It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. military said moving ahead on new bomber

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by cylon555
You cant defend against them


- I don't think this is quite accurate, you can if you can launch a relatively small payload to orbit (which more than a few nations can now).

But you then face the risk of ending up with at least a low/medium orbit 'zone' full of shrapnel and whizzing debris, no chance of manned flights for decades if not centuries and many if not most of the world's communication satellites out of action and no way to safely put up replacements for decades if not centuries.

In fact the idea of 'polluting' that part of space would be fairly undemanding and low tech it would also be (relatively speaking) fairly low cost too and although such a 'blunderbuss' approach would be operating on a degree of chance it would also side-step issues like stealth and electronic spoofing etc.
In fact the incentive would be to get as many 'fields of shrapnel' up there as possible because unlike a gunshot it would stay up there (in areas you think likely to be attacked or approaches for other targets) and be pretty difficult to spot and avoid.

IIRC this is one of the reasons why space based weapons were banned once upon a time.
'Everyone' agreed they were far more long term trouble than they were worth because the low tech and most damaging 'solutions' were just too 'attractive'.

As for the main topic, a new bomber?

To combat what?
(right, that's the only pertinent question in this asked, out of the way and to be ignored completely from now on).

They have already gotten to the stage where even the most right-wing US government knows 20 or so B2's is the maximum affordable.

Is anyone seriously suggesting the new mach 10 (or whatever) super-duper uber-weapon is going to bought in numbers exceeding those of the B2 because it's going to be cheaper!?

That's the part of this I just can't see.
If they wanted something like an updated version the B1's they bought it could be something to replace the B52 in numbers that match those of the B52 but I reckon they won't.
They'll do the usual trick of most expensive is best and end up with a 'system' so shockingly expensive it'll either have to be canned before it sees squadron service when sanity finally prevails (if we're lucky) or they'll get so few of them it'll make the B2 numbers look like a 'grand fleet'.

....all to engage (and thereby reinforce wealth/power structures & help to control) 'the people' in the pointless paranoia that they must compete with themselves even if no-one else is now playing this ridiculous arms race 'game'.

Still, they'd only 'waste' those $ billions (if not $ trillions) on making the lives of 'the people' better if they didn't do this kind of thing, huh?

(and all on borrowed money)

[edit on 15-6-2006 by sminkeypinkey]




posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 08:41 AM
link   
i belive the new bomber is the fb22 which is nice as it will be a bargin for usaf

also shattered did you take your nick from ace combat 4 ?
one of the missions was called shatered skies



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jereth
i belive the new bomber is the fb22 which is nice as it will be a bargin for usaf


- Wow, never seen that before.
A combination of anything remotely to do with F22 and the term 'bargain'.


Surely that would just be yet another souped up 'fighter bomber' - something the USAF is hardly short of anyway?
It's not anything like the leap some are talking about and does nothing to help replace the B52.

In the end a 'big fighter with bombs added' suffers from being neither one thing nor the other when used only as a bomber, surely?

It can't be a fighter, it's far too small to fill the role of the B52/B1/B2 and ends up being such a massive re-working of the F22 (or as some here suggest the YF23?) as to negate any of the expected savings 'commonality' is supposed to produce (as Sec of Def Bob McNamara used to term it......and yes, harking back to the, originally, multi-purpose F111 is intentional.
Those 'glittering prospects' only 'sort of' worked out in the end but nothing like as intended or as 'glittering'.).

It might also be the case that 'hitching' a new project to 'the F22's star', as it were (if it is a FB22 or variant of), might not be too smart given the funding difficulties that program is currently experiencing?

.....and as to the question of any serious and actual 'need' for this kind of thing?
Best move along quickly on that one, eh?

===========================================================

Here's what I think the war-perv element are terrified of (because the military gravy-train stops if it happens).
This, IMO, is why (in our 'age') the end of one arms race is rarely 'the end' of all arms races (unless you're going to try and kid us about Al Queda and their steath airforces and navies) .

I can't recall the precise details but it goes something similar to this -

I recall reading about warfare if the distant past.
One of the states/countries/Kingdoms invented IIRC the bronze sword and shield.
They were the absolute state of the art in weaponry but they remained that way for around 900years!

The equivelent of say the Spitfire or P51 Mustang or F15 Eagle or F22 or Typhoon remaining in production and service and still being state of the art for close on 1000yrs.
Amazing.
But it happened.

No one else is playing this ruinous game anymore so I really can't work out any sane reason why the USA feels the need to.


[edit on 15-6-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 10:53 AM
link   
So just trying to understand the last comment you think we should freeze tech developments and still be flying spitfires? I can't understand the point of saying something liek that since it goes againest all logic of ourselfs bettering the way we live/fight.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH
So just trying to understand the last comment you think we should freeze tech developments and still be flying spitfires?


- No, I didn't say that.
I think it is a question of priorities and need.
From that flows the very real possibility that we don't actually 'need' to be sinking vast amounts of scarce resources, talent and time into projects that extend even further a capacity and capability already way beyond that of the next (group of) guy(s).

I doubt very much that anybody back then actively decided to 'freeze' anything, I was merely pointing out that there have been extended periods in human history where technology plateaued and the next 'advances' were a very very long time in coming.

The comparison being *whatever* example of leading edge tech you choose to use being 'in service' and remaining 'the leading edge' for around 900yrs.

Some would have us believe that situation impossible, yet clearly it is not and has happened in our history at various times.


I can't understand the point of saying something liek that since it goes againest all logic of ourselfs bettering the way we live/fight.


- Surely the only 'logical' point in this is that of the requirement or 'need'.
The cold war is over, no-one else is playing the arms race game.
There is no need.

