Boeing proposed it.
Supposedly the USAF wasn't interested.
Which leads to the question. Why not? Every scenario for combat in the Pacific shows an outnumbered allied air force being overwhelmed. A couple dozen missile trucks would seem ideal.
Instead of a new bomber perhaps we should find new ways of using the tools that we already have. At the very least conduct an experiment at Red Flag with one or two of them.
Forget about the platform for a moment and consider if there is a requirement for additional AAM's for an F-22 flight? Assuming the requirement exists what's the best answer?
ReplyDeleteIs it really going to be a very large updated 1970's B-1 that will be detected way before the F-22's and let potential foes know what's coming? I'd suggest if the requirement exists we didn't buy enough F-22's.
That said a better system would be a UCAS with a lower signature than the F-22 operating ahead of the F-22's to extend the engagement range. It could also extend the sensor(s) range. This sort of system would be far more affordable and viable operationally.
Something like this will get into service mid term but not anytime soon. The budget doesn't exist for it and if we really need larger AAM loads on fighters then LM better light a fire somewhere and get the F-35 carrying more than 4.
All of this assumes the requirement exists. If a flight of 4 fighters fires 8 AAM's and gets a 50% kill rate how excited is the other side going to be to continue the mission when they just saw 4 of their buddies get blown away?
The B-1R is an interesting concept but I'm not sure it's the right platform for the requirement of a missile truck backing up fighters. Frankly the heavy bomber program the USAF really does have a known requirement for, the EB-52, was canceled then brought back then canceled for the 2nd time entirely due to lack of funds.
The USAF agreed to be the lead service for stand off jamming and has never filled the requirement. One can blame the budget, the culture, the Fighter Mafia, etc., but it's simply not getting done. The USN manages to provide escort jamming for every service and is buying new aircraft for the role as well.
Finally if there is a requirement for larger AAM loads then some thought might be given to increasing it for the F/A-XX and F-X. If these new fighters, optimized for air to air, still carry around 8 missiles maybe that's just fine. It's also worth considering if the missiles are improved to gain higher hit probability one needs fewer of them.
A B-1R could hold what, 22 AMRAAMs?
ReplyDeleteAn F-35A can hold 12. So what is the cost of 1 B-1R vs two F-35A's?
If you created the same quad AMRAAM launchers that are on the B-1R and put them on the F-35, it could carry 20.
If Blk 5 includes 6 internal AMRAAMs, then a single F-35A could do what a B-1R does in A2A.
Before you say "what about the drag", if instead of spending billions developing the B-1R we developed Boeing's stealthy pod for the F-35... A single F-35 could still carry 22 AMRAAMs in a LO config with minimal drag (depending on the weight of the pod and actual limit of the outboard pylons on the F-35).
The problem with the B-1R concept was that it had to be in the right place, at the right time, to be of any real benefit.
hey gents...i'm talking about combat sims that have been run with combat occrring over the Taiwan straits.
ReplyDeleteeverything that Rand puts out says that the enemy will make max effort runs not at our fighters but at our AWACS and at our tankers.
assuming the Chinese fight us in the future the way that Asian nations have in the past then it will be a damn the loses kind of thing and full speed ahead. additionally think about it. who have been our toughest opponents? not the Russians. not the Germans but every foe that we've fought that is of Asian ancestory (and this isn't racist...its grudging admiration) has been a fight that we didn't want. Japan was tough and we prepared for but didn't want any part of an invasion on their home turf. Korea was a dogfight of epic porportions. Vietnam...they fucked the French up and then got busy getting us war weary.
so yes. a war in the Pacific will be a sight to behold.
additionally no one knows exactly how many A2A missiles a B-1R could carry. I would reckon that it would number in the 40's and i seriously doubt you could ever get a F-35 to carry more than 12.
Spudman you damn well know better than 22 AMRAAMs. come on man! but the main thing that the B-1R would give is a long range punch. launch at long range and have your AWACS guide them and they go back home to reload. if nothing else they could degrade a CAP ...
send out a force of B-1R's along with regular B-1's launching long range cruise missiles and you have a CAP that's dogging missiles while others are launching missiles at the carrier.
now that's real deal air-sea battle talk.
On the larger AAM loadout point, consider this.
ReplyDeleteInstead of spending billions developing B1-R that will have a very small impact, spend the money on NGM (Formerly JDRADM). Pattern it after GD's AIM-152 proposal where you could fit 6-8 in EACH bay of the F-22. You could also pack 2-4 SRAAM-class versions in EACH sidewinder cheek bay.
Not only would this greatly increase the F-22's effectiveness (and the F-35 by default), but it would also increase it's SEAD/DEAD capabilities up to 4x while still having 4-8 SRAAM-class missiles on board.
I know you will never see a F-35 with quad-packed AMRAAMs on all the wing stations... just like you would never see the B-1R (it's a one-trick pony).
ReplyDeleteI was demonstrating the absurdity of the whole idea.
The RAND study made a lot of assumptions, one of which was that China would be able to get that many fighters in the air and that video assumes that we will all meet at one place in the sky for a giant furball.
