This topic is in the Aircraft Projects discussion forum.  (rss)


USAF: Next bomber will be manned with no exotic technology


<<  1    2    3    4  >>



reply posted on 11-5-2007 @ 08:19 PM by KwazyWabbit



Originally posted by FredT
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.




Having read the article itself, it seems that it's the OP that misquoted. 2000 miles is the stated combat radius, which is more healthy and might also be enough.

As for using a Globemaster as a bomb truck .......... is it April 1st? The USAF needs a penetrator, not a mass hauler. Quit compromising and design the right aircraft for the job.

KW



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 11-5-2007 @ 10:22 PM by WestPoint23


Seems my initial thought was correct, the article states a combat range of more than ~2,000 NM (2,300+ statute miles). This still does not give it unrefueled intercontinental range but given the tanker fleet and US forward bases it might suffice for the likely missions.



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 13-5-2007 @ 10:00 AM by Ghost01


Westpoint 23,

I'd say based on this article that your basic conclusions were dead-on! This reduction in peak range of the plane also suggests something intresting about the military's chosen approach to it's Global Reach, Global Power Doctrine. The old post WW2 concept used to focus on maximizing the unrefuled range of aircraft. Now the strategy seems to be moving to the concept of "Supported Deployment". Instead of trying to see how far a plane can go on it's own, the military appears to be shifting to setting up a support network along the way that consists of a mix of forward bases (like Guam and Kadena AB, in Japan), and tanker support. This also suggests that we may see less long duration missions(20+ hours nonstop flying), and more short hops with crew changes and breaks.

Tim



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 13-5-2007 @ 09:18 PM by Char2c35t


is there any pictures or drawings about how this new bomber would look? Are they talking about the fb23, replacement for the b52 or strikebombers?

I mean i have heard a lot about bombers but wow the newest one was the b2, the bomber force seems a little weak to me let alone aging.



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 14-5-2007 @ 05:00 AM by kilcoo316



Originally posted by KwazyWabbit
Quit compromising and design the right aircraft for the job.



What is the "job" exactly?

Who (else) do you think the USAF will be fighting before 2040?


Is it going to be a continuation on the 'war on terror' [leaving aside the political discussion], if so, then why put out a candle with a fire engine?

Is it going to be WW3? If so, forget about bombers and start building ICBMs again.



With the ongoing proliferation of -300esque SAM systems, and the undoubted continuation of that, its unlikely that any manned bomber will be able to penetrate hostile airspace without massive SEAD support in the 2020-2040 timeframe.


Thus, munitions will be standoff, thus you might as well save on the lugging airframe and get more of the weapons.


[Thats not even addressing the obvious point that all aircraft designs are compromises]



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 14-5-2007 @ 07:41 PM by FredT



Originally posted by kilcoo316
What is the "job" exactly?
Who (else) do you think the USAF will be fighting before 2040?



China is the most likely target that such a manned platform would be needed.



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 15-5-2007 @ 04:50 AM by kilcoo316



Originally posted by FredT
China is the most likely target that such a manned platform would be needed.


Thus you'd be safer building ICBMs or more cruise missiles and subs to launch them. I don't see mass bombing raids a la WW2 as happening.


Besides, the USAF isn't going to need to extensively bomb China, it will just need to intercept an invasion fleet to Tiawan. [I'd imagine any future conflict would revolve around that if it were to occur]. Fighter-bombers forward based would get that job done.



Oh, and I rate the chances of open warfare between the Chinese and US as being longer than 10,000 to 1, probably significantly longer than that actually. The time of large open warfare between nations (at least of possessing 'the bomb') is gone - it can only have one outcome, and everyone is acutely aware of it.








Going ever so slightly off topic - whats the thing about 41 MPG in your sig??? I see that every day in my 9 year old diesel!

[edit on 15/5/07 by kilcoo316]



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 15-5-2007 @ 08:59 AM by Ghost01



Originally posted by kilcoo316

Originally posted by FredT
China is the most likely target that such a manned platform would be needed.


