure would be almost totally different doesn't mean that external mold line would be much different at all.

 

Against truly tough, near peer opponents I would be a bit concerned that a bombliner might not even be able to get close enough to launch cruise missiles.

 

Consider that the B-52H has an RCS of around 125m^2. A large bombliner would probably be similar.

 

This means even a modestly-sized, forward deployed network of HALE UAVs with air search radars could pick a bombliner many hundreds of miles away, allowing ample time for an intercept.

 

So the cost to counter this type of system might not be very high.

 

OTOH, even if penetration with a B-2 is deemed too risky, it would still be able to avoid simple pickets systems like this and get within a cruise missile launch window.

 

Now obviously, against lesser opponents (which would be the norm), a bombliner wouldn't have this problem.

 

I'm not sure I'd go to the trouble of redesigning an airliner fuselage for it either. Four reasonably-rated hardpoints under each wing, plus an enlarged MMA bomb bay might let you carry as many as 32 (Edit: 16-24 is probably more reasonable) or more JASSMs using twin-racks under the wings. That's plenty, IMHO.

 

This would seem to me to be a natural joint project with the USN's MMA program. Scrap the 737 and go with a 767 or 787 as a common widebody for tanking, MC2A, EW and B-3/MMA. For the USN, this would mean a larger buy of aircraft with greater range and payload, allowing them to fly out of US bases (plus Guam & Diego) and patrol worldwide. For the USAF, it would mean sharing the dev costs, supply, spares, training, etc.

 

 

One candidate weapon for a bombliner might be the USN's Affordable Weapon System (AWS). It's supposed to be a cheap cruise missile with a 200lb warhead and up to a 800nm range. I haven't found a reasonably recent price estimate for the AWS, but originally it was meant to be a fraction of TLAM's price.

 

Others might include the Top Cover UAV/missile and SMACM missile.

 

 

On a different train of thought, there has been discussion of a stealthy, multi-purpose transport/gunship/tanker for SPECOPS (MC-X), and possibly as a replacement for the C-130. A bomber variant would seem to be a natural extension, though I doubt it would have intercontinental range.

Edited January 5, 2006 by Smitty

[Ivanhoe]

Well, I would shoot for a modular system permit bombing from C-17s on a sortie-by-sortie basis, not a full conversion.  That way you could use existing aircraft.

Against truly tough, near peer opponents I would be a bit concerned that a bombliner might not even be able to get close enough to launch cruise missiles.

 

Consider that the B-52H has an RCS of around 125m^2.  A large bombliner would probably be similar.

 

This means even a modestly-sized, forward deployed network of HALE UAVs with air search radars could pick a bombliner many hundreds of miles away, allowing ample time for an intercept.

 

If facing a UAV forward picket line, it doesn't seem too beyond the pale to consider the first few sorties to be SEAD using an E-3, a couple of KC-10s, and a horde of F-16s loaded to the gills with AMRAAMs and Sidewinders.

 

Now there is the possibility that an OPFOR might be able to throw up air defense UAVs faster and cheaper than we can manufacture AAMs. One possible solution for that might be a combo of an E-3 and F-22s. Assume the F-22's signature is low enough, particularly in concert with active jamming, to allow it to go UAV plinking with cannon. Might necessitate a mod program to fit a large secondary cannon mag in the weapons bays. Or forget the cannon and look at an onboard laser.

[Smitty]

Or just build a stealthy bomber to begin with.

[B777]

Greetings,

 

The upcoming P-8 MMA conversion which takes a common 737 commercial aircraft and modifies it to carry sensors/systems along with internal/external weapons isn’t too far off from what Mr. Katz proposed earlier in the thread. Such a derivative could be very possible if the will to create it existed.

 

Having worked on the production and testing of the B-1 and B-2, much of cost and risk I observed was the result of short schedules, introduction of cutting edge technologies (utilized in many areas), and the production ramp-up. Designing a derivative or new “bomb truck” design with existing commercial and military technologies could keep the cost in a reasonable range to replace existing B-52’s. The development cost alone for a derivative aircraft would likely be at least $10 billion. And that’s before the “gold plating” starts…

 

I like the idea of using UAV drones, but believe that they may have some serious drawbacks and shouldn’t be considered a standalone solution. We nee to maintain a bomber triad of stealth aircraft (B-2), drones, and “bomb-trucks” such as B-52/s or a possible replacement suited for a variety of situations.

