 |
| photo via Air Power Australia |
The USAF is already trying to get the public relations terrain set for the fight for the Next Generation Bomber.
It could end up being the next budget killer and the reality of that means that not only will the USAF be stuck with the F-35, but because of the tremendous cost, it will also be saddled with the B-52, B-1, and B-2 until possibly 2060 or later.
That is unsat.
Instead of taking joy in the problem that Air Force leadership placed on their own plate, I instead have a modest proposal.
Revive the FB-22 Concept.
The benefits? The tooling for the F-22 were saved. A stretched version will be comparatively easy to design, it will have a bit of stealth, but it will be ready for service long before a clean sheet NGB.
It will not be a deep strike fighter bomber, it will not be able to do penetration missions and our nuclear triad will become two legged. But a bit of honesty. Its been two legged for a long time now anyway. This will simply codify what everyone knows to be the truth.
What do ground power advocates get? Since air power is no longer going to be provided at knife edge distance by the likes of the AV-8B, F-16, F-15, F-18 and especially the A-10 (talking fast movers not helos...attack helicopter boys will still get down low and bring the pain) it will give us something not as good but adequate. A high flying, extremely fast, persistent bomb truck over the battlefield that will be able to drop ordinance on the designated target. If Afghanistan is the example then 3 high flying FB-22's could probably cover the entire country, with tanker support could remain airborne for hours and depending on the type of support needed could probably attack multiple targets per flight. One or two FB-22 squadrons could take the place of a whole slew of current fighters trying to do the job.
In my opinion it makes sense, will save money and will enshrine the fact that land and sea based ballistic missiles are the real guardians of our nuclear deterrent.
Oh and since the Pentagon is so enamored of rebranding, how about we rename the FB-22, the B-5 Medium Bomber. We haven't had medium bombers in name (the A-6 and A-7 were actually medium and light bombers) since Vietnam. It sings. The USAF should get on it. If they need to save money its time to get realistic now.
No Hypersonic bomber that fly above the atmosphere ? No Orbital Nuke platform ala the movie 'Meteor' ? No Satellite Capture vehicle like in James bond's You only Live Twice ?
ReplyDeleteah well..
Nope.
ReplyDeleteLRSB is happening at all costs - its a part of Global Strike Prompt so it`ll get funding.
LSRB's requirements are much narrower by comparison. Leverage F-35 and B-2 technology to build a new bomber somewhat smaller than the B-2 under a strict price ceiling. Optionally manned (keeping in mind, the B-2 basically flies itself already, so not as new as it sounds). Cheaper to maintain than the B-2 due to advances in RAM - for example, base LRSB skin on quite easy to maintain F-35s. Capable of launching ALCMs. Really no showstoppers. Even making it nuclear capable isn't in the cards until the mid 2020s at the earliest just to keep complexity down.
you're smoking crack. Prompt Global Strike is a USAF initiative and not US Govt policy. additionally LRSB WILL NOT be able to do deep penetration and Carter is already on record as saying that he doesn't believe that manned deep strike is viable. this thing IS NOT sacred, its an easy target for budget cuts and it will help the current President slim due our nuclear strike capability. FINALLY the USAF has been a poor steward of the manned nuclear strike scheme and its past time that the three legs turned into two.
DeleteExcept Prompt Global Strike is a eight year old program that is purposefully still at the technology development stage. Operational deployment by 2015 was never a thing. Don't pretend it is. How could it be? The hypersonic technology behind it is still in the demonstrator phase. Certainly not "two decades of development". When the X-51's production successor enters service in the mid 2020s, yes it will be after 20 years of development, but we're not there yet, and when we are, it will be in the company of things like Stealth, Integrated Combat Systems (Aegis), and AESA radar as critical technologies that *gasp* took a long time to mature.
DeleteSo safe is LRSB as a program, it probably won't even be nuclear capable until well after its introduction, because the Air Force doesn't want the entire program to get snagged on how to ensure an optionally manned platform (LRSB is either in-vehicle piloted or remotely piloted) is secure enough to carry nuclear weapons and not be in nuclear mode, hacked and dropping a nuke or something. Instead it'll probably nuclear-certify the F-35A instead.
The Air Force as part of FY2015 designated LSRB their most important program. Yes, even over the F-35 believe it or not.
It is reflective of an Air Force no longer focused on brushfire wars and is thinking again how to beat industrialized countries with sophisticated defense systems. If the US really wanted a low cost high endurence bomb carrier or Air Launched Cruise Missile carrier, it could militarize a 777 or something. Such proposals have been made before. It specifically chosen a very high altitude stealthy flying wing.