Thus you'd be safer building ICBMs or more cruise missiles and subs to launch them. I don't see mass bombing raids a la WW2 as happening.



kilcoo316,

While I see the logic behind your thinking, I Must Disagree with you. ICBM's aren't going to be used until we're ready to start thowing Nukes around. I know they can be fitted with ther warheads, but the inhearent inaccuracy of ballistic missles makes them of almost no real value in conventional warfare. If you fire an ICBM everyone's automatically going to assume it's Nuclear, which will trigger a nuclear war.

Second, we don't bomb WW2 style bombing raids anymore anyway. In WW2, practically all bombs were unguided free-fall weapons. Today, the principle weapon of most bombers in the US is the JDAM, which is a 4th generation smart bomb. Smart bombs are guided, so you don't need a lot of carpet bombing missions. Today's bombers in the US are geared for precision strike missions that involve dropping guided bombs.

You would see bombing raids in the form of Strike Missions. What you would be looking for would be closer to what you saw in the 1991 Gulf War, or the Balkens with the B-2.

Tim

[edit on 5/15/2007 by Ghost01]



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 15-5-2007 @ 01:27 PM by WestPoint23



Originally posted by kilcoo316
Thus you'd be safer building ICBMs or more cruise missiles and subs to launch them. I don't see mass bombing raids a la WW2 as happening.


Any likely conflict with China (even though that in itself is very unlikely) would be limited to a short conventional confrontation. Neither country will be the first to automatically go NBC because they know the repercussions. The effects of a limited conventional war are sustainable and can be overcome. So whether via proxy (Taiwan) or direct (limited mainland damage) conventional forces are what will be used... Nuclear weapons only come into play if either party is destroyed beyond "acceptable" levels...



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 15-5-2007 @ 03:32 PM by kilcoo316


Thats why I said what I said.

No conflict will happen between nuclear powers now or in the future. The risk of it going nuclear will prevent it happening. Politicans are all stupid - we know that - but by and by large, they aint f__kin nuts!!!



So, you can strike China off the list of possible targets for me. The way I see it, if you are envisaging a conflict with China, I hope you've dug your bomb shelter, and are lobbying your representatives for a SDI covering the west coast.



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 15-5-2007 @ 09:13 PM by WestPoint23



Originally posted by kilcoo316
So, you can strike China off the list of possible targets for me. The way I see it, if you are envisaging a conflict with China, I hope you've dug your bomb shelter, and are lobbying your representatives for a SDI covering the west coast.


I believe a limited and short (direct) conventional conflict with China is possible without it automatically going nuclear. Especially when China becomes a little more advanced and capable, in terms of matching Western militaries. A proxy confrontation is very likley however, all the more reason to build capable conventional forces instead of forcing yourself to the option of nuclear war or do nothing...



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 16-5-2007 @ 03:53 AM by kilcoo316



Originally posted by WestPoint23
I believe a limited and short (direct) conventional conflict with China is possible without it automatically going nuclear.



I have to admit, I find that train of thought disturbing



True about proxy wars, but then the same political conditions do not exist now as when communism spread to Vietnam, North Korea etc.


I guess the closest would be a NK invasion of SK, and how likely is that?



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 16-5-2007 @ 04:04 AM by northwolf



Originally posted by Ghost01

Second, we don't bomb WW2 style bombing raids anymore anyway. In WW2, practically all bombs were unguided free-fall weapons. Today, the principle weapon of most bombers in the US is the JDAM, which is a 4th generation smart bomb. Smart bombs are guided, so you don't need a lot of carpet bombing missions. Today's bombers in the US are geared for precision strike missions that involve dropping guided bombs.

You would see bombing raids in the form of Strike Missions. What you would be looking for would be closer to what you saw in the 1991 Gulf War, or the Balkens with the B-2.

Tim

[edit on 5/15/2007 by Ghost01]


On side note, still one of the key issues that demoralized the Iraqi Army '91 were the few heavy carpet bombings of their positions by B52s and mostly this was done "dumb" weapons.

