The return of the medium bomber?

[muzza]

During the early 80s it was briefly (how briefly I dont know) up dating the airframe of Vulcan B2 and hanging AGM86 on it. It would have been viable, but as they pointed out a commons select committee, you would still have had to procure a new aircraft 10 years down the line, as Vulcan airframe life started to run out. However, if Vulcan B3 had been built (and had been operated largely at high altitude as it would carrying Skybolt) things might have been a bit different and Im sure it could have continued well into the 90s. But of course that died with the cancellation of Skybolt. One more nail to hammer in Bobby Macnamaras coffin.    Dont suppose the Vulcan you saw was the one that was briefly on the strength of the RNZAF?

 

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.

400061[/snapback]

 

Hi Stuart, this Vulcan was on a goodwill trip in the early 70s - "briefly on strength"? news to me - do tell...

 

Cheers

[larrikin]

This is, in many ways, what the A-12 should have been if it had succeeded. It just goes to show you what happens when you pull aircraft out of service when their replacements aren't ready. Nobody much has anything that can do the roles of the F111s and A6s, even on the drawing boards, after the failure of the A12.

[KingSargent]

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]

If 30-40 year old technology is still better than anything anybody else has, why not? Or if it can be upgraded to stay ahead.

[A2Keltainen]

If 30-40 year old technology is still better than anything anybody else has, why not? Or if it can be upgraded to stay ahead.

 

As I've already pointed out, bombers are different from some other military systems, since in a war between country A and country B, bombers from country A don't fight against other bombers from country B, unlike for example tanks, where tanks from country A clearly can fight against tanks from country B. Bombers from country A fight against the air-defence system of country B, so instead of comparing A's bombers to B's bombers, you should compare A's bombers to B's air-defence system. So, it doesn't matter if USA has the best bombers in the world, if the enemies of USA still can shoot them down, or at least make the risk of them getting shot down so big that USAF limits their use. Not many countries can afford good bombers, but many countries can afford good air-defence systems, or at least for the protection of their most important objects, such as high level headquarters. As we have already seen, US stealth aircraft (F-117) can be shot down, and that wasn't even against a top level opponent. How well would B-2 work against a modern well built IADS run by competent people?

[KingSargent]

As we have already seen, US stealth aircraft (F-117) can be shot down, and that wasn't even against a top level opponent. How well would B-2 work against a modern well built IADS run by competent people?

400370[/snapback]

And the opponent wasn't using any newly-developed anti-Stealth system either.

 

AFAIK, there aren't any "modern well built IADS run by competent people." Not even ours. Nor are there likely to be any widely deployed.

[A2Keltainen]

AFAIK, there aren't any "modern well built IADS run by competent people." Not even ours. Nor are there likely to be any widely deployed.

 

I wonder how well a B-2 strike would work against the capitals of, for example, Israel, Russia, Belarus, France, or China if their air-defences were on alert and prepared for the strike?

[KingSargent]

I wonder how well a B-2 strike would work against the capitals of, for example, Israel, Russia, Belarus, France, or China if their air-defences were on alert and prepared for the strike?

400379[/snapback]

You see, the reason it is called "Stealth" is that the target is not supposed to know you are coming. IOW, not alert and prepared.

[A2Keltainen]

You see, the reason it is called "Stealth" is that the target is not supposed to know you are coming. IOW, not alert and prepared.

 

Unless US foreign policy has been radically changed over night, USAF usually don't fly around bombing other countries in first strikes without any reason at all. I guess that in nearly all cases where B-2 strikes could be used, the enemy would be alert and prepared since the political situation would have tipped him off to the fact that putting the airdefences on alert might be a good idea.

[FirstOfFoot]

You see, the reason it is called "Stealth" is that the target is not supposed to know you are coming. IOW, not alert and prepared.

400381[/snapback]

 

You see, the reason that it's called "alert and prepared" is in times of international tension that the target is supposed to man their weapon systems and be aware that those cunning and underhand Air Force types may try a sneak attack.

 

Best to group all the bombers in the middle of the airfield, so that the saboteurs will have problems getting to them

[Cromwell]

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.

399977[/snapback]

 

I agree, a derivative of the 747 would be cheap and nasty (as Churchill said about Flower class corvettes - Cheap for us and nasty to the enemy)

[larrikin]

I did read something around the time the aircraft went was unveiled, that the Stealth on it was optimised for radars that could lock it up, IE sam or aircraft, but that it was not particularly effective against OTH radars. Not much of a problem, as you couldnt use a OTH very well to vector an intercept, but it did rather invalidate it in its primary role of searching out Soviet TEL and destroying them before they could launch. Then again, it did allow them able to claim that it wasnt a first strike weapon.