 

Cheers,

Richard

[Chris Werb]

Against truly tough, near peer opponents I would be a bit concerned that a bombliner might not even be able to get close enough to launch cruise missiles.

 

Good post all round Smitty. I think we should remember that truly tough, near peer opponents simply don't exist at present and are unlikely to emerge for decades, if at all. With no such enemies forthcoming you can't afford to design every system in your arsenal around the possibility that an enemy will arise that can match or counter your abilities effectively in every area.

[Guest pfcem]

I think we should remember that truly tough, near peer opponents simply don't exist at present and are unlikely to emerge for decades, if at all.  With no such enemies forthcoming you can't afford to design every system in your arsenal around the possibility that an enemy will arise that can match or counter your abilities effectively in every area.

266368[/snapback]

That is the kind of argument that has led to many loses because forces were ill-equiped when that previously "unforseen" threat occured.

 

You fight battles with what you have, if you wait untill the battle starts to provide your forces with the weapons that could very well win the battle, it is too late.

 

Who thought in the 1920's &/or early 30's that the world would once again be at war with America, England & Russia on one side fighting against Germany, Italy & Japan on the other?

 

Who thought in the 1920's &/or 30's that Russia would become the 2nd most powerful nation in the world & would threaten world stability during the 1940's-80's?

 

Who thought in the 1970's & early 80's that the USSR & Warsaw pact would collapse & while "freeing" the world from possible nuclear annihilation, also destablizing the world politcally.

 

Who thought in the 1970's &/or 80's that the US would fight two major wars in Iraq?

 

Unfortunately we in the west tend think in too short a term & not enough long term.

[Smitty]

Good post all round Smitty.  I think we should remember that truly tough, near peer opponents simply don't exist at present and are unlikely to emerge for decades, if at all.  With no such enemies forthcoming you can't afford to design every system in your arsenal around the possibility that an enemy will arise that can match or counter your abilities effectively in every area.

266368[/snapback]

 

Thanks.

 

I agree that the neer peer scenario is rather unlikely, but HALE UAVs aren't THAT expensive. This may mean even less-than-neer peers could produce a significant anti-access threat that would have to be dealt with before bombliners could be used.

 

Plus, bombliners are a system that can't realistically be used without standoff munitions in anything but completely benign environments. Even the hint of high-altitude IADS would rule them out.

[cjr]

According to SILL2 the rising cost of modern weapons systems is irrelevant.

1. It will be a long time before UCAVs will be capable of completely replacing the manned fighter (maybe the 2nd half of this century).  The F-35 is going to be the Air Force's bread & butter during the early-middle part of this century.

2.  A relatively inexpensive (airliner-based or not) replacement for the B-52 is a good idea but you will still need some more expensive/capable bombers (such as the B-2).

3. I agree but maybe keep ~50 B-1s unless you intend to build more B-2s (bringing the number of B-2 up to ~50).  Eventual bomber force could be ~50 B-2/B-2 replacement & ~150 "B-3"/B-52 replacement. It would be nice to be able to double the size of this force but, unfortunately, not very realistic.

4. I agree.

5. I agree.

6. I agree, but that would probably be a good role for the B-1s too/instead.

7. I agree, probably build another 30 of them as well (recent cost calculations show another 20-40 could cost half as much as the 1st 21)

8. I agree.

9. I agree.

10. Refurbish the C-5s,  build more C-17s & procure a replacement for the C-130 already!  The C-130 replacement should be capable of lifting a 30-40 ton payload.

Yeah but we can do the same today with our current forces (B-1, B-2 & B-52).

266231[/snapback]

 

 

10: Already in the works: ATT=Advanced Theater Transport.

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...ircraft/att.htm

[EchoFiveMike]

Why do we need a manned stealth penetrating bomber? As proven in Kosovo and Iraq(twice), the chances of detecting something on the flight in and redirecting to attack it are on the same order of probability as random celebratory gunfire bringing down a stealth aircraft.

 

By the time a "near peer opponent"(.mil psuedo intellectual verbiage crap) develops, we'll almost certainly have stealth UCAV's fully capable of autonomous attacks for the penetrating mission. Otherwise, there's the much more useful hypersonic missiles to attack with, along with stealthed subsonic cruise missiles. To go along with the manned bomb truck.