"Bettering ourselves in the way we fight"?!
Bettering?!

Maybe if 'we' put even a fraction of the effort 'we' put into bettering how we fight into bettering how people live (the world over) we would find a lot less need to end up in fights in the first place.....in my book 'bettering how we live' should be our priority, not 'bettering how 'we' fight' = kill and maim each other.

As a great man once said 'it's a dangerous world'.
Yes it is and in large part that is because 'we' keep arming it with the weaponry 'we' insist on keeping on developing.

[edit on 15-6-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   
One of the main advantages of a heavy bomber or strike aircraft is the range that comes with them. Sure, you can load an F-15 down with quite a few JDAMs and it can perform a combat sortie - but it's not going too far. Larger aircraft, generally, have a greater range and heavier payload - making your trip more worth your while. You also have the fact that operating a whole ton of F-15Es is going to be a whole lot more expensive than operating 3 FB-23 RTAs. You get more range and survivability out of a smaller task force that can relocate to friendly bases and perform low-level raids.

That's another advantage with what they are looking at developing - the stealth strike aircraft - the RTAs. They appear to be designed to fly in at tree-top level, avoiding land and air based search radars - enhanced by their stealth charactaristics. With a wing of three independently operating FB-23 RTAs, you could, theoretically, eliminate all of the command and control facilities in-theater as well as wreak havoc on supply lines - breaking the enemy's will to fight.

What would have taken a large sortie of aircraft running Wild Weasle missions as well as all-out bombing raids will only take a single mobile wing that can be on-station within 36 hours and complete their combat sortie within another 12 - the entire operation taking 48 or so hours. That would be a rather demanding schedule - but with forwarning, a possibly hostile situation can be diffused with as little destruction as possible within a very short period of time.

If the enemy presses - a second wing can be sent in as a follow-up while the other wing is re-arming for a possible defensive posture. This wing is armed with anti-armor cluster muntions as well as cruise missiles that dispense sub-munitions - effectively behaving like small bombers, then crashing themselves into a target. Entire armored divisions can be eliminated in a matter of minutes.

By the time the forces have time to react - the first wing is already prepared to take defensive stance and can respond to threats as necessary.

Massive armies are scary... but people always think they can beat them. What really scares people are the things that can come from anywhere and can kill quickly. Even megalomaniacs recognize this as a threat and take it seriously.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
The equivelent of say the Spitfire or P51 Mustang or F15 Eagle or F22 or Typhoon remaining in production and service and still being state of the art for close on 1000yrs.
Amazing.
But it happened.


We are not in the bronze age as you so romantically illustrate, we are in the third century of the industrial age where technological developments accelerate and advance exponentially on a yearly basis.

Long gone are the days of the bronze sword, the Spitfire, P-51 and so on.

Even the once great F-15 is now being challenged by lesser aircraft with advanced avionics as seen in the Cope India - Indo American Exercises.

The B-1A bomber benefits from a reduced radar cross section but it is not “stealth” and is basically SAM practice for any technologically sophisticated adversary.

There are even technologies being developed that will progressively lessen any technological advantages the B-2 Spirit currently enjoys. So for every system that we develop to insure surviveability the potential adversaries and their weapons manufacturers develop a measure to counter it or otherwise negate it's effectiveness. For this reason we must continue to develop and deploy new technologies.


No one else is playing this ruinous game anymore so I really can't work out any sane reason why the USA feels the need to.


Contrary to your statements, everyone who can afford to IS playing this ruinous game as you put it. Russia and China both are developing 5th generation aircraft, a variety of black aircraft along with radar and missile technology that can bring down aircraft utilizing passive stealth shaping. Just because they don’t have freedom of information acts and a multitude of enthusiast websites describing their advanced technology flight platforms does not mean that they do not exist.


Surely the only 'logical' point in this is that of the requirement or 'need'.

Are we then to simply ignore any potential adversaries’ developments and proceed on a path of blissful ignorance just because there is no need for new Long Range bombers at this moment in time - knowing full well the development period for bringing an aircraft from CAD design to the assembly line can take 20 years?

Would you have us retard our technological growth so that down the road we end up in a conflict where we send our young men to be slaughtered because of vast technology differences between us and our enemy?

No thank you.



[edit on 6-16-2006 by intelgurl]



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 02:24 PM
link   
America needs the ability to drop bombs on bad guys quickly, regardless of where they may be. Given the unreliable nature of our “allies”, this AC also needs the capability to take on this mission from the CONUS.

Fighter bombers won’t fulfill the above requirements.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by cylon555
I know i ment that to be sarcastic.
What im saying is if an F-16 can drop a 500 pound bomb with pin point
accuracy why spend billions of dollers and 11 years on something we
don't need.


Don't need? You HAVE to be kidding. The B-52 is older than 98% of its pilots, has no tail gun, no air to air defenses, has a MASSIVE RCS, and can only be sent in AFTER the majority of the air defenses are taken down. 22 B-2s simply CAN NOT keep up a major tempo of air ops for any long period of time, and if we get caught in a two front war (read Middle East and North Korea) we're going to run out of airframes PDQ. The B-1B can take up some slack, but the B-1s still have some pretty big problems, and are still pretty easy to detect coming in.

Missiles are great, but guess what? The Tomahawk missile that we rely on so much are subsonic, non-stealthy platforms that can and are shot down on the way in to the target, and can't do what a manned bomber can do. Loiter. So we can either fire off 1000+ missiles to hit 25 targets, to ensure that we hit it, or we develop a new bomber platform that can get over the target and loiter if necessary.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by intelgurl
We are not in the bronze age as you so romantically illustrate, we are in the third century of the industrial age where technological developments accelerate and advance exponentially on a yearly basis.


