USAF: Next bomber will be manned with no exotic technology

The USAF is playing it safe with the next bomber. According to sources it will be manned and the key requirements will be a 2000 mile unrefuled range, subsonic propulsion, and a bomb load of 14-28,000 lbs.

This is in stark contrast to many of the proposed manned and unmanned systems that we have talked about here.

Maj. Gen. Mark Matthews, director of plans and programs at Air Combat Command (ACC) in Virginia, says the service's Requirements Oversight Council in March approved plans for a bomber for early fielding in 2018. Both the date and available funding--scarce as cost for the Iraq war is $500 billion-plus and counting--are dictating the way ahead. Key requirements for a manned system are a 2,000-mi. unrefueled range, primarily subsonic propulsion and a 14,000-28,000-lb. payload.
USAF Not Aiming High For Future Bomber Technology

[edit on 5/8/07 by FredT]

Just a ruse to syphon off more of your American Dollars to the black Ops that run the show.

You have to consider the situation, in this case the USAF made the right decision about the expected capabilites of the "Interim Bomber". You have a limited budget, short time scale for R/D, production and you need significant numbers. While some may not be impressed with the capabilities, consider this... Would you rather wait until (perhaps another decade) after 2018 and get a really high performance exotic bomber, in few numbers, or get a system that can be fielded now, that will be relatively cheap while still offering you impressive capability. I'd rather have 75+ "interim bombers" and wait until 2037 for the "Aurora" type bomber. For the long term future this is the right decision.

[edit on 8-5-2007 by WestPoint23]

Hmm, this is a very intresting development. From what I have read here, I'm getting the impression that this interm bomber will end up being a medium bomber in a simular class to the FB-111 that they use to have. An FB-111 class bomber will actually add some options to the bomber force that we haven't had in years. Overall, I feel this is one of the best moves the Air Force has made in while. While it may not have a B-52 like payload, a medium bomber has some distinct advantages that it brings to the table on a strategic level.

First of all, smaller aircraft are usually easier to load, preflight and launch fast. This will give the bomber force a quick reaction asset, without the need to have planes standing alert, as they did during the cold war. Second, this concept will also be able to get through R&D faster so that we can provide a much needed boost to the bomber fleet. With the current and projected world condition, we aren't desperate for another ATB-type of bomber. It will be much more efficent to develop a lower cost aircraft quickly and have a boost in capibility for our troops.

The Air Force made a Wise choice. They saw that sometimes the cutting edge technology, while attractive, is Not always the best option!

Tim

[edit on 5/8/2007 by Ghost01]

Westpoint & Ghost,

In general I agree with you guys on this. It's pretty much "a bird in the hand is better than two in the bush" scenario they are going to try and follow. As I said in the other thread on this, my only concern is that it will be very much a subsonic platform. Very much a "son of F-111" but without any supersonic ability, even for target ingress/egress dash. Therefore it will be essential to have enough airframes and ensure they are deployed as close as possible to any area of interest. Otherwise the target prosecution cycle becomes unacceptably long. And it is here that I get worried, the DoD's record of late (not to mention the contractors) has been of overblown budgets, delayed schedules and scaled back acquisition plans, even for relatively "cheap" technology programs like the USN's LCS ship program for example. So whilst I agree that going for broke on the technology front is fraught with danger, the real worry is the military's ability to manage these programs and not create yet another taxpayer funded f@%#k up.

LEE.

Good point, the USAF and the defense industry have already begun to lobby and make their case before congress. Given the expected capabilities and unit cost it could be an easier sell than before but I still fear the clueless bureaucrats... Also, while the USAF has not yet thrown out a production figure (for obvious reasons) it is expected that it will be bought in large numbers. One program manager was quoted as saying that the buy will be significantly larger than the B-2 fleet.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
One program manager was quoted as saying that the buy will be significantly larger than the B-2 fleet.

No offense, but given that the B-2 fleet stands at 21, Signifiantly larger means little. If the Air force buys 50 airframes, that would be more than double the size of the B-2 fleet.

The reason I raised this point is that we need to Rebuild the Bomber fleet BADLY. For much too long the US has neglected its bombers in favor of fast fancy looking fighters.