 

The whole jammed uplink bugaboo is getting old. A simple default routine to deploy LOCASS or Viper Strike type ARM's(or a bay worth of HARM's for that matter) upon detecting a jamming signal that breaks uplink (would have to be broad band and pretty damned obvious) is the simple solution. The old SAC "blast your way in" routine is just as effective now as it was in the 50's, 60's and 70's. Current systems are fully capable of executing preplanned attacks using GPS guided weapons without any further input from the controller. I can have a $60k Dragoneye fly a 45 minute mission, loiter over X (doing circles, ovals, figure 8's, etc) and take photos of Y and come back to where ever I want (within the range of the bird), all without any further input from the ground. And that's the M151 Jeep of the UAV world.

 

And that's ignoring tactical solutions to the bomb truck intercept issue, such as making the whole thing a giant mousetrap for the enemy interceptors by luring them into a bunch of ERINT's or F22's or preferably both, outside their own airspace (and presumably, ability to recover their downed aircrews)

 

Currently, there is no need for a manned penetrating stealth bomber, aside from the extreme niche role of delivering current tech heavy penetrators such as GBU-28 and those are on the way out as BROACH/Mephisto type shaped charge follow through designs are fielded.

 

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2005psts/muthig.pdf

 

So, essentially, the B2 fleet fills that role until they become fiscally unsupportable. You can design your bomb truck to fit truly massive penetrators like MOAP, equip them with scissor glide wings and perhaps a booster rocket or turbofan and use that for your super hard targets. S/F....Ken M

[Kenneth P. Katz]

Can you get the USMCR to detail you to the Air Staff for a few years?

 

<lots of very insightful stuff>

266392[/snapback]

[Kenneth P. Katz]

Correct. So what?

 

Plus, bombliners are a system that can't realistically be used without standoff munitions in anything but completely benign environments.  Even the hint of high-altitude IADS would rule them out.

266386[/snapback]

[Smitty]

Correct. So what?

 

So don't spend a ton redesigning the fuselage. Just fit whatever you can on hardpoints and as big a bomb bay you can reasonably fit, MMA-style.

[Smitty]

Why do we need a manned stealth penetrating bomber?  As proven in Kosovo and Iraq(twice), the chances of detecting something on the flight in and redirecting to attack it are on the same order of probability as random celebratory gunfire bringing down a stealth aircraft. 

 

Do we only intend on fighting the Iraqs and Serbias of the future?

 

By the time a "near peer opponent"(.mil psuedo intellectual verbiage crap)..

 

What would you like me to call them? "Countries that have cool stuff like us"?

 

And that's ignoring tactical solutions to the bomb truck intercept issue, such as making the whole thing a giant mousetrap for the enemy interceptors by luring them into a bunch of ERINT's or F22's or preferably both, outside their own airspace (and presumably, ability to recover their downed aircrews)

 

Perhaps, but what about scenarios where the only tacair we have is flying from carriers and thousands of miles from Guam, because nobody wants to get involved in U.S. vs China?

 

And who's to say big, easy to spot, B-52-sized bombliners can't also be lured into traps?

 

Currently, there is no need for a manned penetrating stealth bomber, aside from the extreme niche role of delivering current tech heavy penetrators such as GBU-28 and those are on the way out as BROACH/Mephisto type shaped charge follow through designs are fielded.

 

Well, I still feel there's a need for a survivable, penetrating, strategic system, be it manned, stealthy bomber; Minuteman with CAV; hypersonic manned/unmanned aircraft; stealthy, long-ranged UCAV; or whatever.

 

You can design your bomb truck to fit truly massive penetrators like MOAP, equip them with scissor glide wings and perhaps a booster rocket or turbofan and use that for your super hard targets.  S/F....Ken M

 

And how many hundred miles could a turbofanned MOAP fly?

 

Remember, a hint of big SAMs anywhere along the flighpath keeps a bombliner out of the area.

[EchoFiveMike]

Do we only intend on fighting the Iraqs and Serbias of the future?

 

No, but these are the most probable target types.  Given that manned aircraft were horribly spoofed during the Serbian bombings, I'm not sure what you're claiming as their advantage over UCAV's.  Off aircraft target detection is pretty much the only game in town right now, except for armed UAV's.  Taking an example from the news, how much you wanna bet that the extremely limited loiter time of the F14/LANTIRN played a significant role in the decision to drop ordnance on that house where the women and kids got smoked?  BTDT, when you have 10 or 15 hrs on station, the guys who make the decisions are more prone to taking their time and developing the situation more completely.  Not that I think it was a bad decision, mind you, just that I'm pointing out shortcomings of manned aircraft.

 

What would you like me to call them?  "Countries that have cool stuff like us"?