 

Was there any truth in that, or just tinfoil hat stuff?

400391[/snapback]

 

Truth. The first that the US discovered that OTHRs could track it reasonably well was when they were doing tropical trials and Jindalee picked it up. It still doesn't matter, as the only functioning OTHR establishments that can actually tell what they are looking at are in Oz and the US.

 

The Soviet OTHR installations had the same problems as the US' in that while they could transmit and recieve return waves, they had absolutley no idea how to read their returns. It was only with Jindalee in the mid-80s that anybody got it to be useable.

[Guest pfcem]

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

400218[/snapback]

Just an estimate. Based on the how much more costly each generation of aircraft has been, probably a low estimate at that.

 

 

 

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.

400218[/snapback]

The B-2 is more than capable in that reguard. Better than any other bomber in existance.

 

 

 

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.

400218[/snapback]

In twenty years...Now (& for the the next decade) procuring additional B-2 is a MUCH quicker & more cost-effective option.

 

The day will come when something significantly moere capable than the B-2 will be needed but that is VERY unlikely to occur in the next 10-15 years.

 

 

 

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.

 

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.

400218[/snapback]

Sorry, but there is only so much you can do with exercises & simulators. Plus since we do have the B-2s, it would be idiodic (& a BIG waste of money designing, procuring & maintaining them) NOT to use them.

 

 

 

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.

400218[/snapback]

True but the B-2 is still well "ahead of the curve".

[Luckyorwhat]

Truth.  The first that the US discovered that OTHRs could track it reasonably well was when they were doing tropical trials and Jindalee picked it up.  It still doesn't matter, as the only functioning OTHR establishments that can actually tell what they are looking at are in Oz and the US.

 

The Soviet OTHR installations had the same problems as the US' in that while they could transmit and recieve return waves, they had absolutley no idea how to read their returns.  It was only with Jindalee in the mid-80s that anybody got it to be useable.

400411[/snapback]

 

I don't mean to ask stupid questions, but:

 

If your long-wave radar gives you a contact you assume to be stealth, and nothing to work with but a bearing, and if you have 2 radars in different locations give you the same contact couldn't you just draw straight lines from the 2 stations on their bearings, and where the lines cross would be the co-ordinates of the stealth aircraft?

 

A lot of 'ifs' though.

[Rod]

I don't mean to ask stupid questions, but:

 

If your long-wave radar gives you a contact you assume to be stealth, and nothing to work with but a bearing, and if you have 2 radars in different locations give you the same contact couldn't you just draw straight lines from the 2 stations on their bearings, and where the lines cross would be the co-ordinates of the stealth aircraft?

 

A lot of 'ifs' though.

400470[/snapback]

 

I thought that is how the Serbs were able to "triangulate" the bearinf of the F-117 and shoot it down, by using multiple radars combined.

[Brasidas]

I thought that is how the Serbs were able to "triangulate" the bearinf of the F-117 and shoot it down, by using multiple radars combined.

400493[/snapback]

 

The longer the wave, the greater the uncertainty in position determination.

 

Additionally, some aspects are significantly worse for low observable characteristics than others.

 

Real time triangulation would have meant there was a net working between the radar stations. Seems likely.

 

Anyway, I had also read that the final targetting solution utilized an optical component, which is possible.

[muzza]

Dont know the exact circumstances, but a Vulcan visited New Zealand sometime in the late 60s or early 70s (based on the camo), and overnight sombody thought it would look much nicer with the RNZAF 'Kiwi' painted on it. There exists a photo of the pilot looking up at it a bit bewildered.    Cant find a copy of it at the moment, but if you look at

http://www.avrovulcan.org.uk/ or on the forum there they might be able to point you to a copy of it. Cost effective way of getting into the nuclear club I guess.

 

Thanks Swerve, Id not heard of that. Makes you wonder if it would be worthwhile building something like that to carry Stormshadow.

400375[/snapback]

 

Ahhh, "zapping" , I recall pictures of an Argentinian Herc leaving a C-130 meet in the mid 80s with a Union Jack on the outside of it's loading ramp...

