2018 us bomber

hey

Brig. Gen. Mark Matthews, director of plans and programs, headquarters, Air Combat Command, Langley Air Force Base today said that the most likely option for the next us bomber is a manned subsonic bomber carrying 14,000-28,000lbs of ordinance at least 2000 miles unrefueled. he also stated that the new bomber would be built in larger numbers that the current b2 fleet (21). new features will include advancements in stealth, sensor and propulsion technology. Matthews also said that although the aircraft would be manned there was a possibility that it would be optionally manned, which i take to mean it could fly itself but will always have the man in the loop.

aimpoints.hq.af.mil...
aimpoints.hq.af.mil...

it sounds to me like they are looking for a smaller, cheaper updated b2, (yes i know that the b2 is constantly being upgraded but retrofitting systems is never as gd as designing the plane around the system. plus there are obviously some things such as the materials used and the overall shape that cannot be retrofitted onto the b2.) ie. ultra stealthy, subsonic, high altitude i presume and with plenty enough bombs to lay waste to most things.

the amount of leeway allowed on amount of ordinance carried seems massive to me, is this normal when designing a new bomber or is it merely that they arent sure what they require and are leaving their options open.

my last thought is almost unconnected and maybe it deserves its own thread but hey. i was thinking, would it be possible to instead of carrying bombs carry fuel tanks in its bomb bay. so if it needed to carry 28,000lbs for a mission it would carry all bombs and no extra fuel. but if it only needed to carry 14,000lbs of ordinance for a mission thats further away it could carry 14,000lbs of bombs and 14,000lbs of fuel tank. this would expand its unrefueled range although i assume it would add at least a few thousand lbs to the overall design. even if this ment that it couldnt carry enough ordinance to complete its mission, it could work in a team with another bomber, this way there would be no need to arrange for mid air refueling, keeping the mission as simple as possible and would use only stealthy planes.

as a last last though, does 2000 mile range mean 2000 out and 2000 back or 1000 out and 1000 back?

justin

I dont know about anyone else, but I'm a little dissapointed.

Same speed as our current bombers
Half the ordinance of our current bombers
One third the range of our current bombers

Sounds like a stealthy B-17. Wow. Were really at the forefront of technology.

Its characteristics do seem very FB-22 or FB-23 though.

i should be cooking the tea so ive got to be quick with this post so apologies for any mistakes.

my understanding was that the 2018 is a stopgap until 2030 or so when the next big bomber comes out. plus the avionics, stealth etc will all be at the forefront of modern technology, so it isnt as if the us is moving backwards.

justin

This sound a lot like a a scaled down version of the B-2 is in order here. The main thing that would be a plus about this idea is that the critical lesson learned from the B-2 program could be applied to the new bomber to cut costs without taking away from the plane's potential. Many of the thing that were brand new for the B-2 program are now off-the-shelf technology.

Personally I really look forward to seeing this new bomber come on line. It's arrival would do a lot to boost the US forces.

Tim

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
I dont know about anyone else, but I'm a little dissapointed.

Same speed as our current bombers

Speed isnt really an issue on a bomb truck - reliability is. High speed aircraft are a maintenance nightmare, while mach 0.80 - 0.90 aircraft are highly reliable (see civil airliners as an example, their maintenance hours are well below that of a military aircraft) because they dont have the extra burdens.

Half the ordinance of our current bombers

Weapons have become much more accurate, and advances in explosives design means less can be used for the same desired effect. Half the payload does not mean half the capability.

Funnily enough, weapons designers design weapons to achieve a goal, and very rarely is that goal to make a big impressive bang.

One third the range of our current bombers

Take a look at combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq - greater than 90% of operations are done from either within the country, or from a border country - theres no need for intercontinental ranges when every conflict in the past two decades that the USAF has been involved in has included secured forward air bases less than a thousand miles from target.

Cut back on range, less structure, more payload. Its all a tradeoff (find my posts on this subject in another thread).

Sounds like a stealthy B-17. Wow. Were really at the forefront of technology.

Forefront of technology means forefront of expenditure - see the cost of the B-2 as an example.

Why go well beyond what you need to in the face of an enemy that cant shoot down current or even last generation aircraft?

So the US goes from having 3 manned subsonic bombers, to having 4 manned subsonic bombers with the 4th having IOC only 12 yrs (at best) before the next truly new bomber concept. Talk about poor planning.

I agree with you Blackwidow, I would have expected something with supercruise to reduce target prosecution time given they were so concerned with that point when this project was first kicking around a few years back. It makes little sense to add yet another lumbering bomb truck , stealth and ISR capabillities aside, if the time to target equation isn't improving. Adding a pair of F-119 engines would not greatly increase the maintenance burden. The Raptor requires far less maintenance per flight hour than the F-15, engines included.

RichardPrice, you mentioned the range equation as well. Whilst you are mainly correct that the US has had "in country" or "next country" basing for most of the conflicts over 40 yrs, there is growing hostility to this, particularly in the mid east. Dont expect the next conflict to have neighbouring nations acting quite so accommodating. The US DoD is painfully aware of this restriction and so range is seen as a critical design issue now. In any case where talking intermediate range here of 2000NM. What is strange is that they appear to be ruling out an FB-22 'type' concept and going for something larger, more of a medium bomber. If this is a stopgap solution why not just go the FB-22 or FB-23 and accept the compromise till 2030? Or reactivate and upgrade remaining F-111's, which afterall is what this concept is partly trying to replace. This makes particular sense if the US envisages being involved in low to medium intensity operation's with little or no Integrated Air Defence System, like Afghanistan.

One thing for certain we can all agree on I feel is cost. No matter what they tell us they are budgeting for, the program will almost certainly blow out. Just one mention of the word stealth and I feel worried because it is that which will blow out the development and operating cost, not as the good General allege's in the Aviation Week article, the aircrafts speed.

LEE.

Originally posted by thebozeian
In any case where talking intermediate range here of 2000NM. What is strange is that they appear to be ruling out an FB-22 'type' concept and going for something larger, more of a medium bomber.

You raise a very good point here! Through out the Cold War, the USA always had a medium bomber fleet as a compliment to the Heavies like the B-52, and B-2. In fact for many years, our medium bomber was the FB-111 Aardvark that flew for SAC. After the end of the Cold War, for some reason, the USAF suddenly abandoned the Medium class of bombers for a fleet of all heavies backed by light tactical strike aircraft like the F-15E and F-117A.

I always though that the smaller meduin bomber like the B-47, FB-111, and B-58, had an important role in the bomber fleet. Why did they stop building medium strategic bombers?

Tim