Average grunt doesn't fear smart weapons, but the tought of a carpet bombing or artillery barrage makes him wet his pants '

"There is no justice like indiscriminate one"



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 16-5-2007 @ 07:27 AM by Ghost01



Originally posted by northwolf
On side note, still one of the key issues that demoralized the Iraqi Army '91 were the few heavy carpet bombings of their positions by B52s and mostly this was done "dumb" weapons.




Good point! when I made my origional post I was thinking Strategic Bombing, not tactical bombing. You are indeed right, in a tactical or CAS type role, carpet bombing still fills a critical role. However, as you also pointed out, in this role it's more of a "terror tactic" that is use for Psychological Warfare.

Tim



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 30-5-2007 @ 01:35 PM by MrKnight


I think this bomber would be used to level target manufacturing facilities.

If some country such as North Korea, or Iran is manufacutring something that we do not want them to have, we will have to bomb a manufacturing facility that might be several hundred feet below the ground.

This would require mulitple load of big bombs to level the buildings, and a few more trips to dig deep and make sure that the manufacturing capabilities are wiped clean.

A large fleet of mid ranged, large payload bombs would be needed to make sure that such facilities no longer have any use.

Just my 2 cents..... I am sure the future will be full of nut job Head-of-States working to get nukes. They might think twice ifthey know we can come in and lay waste to their "investment" in a matter of hours.



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 30-5-2007 @ 01:53 PM by Zaphod58


One B-2 carrying newer style thermobaric and bunker buster weapons could take care of underground facilities. The days of huge waves of bombers, carpet bombing appear to be behind us.



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 30-5-2007 @ 03:47 PM by MrKnight


A bunker is far to small for manufacturing the types of weapons I was describing.

The bomber will not be blindly "carpet bombing" but, dropping multiple of munitions to hit multiple of targets, or to take out large facilities, and make sure nothing is left for reconstruction.

Most bunkers are small in size, and they tend to be spread apart, and place to hold positions. Bunker "...where around 750,000 of such constructions once dotted the countryside."

I think that we all agree that a handful of bombs would not remove 100's of bunkers. So, if one is in need of removing 100's of bunkers, all of the coordinates could be fed into the smart munitions in advance, and a bomber can then dump a learge payload and take out more positions on a single run then multiple trips with smaller aircraft.

Also, if you are going to risk the political fallout for bombing a "suspected" nuclear facility, would you do it with a few bombs "to get the job done" or do you blast that whole area back 200 years and send a strong message?

If you ask me, we play too nice.

"We're not going to just shoot the sons-of-bitches, we're going to rip out their living Goddamned guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy Hun cocksuckers by the bushel-#ing-basket. War is a bloody, killing business. You've got to spill their blood, or they will spill yours. Rip them up the belly. Shoot them in the guts."
- General Patton's Address to the Troops, June 5, 1944



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 30-5-2007 @ 04:16 PM by Ghost01


I think a good way to figure out what is truely needed fron the next bomber, I think we need to see what kind of targets to expect. The types of Strategic targets are changing in some ways. We will still see the familiar C3I targets like we always have. However, the change will be in the industral sector. We will still see Some factories, power plants, and weapons depot. However, I believe the large weapons depots will bigin to be replaced in many places by smaller "cashes" hidden in caves and other places. This will bring about the need to develop new sensors to find these places and more accurate smart bombs for smaller targets that are better hidden.

Tim



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 30-5-2007 @ 05:20 PM by Zaphod58



Originally posted by MrKnight
A bunker is far to small for manufacturing the types of weapons I was describing.



And "Bunker Buster" is the generic name for the type of weapons. Some of the Bunker Busters are massive weapons that would take out a HUGE facility. A thermobaric device is considered to be an FAE. A 2000lb thermobaric would do a MASSIVE amount of damage to ANY facility. Conventional surface bombing wouldn't do anything to get at underground facilities, except shake them around. A Bunker Buster is designed to bury itself in the ground to a certain depth and then detonate. They're capable of penetrating significant amounts of concrete before detonating.

