The return of the medium bomber?

[Guest pfcem]

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/chan...ews/B211296.xml

 

Future Long-Range Bomber Likely Won't Replace B-2, Northrop Says

 

B-2 bomber prime contractor North-rop Grumman says that based on the in-formation it is gleaning from the U.S. Air Force, the service's next-generation long-range strike (NGLRS) platform will complement the B-2, but not replace it when it enters service around 2018-2020.

 

The requirements for NGLRS are not likely to firm up until the Air Force completes an analysis of alternatives in March. At this point, Northrop officials say they are expecting the NGLRS to be a subsonic bomber with a range of 2,500-3,000 nautical miles and a 20,000-pound payload capacity. By comparison, the B-2 has a 6,000-mile range and can carry a 40,000-pound load.

 

Although an unmanned bomber may still be a possibility for NGLRS, it's likely that the aircraft would at least have to have the option of being manned, given its role as a nuclear bomber, according to Dave Mazur, Northrop Grumman's B-2 program manager. However, having an optionally manned design would be more expensive than either going with a manned or unmanned configuration, he said during a briefing in Washington Nov. 28.

 

Mindful that large windfalls of spending for B-2 upgrades are unlikely in future years, Northrop is pushing a strategy of incremental upgrades to the bomber to improve its maintainability, weapons capacity, and radar (DAILY, Sept. 28). Roughly 40 percent of the $500 million annual B-2 budget is allocated to maintenance, with the rest for new developments, including upgrades. The company is trying to keep each upgrade within a $100 million to $300 million price range, so each individual effort is not "a hard pill to swallow for the government," Mazur said.

 

The Air Force's current plans call for keeping the B-2 in service until at least 2058. "Obviously people in the Air Force are recognizing the fact that the B-2 is going to be around for a long time and unless we lay out a road map, we are going to [find], 10 years from now when the threat has elevated ... that the platform is no longer viable," Mazur said.

 

With this in mind, the company hopes the program will be able to wean itself off the congressional plus-ups it has relied on each year for various enhancements. Over its lifetime, the program has received roughly $1.37 billion in plus-ups.

 

"Every year we have been getting congressional plus-ups," Mazur said. "Now every year that amount has gotten smaller and smaller." For fiscal 2007, the program is receiving about $18 million in plus-up money, which includes funds to begin integration of the Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) and the 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bunker buster.

 

Roughly $5.6 million of the plus-up funding is for MOP integration. This is enough to begin the engineering analysis required to place the mammoth weapon on the bomber, but not enough to begin the extensive flight-testing required, Mazur said. He estimates it will require $100 million and two to three years of development to make the MOP fully compliant with the aircraft.

 

The current idea for dropping the 20-foot penetrator is to attach it at the nose and tail of the weapon. A collar on the nose would pyrotechnically break away first, causing the bomb to swing downward, still attached at the aft end. An aft shear pin would then break away, and the weapon would drop from the aircraft pointed downward.

 

"Typically, weapons separate from the airplane, but when you drop 30,000 pounds off the airplane, the airplane will separate from the weapon," Mazur quipped.

[larrikin]

Ah, they want to replace the Pig. Funny that.

[Kenneth P. Katz]

This is a mistake. The USAF needs long range bombers that are less dependent on being granted by overflight or basing rights by other nations which have their own agendas.

 

A medium range bomber does not address this need.

[Guest pfcem]

No wonder I can't find the damn post...I didn't finish & post it.

 

Anybody remember the Top 5 Most needed system Developments, For each of the US Military Branches thread back in Sep/Oct?

 

http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=17973

 

I was working on a post for that & it just so happens that one of the items on my list was similar to what Northrop officials say they are expecting the NGLRS to be...

 

I may still finish & post the whole thing but until then...