THe notion that light-multi-role fighters like JSF and small strike planes like the F-117 can sustain us is a bad mistake. If we don't fix this flawed trend, it's going to cost us here in the US dearly. The Price of neglect can be tragic.

Tim

[edit on 5/9/2007 by Ghost01]

Originally posted by thebozeian
Westpoint & Ghost,

In general I agree with you guys on this. It's pretty much "a bird in the hand is better than two in the bush" scenario they are going to try and follow. As I said in the other thread on this, my only concern is that it will be very much a subsonic platform. Very much a "son of F-111" but without any supersonic ability, even for target ingress/egress dash. Therefore it will be essential to have enough airframes and ensure they are deployed as close as possible to any area of interest. Otherwise the target prosecution cycle becomes unacceptably long. And it is here that I get worried, the DoD's record of late (not to mention the contractors) has been of overblown budgets, delayed schedules and scaled back acquisition plans, even for relatively "cheap" technology programs like the USN's LCS ship program for example. So whilst I agree that going for broke on the technology front is fraught with danger, the real worry is the military's ability to manage these programs and not create yet another taxpayer funded f@%#k up.

LEE.

That the DOD have a "poor" record when it comes to procurement should not be a good reason to accept, let alone plan for, a weapon system that does not advance the capabilities of the USAF beyond sytems it has, or has already decommissioned. A subsonic weapons platform will need to be stealthier than a B2 by more than a generation to be effective in any situation other than a bushfire conflict with an opponent that possesses no significant aerial assets. And to procure an interim that will be no more than a stopgap until the "real" replacement comes along is a waste of the taxpayers' money in any case.

To be a viable system, this "medium" bomber needs to be stealthy, certainly. Realistically, it needs in excess of 20,000lbs weapons loadout, with internal carriage. A range of 2,000 miles is nowhere near enough, giving a combat radius of less than 1,000 miles and hindering any deep strike capability without in-flight refuelling. And subsonic?

As the Aussie said, supercruise to and from the target is realistic and achievable with today's technology. The F22 is proof enough that the capability is worth it. I would add the capability to go supersonic at low level. I'll admit, contour-hugging is more the Royal Air Force's modus operandi, but low and fast as a first strike means of ingress to the target gives the user an additional advantage against a technologically enabled opponent. It's all well and good bamboozling the other guys' missiles with ECM and countermeasures. Why not add the problems of enaging a target at 60 feet?

So, anyone for a stealthy TSR2? Just kidding.

Make it steathy, internal carriage, fast and give it more range. Don't accept second best. But most important, get the right contractor, and ensure the contract is adequately funded and legally airtight. Then, and only then, will the USAF get a weapon system it needs and can use.

KW

I think that ~2,000 mile range is it's combat range, without refueling meaning an overall range of about 4,000 miles... As for speed, the B-2 is many more times likely to survive in a deep penetration attack than the B-1B even though the later is capable of supersonic performance. As I said before, if we end up with a more stealthy miniaturized version of the B-2 I'll be happy so long as we procure a significant number of them... I'm liking the future plan, a large fleet of medium bombers, a fleet of "super bombers" (2037) and a small fleet of FALCON type bombers...

[edit on 9-5-2007 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I think that ~2,000 mile range is it's combat range, without refueling meaning an overall range of about 4,000 miles.

Small point here. I think when they say range, they mean range. If they meant combat radius, they would have said that. I'll stick with hitting the tanker before 2,000 miles or becoming a glider. It's not enough.

And I never relegated the stealth aspect. I'm well aware that a Bone hugging the ground is still likely to bite a SAM before the B2 at altitude. My point is that a fast stealthy penetrator at sea level reduces the chances of being hit even further than the B2.

Lastly, politicos are less likely to approve a large number purchase of an interim system than they are a top line system. And as with the F22, we know how likely they are to spend money on a top line system in the first place.

KW

So why don't they look at converting a Globemaster to perform the role?


Just drop the bombs out the back door.



Even better, work on a rack that will go into existing globemasters as well. So, you can expand your strategic lift capabilties as well as your bombing potential.

Originally posted by kilcoo316
So why don't they look at converting a Globemaster to perform the role?

Just drop the bombs out the back door.