Bunker Busters:

Conventional Bunker Busters
During the 1991 Gulf war, allied forces knew of several underground military bunkers in Iraq that were so well reinforced and so deeply buried that they were out of reach of existing munitions. The U.S. Air Force started an intense research and development process to create a new bunker-busting bomb to reach and destroy these bunkers. In just a few weeks, a prototype was created. This new bomb had the following features:

* Its casing consists of an approximately 16-foot (5-meter) section of artillery barrel that is 14.5 inches (37 cm) in diameter. Artillery barrels are made of extremely strong hardened steel so that they can withstand the repeated blasts of artillery shells when they are fired.

* Inside this steel casing is nearly 650 pounds (295 kg) of tritonal explosive. Tritonal is a mixture of TNT (80 percent) and aluminum powder (20 percent). The aluminum improves the brisance of the TNT -- the speed at which the explosive develops its maximum pressure. The addition of aluminum makes tritonal about 18 percent more powerful than TNT alone.

* Attached to the front of the barrel is a laser-guidance assembly. Either a spotter on the ground or in the bomber illuminates the target with a laser, and the bomb homes in on the illuminated spot. The guidance assembly steers the bomb with fins that are part of the assembly.

* Attached to the end of the barrel are stationary fins that provide stability during flight.

science.howstuffworks.com...


The new EGBU-28 (the “E” being for enhanced) replaces the GBU-37. This latest version of the “bunker buster” uses the Global Positioning System for guidance so that it can be dropped with accuracy at higher altitudes in foul weather. The amount of rock and concrete that the EGBU-28 can penetrate is classified, but Major Dick Wright, who was the weapon’s test manager in 1991, said that the older version “went through 20 feet of concrete like butter” and when dropped onto hard ground, penetrated down to 100 feet.



New production would be for about 350 weapons. Development is slated to begin this fiscal year with a single contractor team. Production is expected to start in 2005. The B-2 and F-15E will remain the only launch platforms for the weapon. The Air Force has developed a new steel that is available for bidders to use. Called Eglin Steel (ES-1), it is a collaboration between the Air Force and National Forge, which builds the casing for the BLU-113. The largest ingots that can be made, current producer are 69 inch diameter. Current size ingots being made, current producer are 39 inch diameter. ES-1 alloy is weldable, as it is a "low carbon alloy" Penetrator wall thickness of 2 inches has been heat treated. Test Sections 4 inches thick have been evaluated, with excellent and consistent hardenability through wall. Among the candidate explosive fills is the AFX-757 used in the warhead of the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile. The Air Force-developed fill produces more blast energy and is less likely to be set off in a fire than Tritonal. The current BLU-113/B contains about 600 lb. of Tritonal.

www.globalsecurity.org...

Thermobarics:


The BLU-118/B is a penetrating warhead filled with an advanced thermobaric explosive that, when detonated, generates higher sustained blast pressures in confined spaces such as tunnels and underground facilities. The BLU-118/B uses the same penetrator body as the standard BLU-109 weapon. The significant difference is the replacement of the high explosive fill with a new thermobaric explosive that provides increased lethality in confined spaces.

The BLU-118/B warhead uses a Fuze Munition Unit (FMU)-143J/B to initiate the explosive. The FMU-143 fuze has been modified with a new booster and a 120-millisecond delay. All weapon guidance systems and employment options currently used with the BLU-109 warhead are compatible with the new BLU-118/B warhead.

BLU-118/B payload candidates included PBXIH-135 [one of the Navy's new insensitive polymer bonded explosives], HAS-13, or SFAE [solid fuel air explosive] loaded into existing BLU-109 Weapon Bodies. Conventional high explosives (CHE) are characterized by a sensitivity to mechanical or thermal energy. Insensitive high explosives (IHE), on the other hand, require extraordinarily high stimuli before violent reaction occurs. Insensitive explosives reliably fulfil their performance, readiness and operational requirements on demand, but the violence of response to unplanned hazardous stimuli is restricted to an acceptable level. This means that when a munition is in a fire, hit by a fragment, bullet or high velocity projectile or subject to some other hazard the result will not be a detonation or a violent reaction of the explosive and propellant; no more than severe burning will ocur [such a deflagration is an exothermic reaction that occurs particle to particle at subsonic speed]. Some insensitive explosives are known to react in a different way to conventional explosives. For instance, detonation reactions are slower but more energy is released in a way that has the potential to produce a lot more damage.

www.globalsecurity.org...