 

intermediate range medium bomber: 120 minimum, 240 preferred

stealth

Mach 1.5 (supercruise preffered)

minimum internal payload; four 2000 lb class weapons or 6-8 1000 lb class weapons or 32 GBU-39 SDB (~10,000 lbs)

preferred internal payload; eight 2000 lb class weapons or 12-16 1000 lb class weapons or 64 GBU-39 SDB (~20,000 lbs)

___2000 lb class weapons [AGM-158 JASSM or GBU-31 JDAM or GBU-24 Paveway III or Popeye II]

___1000 lb class weapons [AGM-154 JSOW or GBU-32/35 JDAM or GBU-16 Paveway II or WCMD or Harpoon/SLAM]

unrefueled range with internal payload; ~2000nm minimum, ~3000nm preferred

 

***

 

Kenneth,

 

The US has long range heavy bombers (B-52, B-1 & B-2). Sure we will need a new long range heavy bomber to replace them eventually but what we need & do not have is a intermediate range medium bomber that can be deloyed at friendly bases ~1000 miles or so away from known hot spots that can be deployed MUCH more quickly than long range heavy bombers several thousand miles (up to half way around the world!) away.

[Rod]

I always had this thing for the Avro Vulcan. It would be a nice design for a B-3 project.

[muzza]

I always had this thing for the Avro Vulcan. It would be a nice design for a B-3 project.

399857[/snapback]

 

If the B Mk3 had been developed in the 70s, they might still be flying today...

I remember being about eight, and Dad lifting me up to look down the jet-pipe of one these beauties that visited Ohakea (not the one that crash-landed), spooky feeling, I recall.

 

Sigh.

[Exel]

Umm, maybe a silly question, but why don't they just buy more B-2s?

[Rickard N]

I suppose the fact that they cost slightly more than a Big Mac has something to do with it.

 

/R

[A2Keltainen]

I suppose the fact that they cost slightly more than a Big Mac has something to do with it.

 

I would also bet some money that the state of the art in both stealth design and the general use of advance composite materials has progressed a bit since the B-2 was developed.

[Scott Cunningham]

B-2 is too damn expensive. They need something to replace the B-52. It doesnt need to be stealthy, or sophisticated, just able to fly a long way, with a huge payload and we will have a useful aircraft.

[A2Keltainen]

The way I see/understand it, the USAF will have use for at least two types of bombers in the foreseeable future:

 

1. An extremly stealthy penetrating bomber with strategic reach and a medium to large payload. This is the plane you use to take out a modern IADS and other HVTs in a conflict against a sophisticated enemy. It should be able to handle extremly low level penetrating flights. Current closest example: B-2

 

2. A non-stealthy relatively simple and cheap bomber with a long loiter time and a huge payload. This is the plane you use as a "bomb truck" at medium to high altitudes in "bush wars" like the one in Afghanistan. Current closest example: B-52

[Rod]

But we also need medium bomber along the lines of the FB-111 and A-6. A design with a primary focus on range, so that we don't need to send B-1Bs , B-2s or B-52s to drop a small amount fo ordnance at an specific target.

 

Of course, there are those that might say that for this we can use cruise missiles which might change the whole topic to: "Have cruise missiles killed the need for a medium bomber?" Other roles can be filled by tactical strike fighters or heavy bombers, but the usual mission profile of a medium bomber, has it been relegated obsolete with the arrival of ever cheaper and more preicse cruise missiles?

[TSJ]

What they need is something like the Global Hawk that can carry 10-15 500lb bombs. Something that could loiter forever and maybe even be mid air refueled. Would that be so hard or expensive?

[swerve]

Personally, Id create a cheap bomb truck, with as many civilan spec components as its possible to get. Perhaps base it round the Boeing 777. Forget stealth, if it has to be done put that money into something thats a F15E replacement. And there is no reason why that couldnt be an RPV 15 years down the line anyway.

 

IIRC EADS proposed an A340 derivative to the AdlA as a cruise missile (Scalp, in this case) carrier, but the AdlA wasn't interested.

[A2Keltainen]

Shouldn't some C-130 variant work rather well as the basis for a "JDAM truck" style "bush bomber"? You get a proven aircraft with rough/short field capabilities, and a lot of countries already operate the aircraft type, which makes maintenance easier. All bombs would be carried internally in what now serves as the cargo cabin, and the loadmaster would be replaced with two bombardiers to give endurance and flexibility. If you want to go fancy, you could equip it with a pure observation pod to feed coordinates to your GPS guided bombs, or if you want to go really fancy, a full observation/targeting pod to enable the use of both GPS and laser guided bombs.