- I wasn't romanticising anything, I was pointing out that a long hiatus in the so-called 'advancement' of weaponry is not necessarily unusual and certainly not impossible.

The only reason why things seem to 'develop exponentially' is because 'we' put resources there (in quantities way beyong what anyone else can even afford never mind actually choose to do) instead of elsewhere.


Contrary to your statements, everyone who can afford to IS playing this ruinous game as you put it.


- Well you might see that but I don't.
What I see are other countries making modest upgrades and improvements to their defensive capacities (largely driven by a fear of being vulnerable to an aggressive USA).

I certainly don't see anyone else getting remotely near anything like 'large scale global projection' and a 'fight 2 wars simultaneously' capability.

Are you suggesting that you do?


Are we then to simply ignore any potential adversaries’ developments and proceed on a path of blissful ignorance just because there is no need for new Long Range bombers at this moment in time


- I suggest 'we' wake up and stop and wind down the paranoia instead of relentlessly feeding it.

Like I said if we were to put a fraction of the effort 'we' put into developing new ways to slaughter each other towards making people's lives worth living we'd have a damned sight less need to be fighting each other at all.


Would you have us retard our technological growth so that down the road we end up in a conflict where we send our young men to be slaughtered because of vast technology differences between us and our enemy?


- You must know this is so far removed from any credible possibility as to be just plain silly.

You cannot just suddenly built up the decades of 'technical expertise and infrastructure' that has placed 'the west' and most particularly the USA so far ahead of any credible rival militarily.

You said it yourself the Russians are talking about debuting their prototype 5th gen fighters in 2008/9....... how many years after the USA's 5th gen and in what quantity compared?

The idea they or anyone else is now, or are going to be anytime soon, truely a 'threat' to you or us is laughable, thankfully.
It's a much more safe position for us all.



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Don't need? You HAVE to be kidding.


Thats right DO NOT NEED. Why do we have to have the ability to bomb any place
on earth in 2 hour's we dont, some people want that ability but its not needed.


So we can either fire off 1000+ missiles to hit 25 targets,


I think the odds are better than that or why would we use them now.

NKorea in the air wont be much, one carrier and are ground based planes in the
area as well as the South's support can take out all of NK's air force and air
defenses. Iran may be a little harder but it would fall as well either by outside
force's (us) or inside force's (there people).


No $billion+ bomber is needed the money can go to other REAL needs.

This year the Department of Defense's budget is estimated to be $419.3 billion.
How much more of the people's money must be spent to keep them safe.


A wise man once said
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction...
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

Are arm's are mighty and are ready for instant action.
We have the power to destroy everything on Earth and that is still not enough.

To the Government
Never spend your money before you have it.
Thomas Jefferson



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 02:49 AM
link   
The notion of flying 'anywhere in the world in 2-3 hours' is beyond laughable. Look at the XB-70 or the B-58 and note how much of their flight profiles were _subsonic_ in similar strategic range missions lasting upwards of half a day. Now halve the speed (1-1.5 as the best we can sustain with today's affordable materials and engines) and look at a Globe.

To do this with ANY of the proposed (B-1R, FB-22/23) airframes would require _local basing_ (within 2,000nm) with absolutely NO advantage over existing tactical airframes OR missile system because the number of available (tacair) assets would exceed the number of sorties that the bombers could generate and thus the number of places they could go to expend all their ordnance while using _similar_ quantities of JP.

A new bomber MIGHT be able to achieve the same as the existing fleet of B-1/2/52 _cheaper_ (by the flight hour as a function of maintenance and reliability. But it would still not be anything remotely similar, in terms of inventory airframes, to our tacair fleet can achieve.

Indeed, if reliability at cost was the principal goal, it would be wiser to modify an existing commercial transport as a cruise or aeroballistic shooter and then let the tacair assets which have the coverage density and _sensor apertures_ 'call down the lightning' as penetrating airpower.

To justify true 'Global Reach' projection missions requires you to acknowledge such a threat status (i.e. everyone hates our guts) that we have no base-in rights and must come all the way out from from CONUS.

At that point what reason do we have to pretend to be 'Global Cops' (white hats, wanted in the neighborhood)?

In any case, the only way to achieve that capability is with conventionally converted ballistic missiles (relatively cheap) or TAV type vehicles in the Mach 10-12 range (anything but).

Whose existence in turn would mean two more things:

1. That tacair would effectively not have any worth.
Because their deployment lag and operational support (tankers) could be dropped while the almost certan shift to methane if not hydrogen based fuels for an aerospace sling bomber would also mean more payload fraction and less inter-sortie delays getting more bombs on target. Again, if you need 'real airpower, real quick' aeroballistic cruise (ARRMD etc.) missiles off a boat will beat BOTH CONUS based options over 90% of potential engaged theaters.

2. We would be looking at orbital kill systems in a few decades.
Militarizing space. Because RFG means you can bus your payload from half a hemisphere away (1,500-3,000nm, depending on trajectory) and make the turnoff LONG before the most advanced conventional air defenses would even be able to SEE you (assuming you had a B-52 cross section). Let alone shoot. OTOH, Lasers can kill to line of sight and small atomics from above can wreck satcomms and targeting overhead. Escalating local wars to massively theater-wide conflagrations in a few instants. No measure without a CM means that DEWS which could kill a TAV would effectively be the end of conventional airpower even faster.

ARGUMENT:

Nobody in their right mind is going to send a penetrating bomber into an unreduced IADS. Both the B-2 and F-117 are _known_ 'black holes' sucking up support missions for DAYS around their target window.