Advanced Unitary Penetrator:


One of the newest weapons in the Air Force's arsenal of hard target penetrating bombs is the AFRL Munitions Directorate-developed Advanced Unitary Penetrator (AUP) shrouded aerial bomb, equipped with the Hard Target Smart Fuze (HTSF). The bomb and its smart fuze were a big hit during Operation Allied Force. The AUP mimics, in appearance and dimensions, the already combat-proven BLU-109 (Bomb Live Unit) warhead, a 2,000-pound hard target penetrating warhead used by the Air Force and Navy. The AUP is designated the BLU-116 and boasts twice the penetration capability of the BLU-109.

The Advanced Unitary Penetrator (AUP) is the next-generation, hard target penetrator munition that provides a lethal capability to penetrate and defeat extremely hard multilayer underground facilities. Sharing an external appearance and flight characteristics with the 2000 lb BLU-109, the AUP has an advanced heavy steel penetrator warhead filled with high-energy explosives that can penetrate more than twice as much reinforced concrete as the BLU-109. Performance is enhanced by a void-sensing Hard Target Smart Fuze that detonates the AUP at the optimum point in a target to inflict maximum damage.

A bomb typically includes a hard casing having an interior hollow space for containing an explosive material. The physical characteristics of the bomb, including the weight, center of gravity, moments or inertia, and the aerodynamic shape, all affect the free-fall response of the bomb, whether or not a guidance package is included with the bomb. Bombs delivered from aircraft, including free-fall guided or unguided bombs, glide bombs, and boosted bombs, must pass rigorous field testing which includes the safe release from a deploying aircraft and accuracy of delivery to the target. These tests must be conducted for each type of aircraft that will carry the bomb. The development of new weapons, therefore, is subject to significant delay and expense before the weapon is qualified for use.

The ability of a bomb, or other projectile, to penetrate a target is proportional to the mass and the velocity of impact of the projectile and inversely proportional to the cross-sectional area of the bomb. That is, the greater the kinetic energy and the smaller the cross-sectional area, the greater the penetration that can be expected. To adapt an existing bomb for greater penetration by reducing the external diameter of the bomb can also result, however, in changes in the mass properties such as weight, center of gravity, moment of inertia, and in the aerodynamic properties, all of which can affect the flight characteristics of the bomb. These changes also require that the adapted bomb be qualified for use.

www.globalsecurity.org...



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 31-5-2007 @ 09:45 AM by thebozeian



A thermobaric device is considered to be an FAE. A 2000lb thermobaric would do a MASSIVE amount of damage to ANY facility


Nice to hear someone pointing out the "other" original name for thermobaric's. Prior to WTC conspiracies and RPG-7 ambushes on vehicles in Iraq, the press had never heard the term. Now everyone parrots the word to look knowledgeable (present company definitely not included). Anyway back on track... well not really, imagine a MOAB version that was a true FAE. The blast damage would be staggering. I understand that a standard GBU-43 is capable of levelling between 5 to 10 standard sized city blocks, so its reasonable to assume that a modern solid FAE version of the GBU-43 would do even more damage.

LEE.



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


<<  1    2    3    4  >>







Top Topics Right Now:



Active Topics Right Now:



ATS MIX Podcasts:











Newest Topics:

































ATS Thread Tag System
Members can add a custom descriptive tag to any thread on ATS. Thread Tags will help categorize our site content, help to cross-reference similar threads, and improve the searchability of all ATS threads. This thread is currently defined by these tags:

, , ,
















ATS Server: www4.theabovenetwork.com
Powered by AboveTop:Board v2.3
Header data processed in 0.624 seconds
Page processed in 0.228 seconds
7 total database queries (1)









The Above Top Secret Conspiracy Community Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.





thread