It might be ''just'' USAF thing but Russia,China and other countries react and will build their own systems to counter it - its a pillar of your strength,just as Carrier Groups are.
Deletei love how advocates twist and turn their arguments to fit a meme. the LRSB is just a small portion of Prompt Global Strike and the key will be developing long range hypersonic missiles (if its doable in the short term). manned penetration of denied airspace is rapidly turning into a pipe dream. we're working on lasers and so are our enemies. we might be able to develop missiles that can penetrate that type of airspace but an airplane?
Deletebetween the F-35, the KC-46 and having to maintain C-5's, C-130's, C-141's and then finally getting a helicopter that can do long range rescue the LRSB just can't be justified. the Secof the AF is signalling that the USAF has as big a procurement trainwreck as the USMC. first the talk of streamlining procurement to lower costs and then stripping some of the bells and whistles off the next training airplane.
if an airplane does penetration missions in the future it will be unmanned.
sorry buddy. the USAF placed all its eggs in the F-35 basket. the other services (if that piggy finally makes it into service) will want their piece of flesh and WILL NOT allow another big ticket USAF program while they've seen their projects chopped up to pay for it. the US Army will not stand for it. the USN will at the same as the USAF is trying to get the LRSB be looking to get a new boomer into service.
something will have to give.
the LRSB will be canned because the desired tech just ain't there. the only hope the USAF has is to lower expectation and go with a FB-22 or B-5 as i call it if they want to actually get an airplane on their tarmacs. otherwise its F-35 all the time...along with a few drones.
the USAF is properly FUCKED and they only have themselves to blame.
Eldererr, Prompt has not even replaced the demonstrator they lost last time, no budget. Broke up when it hit denser atmosphere. And no, Prompt Global will NOT be nuclear capable, one of the very key requirements as a project is the requirement that it will not provoke a nuclear retaliation by misunderstandings, otherwise they would just have used an ICBM.
DeleteLRSB is simply a-must - B-52 as awesome as it is,is an elder, B-2 is ridiculously expensive and hard to maintain.
ReplyDeleteThe real purpose of the LRSB is because the B-1B and B-52 are getting old. Depending on who you ask, the LRSB is a replacement for one or the other. In reality it is likely a replacement for neither, rather it will compliment a consolidated fleet of the younger, in better condition B-1B and B-52s. That is not to say that the B-1 and B-52 are headed to the scrapyard anytime soon. The B-52 for instance, is slated to have it's first re-engining in coming years, and the B-1Bs have just seen fleet-wide modernization. Rather the LRSB is the backbone of the bomber force 10-12 years from now. It's also only part of a broader program. LRSB is being paired with a new air launched cruise missile sister program as well.
The LRSB was once called "the Next Generation Bomber" the "2018 Bomber" and the "Interim Bomber" at various points in it's lifetime, going back to 2005. The general idea is leveraging largely existing technology to produce in large numbers a stealth bomber (without a nuclear mission at first) that that would be somewhat smaller than the B-2 but capable of launching Air Launched Cruise Missiles like the B-52. It would be a "stop gap" to a true next generation global strike platform, the so called "2037 Bomber", that is intended to be the true B-2 successor: Hypersonic, global in reach and optionally manned. The DoD's Blackswift project (and it's recent Hypersonic tests) are all the first experiments of this.
Besides, as far as we can tell from our armchairs - the prototype of something like LRSB are already flying.
ReplyDeleteIts happening - the number might be reduced to 20-25 but there is no way of ignoring it.
the problem for the bombers is simple. they haven't been used to a large extent in our latest wars. yeah we've seen some B-1 strikes. we've seen some B-52 occasionally but its mostly a fighter bomber war. for the last 50 years its been fighter bombers and only fighter bombers.
Deleteno one can credibly state that its essentially for the US to have a bomber fleet. Combatant Commanders rarely ask for them, they're hardly used in real shooting wars and even in exercises you never see them come out to play with the other forces.
if Air Force photographers didn't exist we wouldn't even know we had a bomber fleet.
as far as the LRSB flying now. show me! i watch for this kind of thing and i haven't heard a peep.
Historically, bombers were less useful than attack jets because of their inability to do a precision strike. The current generation of guided munitions take care of that problem, so it is indeed cheaper to replace five F-35s with single LRS-B bomber.