At the same time, loitering or not, even if it's possible in a 'supercruise to 1,500-2,000nm radius' weapons system, is _worthless_ if you can't spot targets in the 'other 99.9999 percent' of the battlespace which your single (uber expensive) jet is NOT flying over.

OTOH, if you want to have _reactive_, point-strike, airpower, you need to define it as the ability to say respond conventionally to a nuclear missile threat IN THE SAME WINDOW (say ten to thirty minutes) which the enemy can be expected to hit you.

Only then can you give a president a no-first-use option to the counter-force mission which justifies a '2hrs to anywhere' kind of ability.

And even then, the real definition of proficiency will come, not from the hypersonic bomber or missile. But from the network overhead that can find and obliterate threats across a previously blank-canvas of target nation in real time.

CONCLUSION:
Set against this latter metric, the existing 'new bomber' candidates are all pathetic. And the reason they are is because they represent both our sliding technical competencies in aerospace. And the need for generals to justify systems-of-systems without block obsolescing an existing way of life as much as technical solution.


KPl.



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 02:53 AM
link   
I hate to say it, but you have a SERIOUSLY overblown sense of the US military. There is NO WAY that the US can take out the NKAF plus air defenses with one carrier, in country forces and the ROKAF. The USAF plan for a war in Korea was going to be to flood the country and region with as many tactical bombers and fighters as they could get there, along with the heavy bombers in Guam and Okinawa. This was when the US military was capable of fighting two major wars and a regional conflict. They have been slashed majorly since then, and there's no way they could do the same now.

Maybe we DON'T need a bomber capable of hitting anywhere in the world in 2 hours right now, but we DO desperately need something to replace the B-52s and even the B-1s that are in the inventory now. Which would you prefer? 50+ sorties by tactical bombers, with missiles, or 2 sorties by heavy bombers? Personally I'd rather see 2 sorties go in, with the risk of 2 crew members in a B-2, 4 in a B-1, and 6 in a B-52 as opposed to 50 or more in the tactical bombers.



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466

To do this with ANY of the proposed (B-1R, FB-22/23) airframes would require _local basing_ (within 2,000nm) with absolutely NO advantage over existing tactical airframes OR missile system because the number of available (tacair) assets would exceed the number of sorties that the bombers could generate and thus the number of places they could go to expend all their ordnance while using _similar_ quantities of JP.

The B-1R, FB-22/23 proposals are long range "interim bomber" designs. Apparently "interim" means before the Global Strike vehicle is produced, supposedly by 2025.
In this interim period of time a stealthy, supersonic standard airframe (as opposed to a TAV) is being considered. Regardless of my opinion or your opinion, the USAF brass is insisting there is a need for such a system.

Meanwhile technical landmarks are being made with the FALCON project as it continues to progress. Industry folks are saying FALCON could evolve into something useable by 2015 or there abouts if all goes well.

[edit on 6-17-2006 by intelgurl]



posted on Jun, 17 2006 @ 10:37 PM
link   
I have no clue as to whose post ch1466 is directed at... but I'll step out on a limb and say it's mine. But, since I disagree anyway - I'll counter.

I never said 'in 2-3 hours' a plane could be on-station. I said within 36 hours and easily ready to perform combat operations within 48. You could demand more of the crews, and be ready to perform combat operations within hours of arival in theatre. It would not be recommended unless in a dire emergency.

If you haven't noticed - I'm also not reffering to an ICBM as a threat. We are not in the days of the cold war and the threat of an ICBM launch is very remote. The worst threat are cruise and ballistic missiles. Their launchers are mobile and, depending upon the gyro technology, can be set up and ready to fire in under an hour. Aircraft within the theatre that meet the interim bomber performance specifications will be much more capable of destroying these targets than any other aircraft or missile we currently have. A logical strategy would have a formation ready to respond to any threats that present themselves after the initial raid returns to base.

However, more focus is being placed on preventing military aggression - be it upon the U.S. or another country. This requires a very fast and versatile weapon system/platform that can switch roles with the touch of a button and akgnowledgment of a command. You need to rapidly be able to go from engaging an armored collumn with JASSM and JSOW weapons. This is to eliminate ADVANCEMENTS - not fixed targets.

The idea is that these bombers could penetrate into an IADS without a significant threat of being engaged. They are more than equipped to handle radar instalations, especially when working as a group to perform simultaneous strikes and converging on the 'hole' that has been created. Supercruise would allow them to move much faster in duration than any other aircraft known to exist in any other airforce, and by following the terrain, would be able to avoid being acquired by a radar that is within the detection threshhold.

If you need 'proof' - let's get to work on a flight simulator that accurately simulates radar, detection thresholds (based on geometry, material composition, simulated damage, etc), flight dynamics, and ballistic trajectories - then I'll let you set up the most advanced IADS you can concieve of - even setting up areas that are obscured to satelite survailence (meaning I would not be allowed to know they are there). Then allow me to configure an F/B-23 RTA within reasonable parameters and use some of the weapons that are being tested (assuming they will be in place for this scenario), and I can prove to you that, using no more than 10 interim bombers, I can effectively organize an airstrike that would eliminate your command and control facilities - and, if any of your constigencies call for the relocation of armor - I can ensure that they will never reach their destination. If the need arises, entire airbases can be eliminated with one or two missiles, freeing up my aircraft to perform other tasks.

I can guarantee you that these aircraft would be the most comprehensive threat ever created.

Develop all the cruise missiles and "Ion Cannons" you want. You will always need to send an airplane in - and beyond that, you will always need to send a soldier in on the ground.



