USAF: Next bomber will be manned with no exotic technology

You know I find myself asking

"WHY 2000 miles ??"


Where would we possibly be attacking from and what would need 2000 miles. Basically limits it to 1,000 miles round trip ...

Do we have such a target currently ?

This is a rather small bomber that's why. To compare, the F-15E can carry a 24,500lb payload. This one is requiring a 14-28,000lb payload. And the F-15 only has range of a little over 2,000 miles. The B-1B only has a 3,400 mile combat radius. In flight refueling can extend the range to the limits of the crew.

Thank you for proving my point. A thermobaric device can take out any "single facility"

If I were a bad guy, nut job dictator, do you think I would put all of my eggs in one basket? So a single bomb can take out the whole facility? No.

Most bunkers are made as a network of several chambers connected by tunnels. the differnt rooms are also divided by thick walls of several feet, and seperated by a few more feet of earth. If the munitions you provided links for were used, each one can take out one bunker, or one chamber in a facility.

Hard and/or Deeply Buried Target

"Conventional explosive-filled penetrating weapons are often relatively ineffective in destroying large underground reinforced concrete facilities, even if the weapon detonates inside the facility, due to substantial interior walls and/or floors that confine the blast and fragmentation to a small area or result in complete and uncontrolled destruction of soft buried and aboveground facilities.

Hardened and deeply buried targets (HDBTs), namely tunnels, present the greatest challenge. They cannot be physically defeated with current conventional munitions."

This is a link to the side of one of your links. Global Security is a great site! I go there all the time.

external image

Yes, small fighter aircraft that need to take out a few positions are great. If you have a line of bunkers, or a larger facility that is a series of bunkers and tunnels, a handful of bunker busters will not take out that facility. Each munition is only good for a single bunker.

And have you actually LOOKED at the weapons load on a B-2? One B-2 can carry 8 GBU-37, 5,000lb bunker busters. That's 8 underground buildings with ONE bomber. That's a slightly outdated report as well, and the GBU-37 was going to be replaced by the EGBU-28 shortly after, so I'm not sure how many of that it can carry. It would be at least 8 though, as the -28 is a slightly lighter weapon.

Make sure you read all the posts on this thread, the bomber will have a combat range in excess of 2,000 nm (2,300+ statue miles). This gives it an un-refueled range of more than 4,600 miles, keep in mind this is all with a combat load.

Which brings me to another point, if the F-15E carries it's full load out of near 24K it will have a limited (un-refueled) combat range and it's ferry range will also be shorter. As other have pointed out with the USAF relying on tankers for nearly every mission this is not as big of an issue as it used to be. Also, weapons are getting smaller and smaller while still retaining their destructive effects, the SDB for example is one impressive bomb. If the weapons bays of this new bomber are designed around it, and other future small size weapons, than it will still be able to carry an impressive arsenal.

Thanks again for supporting my point.

The military needs a work hourse bomber that can deliever the B-2 payload but not cost BILLIONS of dollars per unit, and not be as expensive to maintain.

As more and more countries are becoming a threat, we need to utilize the B-2 for sneek attack purposes, and let a low cost bomber come in after and maintain air bombing support. The B-2 is too expensive to buy and to maintain to be used as a day in /day out bomber. Also, there are too few to cover all the bombing missions that might be needed if WW III breaks out.

This type of bomber would be a secondary role, for follow up bombing missions. It could be stationed all over the world ready to go, freeing up the B-2 to be placed and used where we might need stealth.

A small blended wing aircraft, slightly smaller than a B-2 deisigned for payload and range and not stealth could get about 40,000 to 50,000 lbs of payload 3,000 to 4,000 nmi.

[edit on 1-6-2007 by MrKnight]

And this is NOT the bomber. This is an INTERIM bomber with a SMALL payload.

Uh, and how the heck am I supporting your point? Your original point was:



Now you're saying that I'm agreeing with you by saying ONE B-2 could level up to 8 buildings and a pretty good sized facility? Which is it there?

If your going to quote me, then please do it in correct context.