The more likely scenario is that B-2 launched strikes have taken out most of the radar sites along the coast and B-52/B-1/sub/F-35 launched cruise missile strikes (escorted by Growlers & MALDs) have devastated the airfields for 300 miles inland.
The airwaves will be so jammed with noise that any Chinese fighter that does happen to make it up will not likely be able to join up with his buddies and form any kind of coordinated strike package.
And if they do, then the F-22/35s can have some fun, or did you forget the high LER marks the F-35 got recently.
Paraphrase: 'They hope that this will protect the less-stealthy B-1Rs from counterattack'. Hope is the operative word that gives me the willies.
ReplyDeleteThe best defense is to crater the runways and taxiways using B-2 or follow on via direct attack and/or develop external weapon carriage options for the F-22 that once the weapons are ripple fired ahead of them, they drop the lauchers with a high degree of certainty of successfully achieving full stealth configuration.
Gives new meaning to the term "Hope and Change (direction)"!
ReplyDeleteSorry, could not help myself. ;)
Anybody remember Minion? Sounded like a great idea on paper.
ReplyDeleteMaybe instead we should revisit the Transport Bomber concept, and put cruise missiles on C-17s. Use them to rapidly degrade airfields for follow on B-2 strikes.
ReplyDelete"everything that Rand puts out says that the enemy will make max effort runs not at our fighters but at our AWACS and at our tankers."
ReplyDeleteWould B-1Rs not also fit in this category of airborne targets?
the B-1R in the scenario listed (fight over Taiwan) is simply a missile truck. it flies to the area, AWACS designates targets, it launches its missiles and flies away.
ReplyDeleteno, i'm not in the camp of SPUDMAN who believes that UCAVs are the way of the future. they're just barely getting them to drop bombs...it'll be a long time till they shoot missiles. additionally i think someone will crack the code on them. meaning they'll be hacked and the enemy will use AESA or someother directed energy to fry them. in other words they're not survivable in the listed scenario.
That was not me. I think "if" there is an "AMRAAM truck", it will likely be the F-35 (though not 22, but likely 12-14).
ReplyDelete12-14 missiles on either plane would lower range in the scenario depicted. they wouldn't have the range to get there, and if they did then they wouldn't be stealthy and wouldn't carry enough missiles to influence the battle....at least in comparison to a B-1R
ReplyDeleteThe "missile truck" in this scenario needs to be firing cruise missiles, not AAMs. It's much harder and more dangerous to kill aircraft once they're in the air than when they're on the ground.
ReplyDeleteAnd I would be worried about the "relatively" short range of AMRAAM in the context of an AAM missile truck. If we were to go the B-1R route, we should push for something with more range. (e.g. air-launched, active ESSM or air breathing, turbo-rocket AMRAAM)
To get to 12 you only need the current dual-AMRAAM rails on the wing pylons. This is likely IOC stuff.
ReplyDeleteAs far as range goes, that's what IFR is for (or the carrier in the case of F-35B/C).
Detection range is not an issue for an F-35 based "AMRAAM truck" solution due to them launching farther back from the F-22s. They also have the advantage that once the AMRAAMs are off the rails (and pylons dropped), the F-35 are back to VLO and can support the F-22s (which the B1-R cannot do).
Even if the enemy gets some shots off at the F-35s (prior to AMRAAM launch), this just helps the F-22s due to less AAMs against them. Once the F-35's external AMRAAMs are gone (and pylons dropped), the inbound enemy AAMs will likely lose lock and the missiles are wasted.
F-35s won't be back to VLO once missiles are off the rails unless they can jettison the pylons and fill in the holes.
ReplyDeleteIn a war with China, I'd be worried about any basing within Chinese ballistic/cruise missile, fighter or bomber range. So there may not be many (if any) un-attacked fields available for F-22s or F-35s within IFR range.
IFR can come from CONUS, Japan, AU, Guam, Alaska, HI, etc.
ReplyDeleteF-35C can come from anywhere within 300nm (or more if IFR used on the return leg).
F-35Bs can refuel on austere fields on Taiwan itself.
On the VLO front, since the F-22 can and the F-35 cam from the same house, jettison-able pylons are a safe bet. Even if they are not, they can still launch all their AMRAAMs and leave the area with a higher survival rate (due to lower RCS) than a B-1R.
B-1R never got built because no one could take Boeing seriously when they decided to name it the B-1R
ReplyDeleteThink about it. The B-1's nickname is the BONE, which comes from phonetically spelling out B-ONE. Now what do you think all the Air Force dudes thought of when Boeing pitched them the "B-1R" idea?
Nothing is a safe bet in government contracting.
ReplyDeleteAnd even though the F-22 can jettison tanks and pylons, who knows what the resulting signature is. Certainly better than with the pylons, but maybe not VLO anymore.
Field in Taiwan are sure to receive a healthy dose of cruise/ballistic missiles, and bombs. As will Okinawa, South Korea and even Japan if the Chinese think we will use them.
We will be lucky to fly from Guam. Not exactly a short sortie for a fighter-class aircraft.