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Zaphod58,

>>
I hate to say it, but you have a SERIOUSLY overblown sense of the US military. There is NO WAY that the US can take out the NKAF plus air defenses with one carrier, in country forces and the ROKAF.
>>

Carriers don't fight alone in a surrounded littoral basin. OTOH, the ROKAF OOB includes-

92 F-4D
103 F-4E
160 F-16C/D

www.scramble.nl...

Either of the Phantoms can defeat the MiG-21MF/23ML on their own and come up roughly even on the MiG-21Bis/29A with advantaged GCI vectoring. The Bomrae can defeat ANY of the principal enemy air threats.

The principal differences (aside from a 10:1 training hours regimen) being about 150nm more radius, ECM pods, AMRAAM, functional LDSD, fighter:fighter LINK and of course sortie logistics. Plus American AWACS out of Japan.

Of the DPRKAF total, only the MiG-23L and MiG-29A can function even marginally effectively without GCI. And NONE can function over more than a 150nm radii without crippling their missile loads with external fuel. It's commonly seen, the last time a KC-135 was intercepted in the Yellow Sea, it was by Floggers (can't sweep) and Fulcrums (can't carry MRM) with wing tanks.

The latter is particularly important because this is the DPRKAF A2A OOB-

160 MiG-21PF/PFM
30 MiG-21bis
46 MiG-23ML
36 MiG-29A

www.scramble.nl...

Between them, the ROKAF outnumbers the DPRKAF 355:272. If you remove the point defense assets this rises to 355:110 or a 3:1 advantage. This means that the DPRKAF cannot generate enough 'instant on' sorties to overwhelm the ROKs air defenses and once the battle switches to OCA, they can generate _so many_ 'over your airbase not mine' sorties as to guarantee hitting the Norks on the ground.

Whether this numeric + quality differential would be sustainable in the face of commando attacks and the DPRK's switch to a missile based offensive force is uncertain. But if they cannot beat the ROKAF into the ground without going to nukes to compensate for targeting errors ad ERINT, they cannot beat the ROKs _period_. Since the immediate response to DPRK attacks with any WMD will be to escalate in kind to protect OUR forces present on the peninsula.

>>
The USAF plan for a war in Korea was going to be to flood the country and region with as many tactical bombers and fighters as they could get there, along with the heavy bombers in Guam and Okinawa. This was when the US military was capable of fighting two major wars and a regional conflict. They have been slashed majorly since then, and there's no way they could do the same now.
>>

Once you see the numbers of effective, projective, airpower start to dwindle towards 1-2 mission force, you realize that 'Air Dominance' basically comes down to holding the door open while just a few raids go in with mass-kill weapons like Wicmid/SFW and GBU-39 (Misawa out of Japan if not Kunsan) to end the fight on the ground. After which it doesn't matter how many threat jets are left because they won't have a functional ground forces element to back up.

Of course this assumes that the Japanese will stand tall in the face of Tapaeo Dong and is why we are effectively abbrogating several BMD treaties by making them and the Israelis our NMD testbed nations.

>>
Maybe we DON'T need a bomber capable of hitting anywhere in the world in 2 hours right now, but we DO desperately need something to replace the B-52s and even the B-1s that are in the inventory now.
>>

Actually, I could go with such a capability for the reasons stated. Suppression of nuclear forces in-theater without broaching the glowie-in-darkie floor ourselves as a function of _short stopping_ conflicts which we would otherwise have to play MacArthurian Johhny-Come-Lately games in.

The difference being that a true TAV would not need to come within more than about 1,000-1,500nm _at most_ to deliver inertial shells with much the same behavior, on a much lower parabolic demi-arc, as MIRVs. i.e. VERY hard to intercept.

>>
Which would you prefer? 50+ sorties by tactical bombers, with missiles, or 2 sorties by heavy bombers?
>>

That will be decided by Targeting and Penetration values. If you can find the threats easily (remember, no GHawk, no Predator, no JSTARS, no E-10, this is purely a 'flat footed' response curve designed to put /something/ out there, presumably after a Pearl Harbor scenario wipes out all regional forces...) then it doesn't really matter WHO delivers the functional kill mechanism. OTOH, if the chary enemy, wise to the ways of airpower, DOES NOT stay in contact along a 'frontal line' that a FAC can relate to. DOES NOT in fact obey linear warfare strategy with large numbered forces at all (using mini kampfgruppe units to support special infantry infiltration tactics ala WWI). You may not be able to FIND enough threats to kill to be worth the 3,300nm trip back to Alaska (where they are 'nominally' protected by THAAD as much as U.S. Sovereign territory...).

Comparitively, the 620nm back to Tokyo is just a hop skip and jump, even for tacair, IF you have the overwater safety net (tanking and CSAR or robotic UCAVs) to support it. At which point, the ability to put 8 GBU-39 here for 4 hours, 4 WICMID over there for 2hrs, with a 20 airframe force constantly rotating in and out may be better all round. NOT LEAST because, with all peninsular airpower lost and even with a system like naval ADSAM SM.6 (and SM.3 LEAP) functioning as both a replacement OCA screen and a midcourse intercept ATBM shield to thin the herd on weapons headed across the Sea Of Japan; you may STILL need the ability to fight and _run_.

Which no bomber can provide. And which no bomber /force/ composed of high value systems like a supercruise B-3 would be _allowed_ to do, on their own without tacair support.

>>
Personally I'd rather see 2 sorties go in, with the risk of 2 crew members in a B-2, 4 in a B-1, and 6 in a B-52 as opposed to 50 or more in the tactical bombers.
>>

Myself, depending on the force-on-force model used, I win a Korean peninsular war by generating a sacrificial kill zone probably 150km deep and then maneuvering in depth behind it to kill them as they come. Knowing that the Norks can't win a sustained logistical battle and realizing that it is long-past-dumb to _still_ have your capital within 25 miles of the DMZ and I _WILL NOT_ bleed for YOUR damn dirt! Even the bloody Germans were not that stupid in 'relocating' Berlin to Bonn.