[Luckyorwhat]

When people say the B2 is too expensive, are they including development costs? Or is it just too late to build more, with the skilled workers and infrastructure already split up?

 

Because I don't understand why, if the production ability still existed, the B2 would cost more to produce than a brand-new different stealth bomber.

[Guest pfcem]

In 2001 Northrop Grumman Corporation offered to build 40 more aircraft at a cost of $735 million apiece, a reduction from the $2.2-billion unit cost of the existing fleet.

[A2Keltainen]

In 2001 Northrop Grumman Corporation offered to build 40 more aircraft at a cost of $735 million apiece, a reduction from the $2.2-billion unit cost of the existing fleet.

 

Who could resist a real bargain like that? I mean, $29.4 billion, that's just pocket money.

 

I also can't stop wondering what the yearly maintenance costs for one B-2 in "normal use" is, and especially since the aircraft's special stealth coating seems to be extremly sensitive to environmental factors (hence the special B-2 hangars at Diego Garcia).

[Guest pfcem]

Who could resist a real bargain like that? I mean, $29.4 billion, that's just pocket money.

400102[/snapback]

Well, it would triple the size of the fleet for less than 2/3 the cost of the existing 21 airframes...

 

 

 

I also can't stop wondering what the yearly maintenance costs for one B-2 in "normal use" is, and especially since the aircraft's special stealth coating seems to be extremly sensitive to environmental factors (hence the special B-2 hangars at Diego Garcia).

400102[/snapback]

Pretty high. Higher than it could/should be due to having "only" 21 airframes...

[nexus6]

how much could be saved by eliminating some of the stealth capability's, or other expensive components of the B2? I would imagine it would be very difficult to build a bombay into a civilian based design, although Nimrod is an example i guess.

[A2Keltainen]

Well, it would triple the size of the fleet

 

How badly needed is that extra capability? I guess most people would accept the extra capability if it came for free, but unfortunetly it doesn't.

 

for less than 2/3 the cost of the existing 21 airframes...

 

Given how absolutely ridiculously expensive those 21 airframes were, something costing less than them really doesn't say that much. $29.4 billion (plus manning and maintenance costs) is a lot of money, even for the US military, and the massive WP threat doesn't exist any more.

[Guest pfcem]

How badly needed is that extra capability? I guess most people would accept the extra capability if it came for free, but unfortunetly it doesn't.

400127[/snapback]

Well, we can either get the 40 more B-2s over the next 10 years & have 40 "new" & 21 "older" (the newest is almost 10 years old now) B-2s or keep flying the existing 21 B-2s "into the ground" & be forced to replace them with something that will cost a lot more to develope & procure 20 years from now.

 

It is not the we "need" them now but that we may later...

 

 

 

Given how absolutely ridiculously expensive those 21 airframes were, something costing less than them really doesn't say that much. $29.4 billion (plus manning and maintenance costs) is a lot of money, even for the US military, and the massive WP threat doesn't exist any more.

400127[/snapback]

And if we had procured more of them to begin with...Remember that reguardless of how many B-2s are/were procuded, we spent $44.4 billion developing it. I don't know about you but I find $44 billion to develope & $75 billion to procure 60 aircraft a lot easier to swallow than $44 billion to develope & $46 billion to procure 20...

[A2Keltainen]

Well, we can either get the 40 more B-2s over the next 10 years & have 40 "new" & 21 "older" (the newest is almost 10 years old now) B-2s or keep flying the existing 21 B-2s "into the ground" & be forced to replace them with something that will cost a lot more to develope & procure 20 years from now.

 

If you develop a new bomber, it will hopefully have better stealth and/or other capabilities than the B-2. You can also lessen the wear on the B-2s by not using them for bombing missions that can be solved by B-52s and/or B-1s.

 

It is not the we "need" them now but that we may later...

 

For each year that goes, the technology in the B-2 gets older, that is, less modern and state of the art. Do you want to fight the next Big War in 10 or 30 years with 1980's stealth technology in your best penetrating bombers?