You took the position that the need of a large fleet of bombers was no longer needed as a single B-2 could take out an entire facility with modern bunk buster munitions. You then posted the capabilities of the munitions, which when used for a single bunker, that is not very deep, they are great. The problem is that large underground facilities are much deeper, and are in fact a network on many chambers. You were right about the compacity of the munitions, but not right about how bunker facilities are constructed. Often bunks, and whole under ground facilities contain more bunkers, rooms, tunnels and rooms than what can be bombed with a single modern munition. If it is below 100 ft of earth, and has more than 10 ft of concrete overhead, it will take at least two munitions to take out a single room of a large underground complex.

With that being clear, a facility can not be taken out by a single B-2, or a few fighter jets with a few munitions on their wings. In order to acheve this with these aircraft you will have to do alot of missions to be sure that you take out the facilities. If you are going to do a strike of this size, you want to do it quick and in one attack; thus, you will need a fleet of aircraft that have a good amount of payload.

The B-2 is good for taking out key target position using stealth, but they cost too much to make a large fleet. That is why there is a need for a cheap bomber that you can stage a whole fleet who will follow just after a B-2, which will clear the anti-aircraft position, and proceed to finish the job. Should the rest of the positions take some time to finish off, and otehr enemy forces are able to intercept, you want them to target the cheap bomber, and not B-2's given their expence and time to construct.

By taking a position that there is no longer a need for a fleet of bombers, but then providing the capabilities of a B-2 which is far less than what is need to take out a large, deep underground facility, you provied my point that we need a larger fleet of bombers that have a good payload to do the job.

Also, if an enemy has a whole line of bunker defences, and there are several hundred bunkers that need to be removed, then an entire fleet of bombers will be required to take out the positions. Do we realy want all of out B-2's in one place at one time to do such a mission? What if we need bombs to take out positions in several theaters, or fornts? The B-2 is a surgical strike tool. You would not use a butcher knife to cut down a tree.

The fact that you posted the capabilities of a B-2, which resulted in 8+ bunker busters, supports my position that you will need a fleet of bombers to take out all of the positions. A few planes with a few bombs will not do the job.

[edit on 1-6-2007 by MrKnight]

Aw screw it. You're right. It ain't worth the fight anymore.

[edit on 6/1/2007 by Zaphod58]

If you would like to know more about underground military facilities here is a example:

The "Fuehrerbunker"

"The complex called ´Vorbunker’ (pre-bunker) was in 1943 enlarged by the ´Hauptbunker’ (main bunker). This noticeably lower lying building was ready for occupancy at the beginning of 1945. The outer walls were about 4 m wide, the partition walls 50 cm, the thickness of the ceiling was also about 4 m. The effective area of about 250 m² was split into 20 rooms."

"The Fuehrerbunker was only one of about 20 air raid shelters of the Reich government in the nearby environment. In addition many cellars of the surrounding buildings were used as auxiliary bunkers."


image source: http://www.the-downfall.com/zz_bilder/bunker0.jpg


This is back from 1945.....what do you think the bad guys use today?

Umm... you can call it an "interim"all you want, along with the USAF and defense lobbyists who are using that term to dumb down congress... But the fact still remains that this bomber will be procured in large numbers and serve for decades to come. Furthermore you can be assured that it will be a VLO design, perhaps incorporating new features and technology to give it all aspect stealth, this will be a "kick down the door" system, not a smaller BUFF.

[edit on 1-6-2007 by WestPoint23]

True! The term "interm" is relitive anyway. In point of fact, it refers to something that fills the space between something old and something not yet avalible. In one way or another, every bomber we've ever had could be called interm to some degree.




I agree with you on the first part! The new bomber will use some of the latest in stealth technology to enhance survivability.

Westpoint23, I must argue your point about "kick down the door" systems, VS. the BUFF. While the buff is NOW a stand-off and second wave system, that wasn't always the case. Back in the late 1940's and Earily 1950's when the B-52 was being concieved and design, it was a Strategic Penetrator. SAC built the B-52 to carry the then-new H-Bombs to strategic targets deep inside of Russia to bomb command centers and other startegic targets. The B-52 in fact was the US's primary strategic penatrator until October of 1986 when the B-1 achieve Inital Operational Capibility and assumed the role!