They already do something like that with the larger bombs like the BLU-82 "Daisy Cutter" and the MOAB, which is an even larger bomb. Both of these weapons are delivered by MC-130's if I remember correctly.

Here's some info on the BLU-82:
BLU-82

Tim

Originally posted by kilcoo316
So why don't they look at converting a Globemaster to perform the role?

It would not be survivable enough, it's too large and retrofitting it with the avionics/sensors necessary would be less than easy...

[edit on 10-5-2007 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
It would not be survivable enough, it's too large and retrofitting it with the avionics/sensors necessary would be less than easy...

Eh?


Anything difficult will get clobbered by B-2s, F-35s and F-22s.

They need a B-52 replacement - it doesn't have much in the way of survivability in a high threat environment these days.


As you say yourself, nice and big with plenty of room to incorporate seperate and removeable sensor packs, this allows alot more operational flexibility than a sole bomb truck. Heck, it doesn't really need them - just have the escorting fighters (and there will be escorting fighters) do the illumination jobs for them, or use GPS/JDAM.

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Anything difficult will get clobbered by B-2s, F-35s and F-22s.

Yeah, all 16 active B-2's, I'd rather also use my fighter force for other purposes than strategic bombing, that kind of defeats the purpose of having a dedicated bomber... Granted we have the BUFF, but that's because we could not afford enough B-2's to replace it, not because it was the best option available. If we can mass produce a "stealthy" and sophisticated B-52 type bomber we would. So I don't agree that a B-52 replacement has to be as just vulnerable as it currently is. Also, this particular bomber is not the B-52 replacement, it really does not replace any of our bombers, per se. It just adds on more capable airframes for the strategic bombing role... 2037 is when we will see the real exotic heavy hitter...

[edit on 10-5-2007 by WestPoint23]

The B-52 has an unrefuelled range of around 8,500 miles, for the B-2 its around 6,000 miles.

The F-111 has ranges varying between 1,300 (combat) to 3,600 (ferry).


Its quite clear this bomber is more tactical than strategical. Since tactical arena currently lacks a bomb truck, that is what must be produced. There is any number of fighter/bomber aircraft floating around now, and in the future, thus, any hard-to-hit targets will be assigned to these.



There is also the flexibility and cost to consider. Using the Globemaster requires no airframe certification bar weapons releases. That budget can be spent on aquiring more Globemasters (alot more), that can then be used for both bombing and airlift.

Its the blindingly logical choice.... which means the Pentagon will not do it.

For a modern bomber the proposed bomber has a short range . The bomber could be useful in places like Afghanistan where precision tactical air strikes can be useful. At this stage its not the bomber that would be send against targets on the Chinese's mainland land (or would cruise missiles fill this role ?).

IMO the USAF needs the flexibility of having both tactical and strategic bombing capability.

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Yeah, all 16 active B-2's,

Westpoint,

There are 21 active B-2's my firend. the fleet is too small already please don't shrink it anymore.

Inventory: Active force: 21 (planned operational aircraft); ANG: 0; Reserve: 0

Source: www.fas.org...

Tim

Originally posted by Ghost01
There are 21 active B-2's my firend. the fleet is too small already please don't shrink it anymore.

Are 4 of them not down for maintenance at any one time, and the last one used for research work by Northrop?

So while there are 21 airframes, only 16 are operational at any one time.

Just to take the conversation back to another point for a second guys. Was there not just a recent announcement that there will be a new engine development program? Without checking, I recall that it seemed to be a next gen high power engine in the F-119/F-135 and F-136 class. From what I read it seemed to be a dual cycle (like the failed GE YF-120) or variable cycle engine. The air force representative talked of the ability to move at high speed then slow down to efficiently cruise and loiter, hence a multi cycle engine. It seems a coincidence but the time frames (around 2015 I recall) suggest that this new engine may be viewed as a powerplant for the interim bomber. It wouldn't make sense for it to be destined for any other aircraft as the F-119 is very new and the F-135/136 are not even in production yet so their development cost has not been amortised. In any case a multi cycle engine would only be viable on the F-22 or an as yet unbuilt aircraft.

I think I read the article in either Flight or on the Air-attack website.

And I managed to find this link which completely undermines what I just said
www.flightglobal.com...

LEE.

[edit on 11-5-2007 by thebozeian]