In this scenario, the best you can expect from a bomber response is a long range loft of JASSM-ER (500nm range) with the weapon itself performing loitering target-assist if not called down immediately on targets like bridges, highway ramps and other _friendly_ (POL, comms, electrical, C2) assets which could not be yielded to the enemy even as they were left behind. It's a helluva an expensive use of smart-cruise but that is where the line falls for me on the use of 'bomber' platforms in an unsupported air supremacy scenario.

And the reason why is VLO technology, particularly that which is Gen-4/5 available by 2018 (combining optical and RF) is itself not worth losing to some podunk threat with a dozen different nations maintaining TechINT 'bidding teams' in the nearest Hilton.

I give not a rat's ass about the crew on any single or dozen airframes because their loss of life is insignificant compared to the loss of technology or even the loss (if we are so stupid as to stay in significant numbers) of U.S. forces stationed on a hotwar nuclear peninsula.

'Personally', given that ca. 2020 will be /at least/ five years into the 'next arms race' to deploy functional DEWS, including overhead killers (principal means of targeting stratcom assets), I would prefer an unmanned weapons system that can fly 1,100nm, sit on station for 2hrs and come home. In numbers sufficient to LOSE (gambit) in order to WIN.



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Not least because these platforms will not suck us dry with training and manpower support during peacetime. And will likely cost less than a 20th that of a new bomber program which is not in fact based on a simple milspec'ing upgrade of an existing commercial platform.

1,500 UCAV @ 25 million each + 20 billion R&D = 57.5 billion bucks.

100 B-3 LRSA @ 550 million each + 20 billion R&D = 75 billion bucks BEFORE the baby onboard issues.

20 B-3 TAV/Aurora @ 1.5 Billion Each + 50 billion R&D = 80 billion bucks.

50 B-3 'Militarized' 767-400ER mod @ 250 million each + 10 billion R&D = 22.5 billion bucks. (Note, the civil version is some 132.5 million per unit).

2,500 AGM-158B @ 500,000 dollars each + 5 billion R&D = 6.25 billion bucks.

12,000 GBU-39/40 @ 60,000 dollars each + 5 billion R&D = 720 million bucks.

1,500 ARRMD Aeroballistic Cruise (for DDX/CGX) @ 1 million each plus 5 billion R&D = 6.5 billion bucks.

CONCLUSION:
There are ways to get inland, fast, without a supercruise bomber and without exposing major U.S. forces to direct inshore threat. The question then becomes whether those abilities translate to the KINDS of (point strike, very high munition:target value trades) that will win a war by stopping it quick. IMO, the nature of battle is such that there can be no real ability to decisively attrite the actual combattant forces, even in a high intensity campaign.

OTOH, getting those munitions past the TLE goalpost is ALWAYS going to be the driving metric in 'smart wars' fought by conventional forces using guerilla (small unit, cellular constructs) tactics or 'real' OOTW efforts. The principal difference between these being how many actual aircraft vs. empty flight hours you feel you can afford to lose winkling out micro targets that may be HERE.

There.

Down There.

Across Here.

All at once.

Or none at all.

Or any mix inbetween.

>1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9
A.......................
B........T.............
C.......................
D.......................
E.......................
F.......................
G..................T...

>1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9
A....U>...............
B....................../\.......U....
D........U.......\/....
E.......................
F.../\......1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9
A.......................
B....B>>>>.........
C.......................
D.......................
E....B>>>>.........
F.......................
G.......................


Treat the above like a giant game of 'Battleship'. Where every dot represents 25 square miles, the T's are hidden Targets and the U's and B's are UCAV and (manned) bombers. Where it is 'assumed' that a typical sensor system can spot point targets 'two dots out' (at most), no bomber force will be exposed to desultory engagement just to /find/ a target by sending a 1-2 bombers trolling for fire over each dot. And even if they are sent, the likelihood that they will FIND those targets is next to zero. At which point you hit a threshold limiter where the individual unit cost, sortie cycle times (there->hold->back-



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Intelgurl,

>>
The B-1R, FB-22/23 proposals are long range "interim bomber" designs. Apparently "interim" means before the Global Strike vehicle is produced, supposedly by 2025.
In this interim period of time a stealthy, supersonic standard airframe (as opposed to a TAV) is being considered. Regardless of my opinion or your opinion, the USAF brass is insisting there is a need for such a system.
>>

Interim means nothing if it is still a minimum of 10 years out. Because the only useful things a 'theater' or 'regional' bomber does for U.S. is drop the number of types in Stratcom ($$$$) while giving us back the (B-47/58/FB-111) ability to hostage intermediate threats /between/ the 1,000nm that you can expect tacair to cover and the 6-10,000nm that true strategic bombers can reach out from CONUS direct.

Unfortunately, none of this acknowledges two basic FACTS:

1. DEWS and hunting weapons will mean the end of any penetrating airpower too costly to lose. And just as 'nobody could possibly copy the nuke' (July 16, 1945 Alamagordo-> August 29, 1949 Semipaltinsk); you can bet your last nickel that the Russians and Chinese will copy anything we do with THEL/ATL/ABL systems tech.

2. By 2018, if we continue on our current path of 'global war on terror = constant war state' the world will either be at peace or at war but nations will DESPISE U.S. to the extent that we will be lucky to get basein for ANY platform. Even one landing 2,000 miles out.