Tim

I agree, and thik it will have very basic VLO capabilities. That is why I think it will be a blended wing design.

I do not think it will be the full 260+ wingspan version that Boeing has been working on, but a smaller C-130 replacement sized aircraft to prove the techonoly and to generate revenue for the larger BWB. A blended wing with top mounted engines will be quiet, and the blended wing desing will lend well to cost effective VLO capabilities.

I think the military will trade some VLO for cost.

Agreed! That is why I think that the next bomber will most likely be a flying wing like the B-2. Now I'm not expecting this aircraft to have all the "Bells and Whistles" of a B-2, as that would cost a fortune. However, if the aircraft used a flying wing layout like the B-2 does, it would already have an inherent LO capability to it that would put its RCS somewhere between a B-1 and B-2 Without even applying any RAM to the airframe.

The flying wing design is a very economical way to blend range, payload, and basic LO in one design.

Tim

So basically this will be a downgraded 'stealthy' ( people still buy this stealth stuff?) Su-27IB possible costing four or five times more? At this rate there wont be any economy worth defending by 2015.

Stellar

I believe that it will be very cost effective, as if properly designed, this small blended wing design could have multiple roles, such as a freighter, and other uses.

Boeing Working on BWB Freighter

If Boeing were to develop a commercially viable freighter, that could also be used as a C-130 replacement, it could also double as a cheap bomber.

If not, it could provide the base design and 75% of the design of a similar bomber that could be a modified variant aircraft. To acheve more stealth, they may bury the engines.

Either way, the more functions the base design can fill, the more units and parts that will be needed. This will lower the production cost, and also provide a larger stock of interchangable parts, which also aids in maintence costs.

Also, blended wing designs are 20% - 30% more fuel efficiant, which will also save cost for any military that uses that type of fleet.

If you going to upgrade a fleet, you might as make it as cost effective on the front end, and during the duration of use. In time, the fuel savings, and maintence cost savings will out weight the cost of purchasing a new fleet with enhanced capabilities, then the current fuel cost, and high maintence cost of keeping the current fleet with less capabilities.

Actually no one knows exactly what it will be yet, however I see no reason why advanced stealth technology cannot be incorporated into it for a fraction of the cost of a B-2. Lesson learned from the F-22 and F-35 have reduced the cost of stealth features and have increased our manufacturing abilities. People forget that the B-2 was the first true stealth bomber built during a time when producing and manufacturing VLO airframes was very costly and new, not to mention we only bought 21 of them, no wonder it cost a fortune...

I fully expect this new bomber to be just as (if not more so) stealthy as the B-2, and a lot easier to maintain, upgrade and base.

Hey Westpt great points but I think the one to really focus on that people over look is the basing issue. They have really just in the past 3/4 years started fielding the B-2 more to other bases with the tempoary hangers and the support equipment.

The basing issue is an important one. However, the follow on bomber as WP points out should have improvments not in its stealh signature, but rather its ability to maintain its signature. The number of man hours to maintain the F-117 and B-2 signature is huge according to open source literature. The F-22 is better and the JSF is supposed to be almost as easy as a non stealth aircraft.


Visual stealth is also a new realm that they may enter as well.


[edit on 6/4/07 by FredT]

As our understanding, manufacturing, design and technological capabilities of VLO aircraft increases so does our ability to make them practical. The B-2 and F-117 are "old" aircraft which as you pointed out have a lot of issues involved with maintaining their low RCS. Weather, man hours, etc... The F-22 and F-35 are a different generation, weather and high G don't effect them nor are they as maintenance demanding as the B-2 and F-117. They don't need special hangers or really elaborate tools to fix and house them. The F-22 is parked and fixed on the flight line and requires less support than an F-15 for example, it's also easier to diagnose and fix. We are rapidly reaching the point where VLO aircraft will no longer be significantly handicapped by their deisgn.

[edit on 4-6-2007 by WestPoint23]