 

Cheers

[Gunguy]

We could easily get a bomb truck which is what we need. A new take off, of the B-1 would do. Make it so the engines don't fall off, increase the thrust, decrease the bomb load out to about 40,000lbs total and 4,000 mile range. Don't get overly fancy with ECM gear which has always been a problem. It would not be hard to build at all with updated materials and such. I'm not saying a new B-1, but a new B-1 "type" of bomber with my requirements. It will be a fast bomb truck with a good loadout, decent fuel and its own targeting pods etc. It would be a very useful aircraft without the limits of the current B-1.

[larrikin]

I don't mean to ask stupid questions, but:

 

If your long-wave radar gives you a contact you assume to be stealth, and nothing to work with but a bearing, and if you have 2 radars in different locations give you the same contact couldn't you just draw straight lines from the 2 stations on their bearings, and where the lines cross would be the co-ordinates of the stealth aircraft?

 

A lot of 'ifs' though.

400470[/snapback]

 

With OTHR there is a large degree on uncertainty in the return. It will tell you that there is something in an area say 20x20 miles, moving in roughly Y direction, at about X speed. Jindalee can tell you approximately what size, and whether it is in the air or on the ground, but there is a minimum size it just won't pick up. For example, it can pick up Indonesian fishing boats, even in pretty rough seas, and they are about the size of a military aircraft. Light civilian aircraft are right at the bottom end of its capabilities, but are doable under most conditions.

 

Thus, even if you know something is out there, you either have to be a ble to paint it with something capable of more precise resolution, or send somebody out to Mark One it.

[larrikin]

I thought that is how the Serbs were able to "triangulate" the bearinf of the F-117 and shoot it down, by using multiple radars combined.

400493[/snapback]

 

The Serbs knew exactly where it was gong to be, when it was going to be, and pretty much filled the air around it with ordinance. Thanks to a French officer in the NATO HQ that was running the mission.

[swerve]

The Serbs knew exactly where it was gong to be, when it was going to be, and pretty much filled the air around it with ordinance.  Thanks to a French officer in the NATO HQ that was running the mission.

 

That story is false.

1) Pierre Bunels leaks didn't give them enough information to shoot it down.

2) He'd been under arrest for 5 months by the time of the shoot down - he was arrested in October 1998, long before the bombing started.

3) Everything he'd handed over was known, & what moron would use flight plans made months before the shooting started, & known to be in the hands of the enemy?

 

They did know where & when, but only because stupid overconfidence led to a succession of raids following the same route, at the same time. The Serbs backtracked from the times & places of the strikes, correlated them with the fleeting contacts they'd had, & plotted the route. Set trap, wait. F-117 flies into it, on schedule.

 

It's amazing how these urban myths continue to circulate.

[Guest bojan]

...and pretty much filled the air around it with ordinance...

400673[/snapback]

 

3 x SA-3 ain't realy filling air with ordinance... More like standard launch procedure (actualy standard is 4 missiles with predeterminated height and longitudal separation to corect for error and to put plain in "box")....

Edited December 6, 2006 by bojan

[Colin]

Maybe we can purchase the old Canberras and contract out the service.

 

Tim's tank and Medium bomber emporium!

[Josh]

I did read something around the time the aircraft went was unveiled, that the Stealth on it was optimised for radars that could lock it up, IE sam or aircraft, but that it was not particularly effective against OTH radars.

400391[/snapback]

 

Long wave radar is supposed to work better against stealth a/c. A lot of old Soviet volume air search radars where very long wave. Also I assume any radar that uses back scatter off the ionoshpere would also be effective since it would be coming down on the largest surface area of the a/c; however I'm not aware of any Soviet OTH radar. Not saying they weren't there, just not familiar.

[larrikin]

Long wave radar is supposed to work better against stealth a/c. A lot of old Soviet volume air search radars where very long wave. Also I assume any radar that uses back scatter off the ionoshpere would also be effective since it would be coming down on the largest surface area of the a/c; however I'm not aware of any Soviet OTH radar. Not saying they weren't there, just not familiar.

400858[/snapback]

 

The Soviets built OTH arrays in the '70s, same as the US. Then they found they couldn't read the results, so they shut them down. It took a couple of bright boys at DSTO in Adelaide in the '80s to come up with an algorythm that would translate the returns.

[gewing]

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.

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?

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]

 

 

 

From what has been published about test programs and such, It sounds as if it is a LOT cheaper to design stealth designs now.

 

Maybe it WOULD be worth building a new one.