 

Remember that reguardless of how many B-2s are/were procuded, we spent $44.4 billion developing it.  I don't know about you but I find $44 billion to develope & $75 billion to procure 60 aircraft a lot easier to swallow than $44 billion to develope & $46 billion to procure 20...

 

If the stuff isn't needed, then it shouldn't be bought, regardless of how much a buy would spread the development costs. Sometimes you just have to "bite the sour apple", as they say here in Sweden, and cut your losses.

Edited December 4, 2006 by A2Keltainen

[Guest pfcem]

If you develop a new bomber, it will hopefully have better stealth and/or other capabilities than the B-2.

400135[/snapback]

You are complaining about procuring 40 new B-2s for less than $30 billion but are willing to spend 3-4 times that to develope & procure a new bomber?

 

Up to a point, upgrading existing aircraft is more cost-effective than designing & building new. Eventually (like when existing aircraft near the end of their useful lives) it does turn around though.

 

With the constant upgrades being applied to the B-2s, it SHOULD remain the best bomber in the world for a long time to come.

 

Twenty years from now I would likely argue that designing & procuring a new bomber to replace the B-2 it the better coarse of action but today (& for at least the next decade), procuring additional B-2's is (in my opinion) the most cost-effective option.

 

 

 

 

You can also lessen the wear on the B-2s by not using them for bombing missions that can be solved by B-52s and/or B-1s.

400135[/snapback]

Sure but then you increase the where & tear on the B-52s & B-1's...

 

Plus you HAVE to use the B-2s some of the time in order to keep their operational effectiveness up.

 

 

 

For each year that goes, the technology in the B-2 gets older, that is, less modern and state of the art. Do you want to fight the next Big War in 10 or 30 years with 1980's stealth technology in your best penetrating bombers?

400135[/snapback]

That is why the B-2 fleet is constantly being upgraded to keep it "ahead of the curve". How long do you think it will be before the B-2 is no longer "up to the task"?

 

 

 

If the stuff isn't needed, then it shouldn't be bought, regardless of how much a buy would spread the development costs. Sometimes you just have to "bite the sour apple", as they say here in Sweden, and cut your losses.

400135[/snapback]

Unfortunately you fight wars with what you HAVE, not with what you wish you had...

 

If you do not have it when the war starts, it is too late. You need to procure for what you expect to need 10-20 years from now...

[A2Keltainen]

You are complaining about procuring 40 new B-2s for less than $30 billion but are willing to spend 3-4 times that to develope & procure a new bomber?

 

Do you have a source for the $90-120 billion figure?

 

With the constant upgrades being applied to the B-2s, it SHOULD remain the best bomber in the world for a long time to come.

It doesn't matter how well the B-2 compares to other bombers. What matters is how well it stands up to potential enemy IADS.

 

Twenty years from now I would likely argue that designing & procuring a new bomber to replace the B-2 it the better coarse of action but today (& for at least the next decade), procuring additional B-2's is (in my opinion) the most cost-effective option.

 

So you are willing to take the cost of designing a new bomber. Then why not take that cost in the next ten years or so? After all, as you point out, you go to war with what you have, and I guess you can't predict the wars the US will be involved in in 10-30 years.

 

Sure but then you increase the where & tear on the B-52s & B-1's...

Yes, but those platforms seems to be a lot cheaper from a maintenance point of view than the B-2, and there is also a lot more of them than B-2s.

 

Plus you HAVE to use the B-2s some of the time in order to keep their operational effectiveness up.

 

Yes, but training exercises can be designed to push the pilots harder than something like bombing a squad of talibans in the mountains of Afghanistan, and can also be designed with a maintenance schedule that spares the aircraft as much as possible from wear and tear. Modern simulators also seem to have reduced the need for actual flying a lot, and especially since you can do a lot of dangerous real war stuff in a simulator that you, due to the associated risks, can't do with a real aircraft in a peacetime training exercise. I guess you can get a rather nifty simulator for the price of a single B-2.

 

That is why the B-2 fleet is constantly being upgraded to keep it "ahead of the curve".

 

There is a limit to how much you can upgrade the stealth characteristics of an aircraft, since you can't, for example, radically alter the basic geometry of a aircraft for a reasonable sum of money.