 

Threat nations, enemies, competitors. I just hate the US culture of buzzwords and uselessly complex wording. It stems from all of the f**king lawyers we have.

 

Perhaps, but what about scenarios where the only tacair we have is flying from carriers and thousands of miles from Guam, because nobody wants to get involved in U.S. vs China?

What, F18C/D/E, combined with an assload of Standard SM-2's not adequate for you? China is a non-issue, most everything worth killing is near the coast. A 2000km range hypersonic missile puts your fleet well out to sea between Taiwan and the south part of Japan in deep water and still leaves the ability to hit just about everything in China worth hitting. Even baseline CALCM has over 1000km range.

 

And who's to say big, easy to spot, B-52-sized bombliners can't also be lured into traps?

 

OK, you're presuming they fly unescorted then?? Why the Hell would they do that?

 

Well, I still feel there's a need for a survivable, penetrating, strategic system, be it manned, stealthy bomber; Minuteman with CAV; hypersonic manned/unmanned aircraft; stealthy, long-ranged UCAV; or whatever.

There are going to be all sorts of penetrating systems, just not manned. Have you read the NDIA links I posted?

 

And how many hundred miles could a turbofanned MOAP fly?

 

Hell, I don't know. From 35k ft AGL and 500kts launch speed, probably far enough to keep it well outside any current SAM range anyways.

 

Remember, a hint of big SAMs anywhere along the flighpath keeps a bombliner out of the area.

Yeah, so what?

266434[/snapback]

[TheSilentType]

So don't spend a ton redesigning the fuselage.  Just fit whatever you can on hardpoints and as big a bomb bay you can reasonably fit, MMA-style.

266422[/snapback]

 

I suspect that designing a new fuselage would be cheaper than modifying an airliner's wings to carry heavy ordnance.

[Kenneth P. Katz]

External carriage = boatloads of aerodynamic drag = shorter range. Airliner wings aren't designed to carry missile pylons. So if you are going to spend on development either way, why not do it right?

 

I think that the P-8A is too small to be a good B-52H and B-1B replacement.

 

So don't spend a ton redesigning the fuselage.  Just fit whatever you can on hardpoints and as big a bomb bay you can reasonably fit, MMA-style.

266422[/snapback]

[swerve]

Well, I would shoot for a modular system permit bombing from C-17s on a sortie-by-sortie basis, not a full conversion.  That way you could use existing aircraft.

 

The proposed A400M Storm Shadow/Scalp/KEPD-350 launching systems are exactly that. Modules that fit the freight handling stuff. Load aboard, plug in, & take off. Some additional electronics or software as well, I expect.

[EchoFiveMike]

The usual busy as Hell powerpoint slides that obscure rather than illuminate, but this seems to be the same concept, as delivered via transpo aircraft. S/F...Ken M

 

 

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2005psts/jenkins.pdf

[Jim Martin]

Amazing. Once you wade through the 90% noise to get to the signal, it's a really cool concept.

 

To think, I could sum up same in one paragraph, without illustrations or graphs....

 

The usual busy as Hell powerpoint slides that obscure rather than illuminate, but this seems to be the same concept, as delivered via transpo aircraft.  S/F...Ken M

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2005psts/jenkins.pdf

267683[/snapback]

[Kenneth P. Katz]

Wow, that is state-of-the-art military techno-gibberish!

 

The usual busy as Hell powerpoint slides that obscure rather than illuminate, but this seems to be the same concept, as delivered via transpo aircraft.  S/F...Ken M

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2005psts/jenkins.pdf

267683[/snapback]

[Jim Martin]

Well, except the part with the dogs...(still wondering where THAT came from!!)

 

Wow, that is state-of-the-art military techno-gibberish!

267704[/snapback]

[Smitty]

External carriage = boatloads of aerodynamic drag = shorter range. Airliner wings aren't designed to carry missile pylons. So if you are going to spend on development either way, why not do it right?

 

I think that the P-8A is too small to be a good B-52H and B-1B replacement.

266468[/snapback]

 

True and true. It would come down to a price/performance analysis.

 

The MMA does have Harpoon-rated hardpoints, so it can be done on an airliner. What carriage does to range or wing lifetime, I don't know.

 

The P-8A is small, but I'd be more concerned with its relatively short unrefueled range than payload. You can just fly more aircraft to meet a payload requirement.

 

That's why I suggested moving up to a 767, 777 or 787 for both the MMA and a bombliner.

Edited January 8, 2006 by Smitty