>>
Meanwhile technical landmarks are being made with the FALCON project as it continues to progress. Industry folks are saying FALCON could evolve into something useable by 2015 or there abouts if all goes well.
>>

Then acknowledge the limits of three airframe types and neck down to a single, 'useful' (100% supported spares pipe for 60-90 airframes) platform that can function from NOW TIL THEN. Rather than overlapping FALCON with LRSA as a subsonic or supersonic option. Because we can't afford to develop both bomber concepts as 'technology fallback' (dole for the MIC). With Bush still 'staying the course' of his delusions, I simply don't think the cash is there even if it was not an exceptional waste of 'just another 50 billion' dollars.

And fielding both within a few years of each other would be like putting an Edsel on the same showroom floor with an F430.

ARGUMENT:
So long as we emphasize the nature of a 1MRC + Ongoing Contingency status which is effectively what AfG plus Iraq come down to, we cannot maintain the notional illusion that 'Fighters will go East, Bombers will go West' in a win:hold:win scenario. Because the Regional bomber won't have the legs. And because we won't have the tanking or ready deployment forces (nor friendly staging nations) to cover a Korean cookoff plus SWA.

CONCLUSION:
If I want to nail the Norks of Mordor with bombers, I want to be able to do so with systems that have the reach to launch from WELL out over the Sea Of Japan. And bring their own targeting with them. Right now that can be Tactical Tomahawk Blk.IVa or AGM-158B JASSM. Only the latter is an airborne solution and the only way to get it on a 'new bomber' is to fast track a 767-400ER/777 solution similar to the old 747 CMCA as part of an honest acknowledgement of where the tanker program HAS TO go to get both a useful offload and an economical inventory purchase. If not that (loading or structurals reasons) then another lot of long-body C-17s.

Anything else is just fudgetating without any acknowledgement of years-to-get-here obsolescence in development or the tactical implications of 1,000km standoff system.

If the U.S. wants to talk 'Regional Bomber' they should do so within the specs of a C-xxx airframe dropping Dominators as part of a CABS effort to support a forced entry or covert insurgent suppression effort. They should NOT confuse this (legitimately overhead vice 'penetrating') mission with that of a bomber which either has to be escorted. Or has to be stood off.


KPl.


LINKS-
Conceptual Shift = Acknowledging the need to kick out the 'gunho iguana' mentalities of a truck airframe.
www.fas.org...

Reality Check On Aisle 5: 'Fast Bomber'http://www.stormingmedia.us/keywords/aerial_delivery.html
www.rand.org...
(WHERE'S THE LOITER? (Where's the threat, _1,500nm_ out from the coast, and if it's that dangerous, why don't the F-22's escort all the way since the bomber is worth more than both tankers put together? Furthermore, where's the independent ops if the fighters HAVE TO be in-theater anyway? THIS is an '8-10 hour mission' and it has ))**nothing** to do with 'persistence', it's pure there-and-back again)
www.rand.org...

CX
The reality of a large expeditionary ground force commitment vs. the NEED to sustain U.S. _civil_ aircraft manufacturing capacities
www.g2mil.com...

Old School
www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...
www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...
www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...

CABS
www.stormingmedia.us...
(The reality of a C-130/737 class airframe acting as both BMC2/ROBE and 'aperture generator' with MAV and VSM/SDB micromunitions)



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466
>>
The B-1R, FB-22/23 proposals are long range "interim bomber" designs. Apparently "interim" means before the Global Strike vehicle is produced, supposedly by 2025.
In this interim period of time a stealthy, supersonic standard airframe (as opposed to a TAV) is being considered. Regardless of my opinion or your opinion, the USAF brass is insisting there is a need for such a system.
>>

Interim means nothing if it is still a minimum of 10 years out.


With all the time and effort you put in your argument/conclusion posts, the bottom line is that top brass at this time are wanting an interim platform and the administration will most likely allow it to at least begin development. (if they haven't already in the form of a classified project-which it probably has)

I couldn't disagree with you on the CX cruise missile/arsenal platform being an intelligent alternative to a supersonic bomber that ultimately does not meet the criteria set for global strike or even LRS. However given your disdain for the fighter mafia and the Bush administration, what do you think the chances are that the USAF/DOD will follow your line of reasoning? (at least during this administration?)
They haven't, other than a demo platform or two, and the top brass are hellbent on getting this interim bomber pushed through while they have a friendly administration that seems to cater to every whim of the high tech whiz bang crowd in the Pentagon.

Regarding the "Norks of Mordor", if the Pentagon wants something new to deal with the "Nork's" Taedong missile that can hit Chicago they better have a very fast track.

[edit on 6-20-2006 by intelgurl]



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Intelgurl,

>>
With all the time and effort you put in your argument/conclusion posts, the bottom line is that top brass at this time are wanting an interim platform and the administration will most likely allow it to at least begin development. (if they haven't already in the form of a classified project-which it probably has)

I couldn't disagree with you on the CX cruise missile/arsenal platform being an intelligent alternative to a supersonic bomber that ultimately does not meet the criteria set for global strike or even LRS. However given your disdain for the fighter mafia and the Bush administration, what do you think the chances are that the USAF/DOD will follow your line of reasoning? (at least during this administration?)
>>

I don't frankly see the power inherent to the Stratcom force argument. I haven't understood that since SAC died yet CMUP started giving the bombers IAM while leaving tacair to suck wind for the better part of a decade KNOWING that we needed a through-clouds option. Because McPeak had begged for a QRC effort for DS.

OTOH, the certainty is (from the political/economic side of things) that _R&D is where it's at_. Because that's what makes service retirements if not career paths and you can have a dozen feeder programs trunking into a 'someday' (OTR) platform, regardless of whether said rainbow comes down to a pot of gold.

The military will encourage it because they're either morons or have a top-echelon secondary motive. The industrial base will say it can-be-so just to get funds for the research which proves the 'how much' is completely wrong. And the politicians will leverage favor based on goals that have nothing to do with the platform technology or strategic need. Hitler did much the same.

Creating a functional dictatorship whose sole power is money. And thus 'accountability' is _zero_ because everyone is in on the dance and by the time cancellation comes, noone is still under fiduciary responsibility as uniformed or elected officials responsible to ANTI DEFICIENCY STATUTES.

>>
They haven't, other than a demo platform or two, and the top brass are hellbent on getting this interim bomber pushed through while they have a friendly administration that seems to cater to every whim of the high tech whiz bang crowd in the Pentagon.
>>

If I thought it would go anywhere in the /next/ administration, I might believe the money was moderately well invested if only because it gave us 'a third option' for something more than a geriatric clydesdale or a high-strung short course thoroughbred as alternatives suitable for a cruise missile carrier 2MRC/WHW strategy.

But between the backlash on Iraq (Zarqawi means nothing) and the pendulum swing on the threeway circle jerk that has been Republican Rule for the last two terms, nothing is guaranteed and so the money will be effectively thrown away on 'studies' _not_ hardware that the outgoing administration will refuse to sign off on and the incoming will cancel for NIH reasons (political capital again being inherent to the carrots YOU dangle, not your predecessor, another error in the 'representative democratic' system.).

As is, I don't see enough of a flex-mission argument being made for ANY of the alternatives but particularly the B-1B:

1. Does the AGM-158B pose any 'stretch-bay' length or diameter problems for the B-1B as the ALCM and ACM did?
2. Does the AGM-158B mean (for weight as well as length) there can be no standardized pylon-JASSM withing the Tacair community (don't laugh, four JASSM on a CFT+310 F-16 is a potent force multiplier because you _don't have to_ carry an EW pod)?
3. Is the 'Strategic Dewire' as permanent as START suggested or can we ditch the BUFF and reup the Bone as a standoff CMCA?
4. What does the B-1B performance profile look like with AGM-129? As I recall, they could only put four of the things into the one configured ship at Eddies because the CSRL wouldn't rotate with their fat-pencil limitations on clearance. But then again, 'it's a lot nicer world now' and IIRR you've got something like 1,700nm worth of range extension compared to the 1,200 or so for ALCM. Is it cheaper to think about reactivating a SIOP-only Bone fleet and buying the big rotaries to equip it?
5. What about SRAM II as an FRSW?
If you want to talk effective TCT/TST engagement from 'beyond the envelope' of LRSAM systems in particular, you don't want to spend 2hrs shuffle-pacing a JASSM foward to _start_ looking for the target (or putting a UAV overhead to try and track it while the CM arrives), you want something that will do 800nm in 10 minutes. Aeroballistics get you there.
6. They went from something like 120 modules in the ALQ-161 to about 34 after Blk.E/F took the B-1 DSUP down to giggle levels. Is this still an airframe which can hack being a high altitude IAM slinger 'above the threat floor' of a mostly-reduced IADS with 250-500lb class weapons X26-32?.
7. What _exactly_ is the Bone profile nowadays? There was a time when you couldn't refuel much above 12-14K with a 'full strategic load' of about 440K (85,000lbs of penetration gas and 20,000lbs of ordnance). Is Global Reach EVER going to be practical?

>>
Regarding the "Norks of Mordor", if the Pentagon wants something new to deal with the "Nork's" Taedong missile that can hit Chicago they better have a very fast track.
>>

Oh please. 'Standing fully fueled on the pad' sounds like a Titan to me. You remember, the 30 minute wonder that sometimes took an hour and a half to make ready once they _elevated_ it? If these people are serious about scaring me, show me some evidence of hardened silos and gas eject technology for a liquid fuel weapon. Show me MIRV/MARV/PAid technology for a big bloody bus. Show me that the freakin' CHINESE (who's capital sits what, 350nm away from Pyonyang?) are not _still_ pullin' the strings on this Stalking Horse.

IMO, it's disgusting that we are offering these people (or the Iranians or or or) blackmail opportunities rather than simply making it _A UNITED NATIONS LAW_ that any wardet whose isotopic trace elements can be backtrailed to a source country not itself subject to a first-strike vengeance clause on the victim, itself earns it's people the same kind of attack/casualties as it's faulty export controls gave unto terrorists or whatever.

The alternative, simply going over and letting a Batwing+JDAM or SSN+TLAM doing the talking also gives me no particular never mind of conscience.

Do or Do Not, there is no try. God knows if you are going to nip it in the bud, NOW is the time window to do it in.

But buying off a bunch of nuclear savages is like Rome sucking up to Atilla. Sooner or later, you're either not going to have enough to meet the protection quota (especially with China behind the scenes). Or Darling Dear Little Kim is gonna wanna see how much gold is inside the goose without thought for what the outcome will mean to him and his for pushing it.

The endless militaristic propoganda doing less to show fearsome strength than encourage psycho-phobic response to fools that could hurt us even after they are dead.

My personal itch is that all the nations which are exporting nuclear technology are on the opposite side of a _purely for profit_ fence at the same time they are the furthest behind the NMD state of the art.

While the weapons we need most are hypersonic ballistic burrowers worth about .10-.25 KT so that once we light up their boosters, UT spank their midcourse busses and hopefully mechanate the remaining terminals, we can actually _have a choice_ as to whether to remove the dangerous toys from bad children or simply chlorinate the idiots from the human gene pool forever.

Add to this truly secure borders so they can't truck it in and I'm happy as a clam.

It's Bush and Co. that insist on making a midget threat into an organ grinder so that we can dance like monkeys to their tune.


KPl.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join