DeleteRumour is rumour but these are strong indications :
Deletehttp://theaviationist.com/tag/mystery-plane-over-texas/
Plus something like that flying triangle was spotted flying in formation.
So something is definitely happening, its shape and size is too big to big some figther.
You need edit button : http://theaviationist.com/2014/04/23/two-different-black-projects/
Deletei told you i follow this shit! those are suspected aurora flights not LRSB!!!! LRSB IS NOT A BLACK PROJECT! it would be flown in the open!!!! geez dude. you're really twisting yourself into a pretzel to try and give the illusion of momentum to a project that is stuck in the mud and won't get built.
DeleteAny FB-22 proposal would be hampered by its inherent short range and requirements for tanker sorties per weapon deployed. LRS-B is the answer, and they USAF should be cutting F-35s to afford it, if it comes to that. PGMs have made large bombers much more flexible, and a large bomber can be made more stealthy that fighter-sized aircraft. Bigger is better - more payload, more range, more flexible payloads. The problem is that the USAF is run by tactical fighter pilots....
DeleteSol, large portions of LRS-B project are "black." A buddy of mine remarked to me about the extraordinary number of "white tail" charter aircraft flying in and out of Vegas - Groom Lake seems to be very busy....
Deletespeaking in layman's terms, a stretched FB-22 should have considerable range. remember its simply not the same airplane just with a bigger bomb bay. its going to be much larger and should be approaching a takeoff weight of more than a fully loaded Tomcat. it should even be touching on the size and weight of the F-111.
DeleteSol, based on LM proposals, the FB-22 would have a combat range of ~1600 miles or roughly 3200 miles one way. LRSB is looking at roughly 2x the range. Then there is the issue of pilot fatigue. Its fairly normal for the bomber forces to do 30-40 hour flights. That requires multiple pilots. And rest area in the plane.
DeleteWhile I think a theater bomber like an FB22 would have been a good idea( and really any 6th gen fighter design NEEDs to be a combine concept of FXX + FBXX if nothing else for spreading out costs), its basically aimed at a completely different mission than the LRSB. The LRSB is aimed at taking over workloads from B1B, B2, B52. That workload requires things like an actual aircraft cabin instead of a cockpit. It requires things like 6k mile plus range.
Now there is also work that has been on going to make the mission space for the B models significantly larger. An example of that is the work on the B1B for maritime bombing (it is apparently pretty good at it!), etc.
Sol... What hasn't the air farce been a poor steward of? Seriously man they've fought and killed any real air defense programs not on navy ships. They've refused the army the tools they've needed time and again. (sometimes even pinky promising they'll do the mission if army just hands over the airframes! And then kill the programs more than once resulting in planes fresh from production going to the bone yard!)
ReplyDeleteWe Americans tend to mock middle eastern air arms for the boys clubs they are... But if you look carefully anyone who isn't a zoomy is SUPPORT STAFF for the zoomies. Shit they don't even give respect to herc and galaxy drivers most of the time!!
At least the Mideast boys clubs haven't built franchise locations in dozens of countries that often sport pga tour worthy golf courses!
The air force needs abolished! It is a branch that tries to dictate circumstances to fit their tactics... They're a support arm with delusions of grandeur.
Plus maybe it'd make some naval officers realize a Small command is better than no command!
i think an Army Air Corps would revolutionize the American way of war in more way than we care to imagine. but mainly i can't despute a thing you've said. i'd personally love to see the Air Force shut down...closer to home i'd love to see every Marine Air station shut down and the wing forcibly moved onto Marine bases
DeleteFB-22 is not like the F-15E Strike Eagle, the FB-22 airframe is physically different from F-22 for F-22 tooling and parts to be much savings. It would be much better to start a new competition like the LRS-B.
ReplyDeleteWith the FB-22, you are paying too high a price in exchange for a limited weapons payload and range. The FB-23 would make a much better tactical bomber also.
according to people with ALOT of aviation experience they're saying the opposite. your opinion is noted and i'll check with them again, but i've been told that the FB-22 is not only doable but affordable. as far as the FB-23...we didn't go down that road so why resurrect it now? better to take what we have in hand and expand on it.
DeleteI'll have to disagree with you about F-22/23 (and Arrow) resurrections. There are a lot of fanboys out their that love their favorites, but a realistic FB-22 variant is going to require a lot of work. Avionics and other materials have changed since the FB-22 proposal was floated. It would be better to base this tactical fighter bomber sized aircraft on something like the Navy's F/A-XX, and as I previously said, a larger aircraft makes more sense.
DeleteSolomon
Delete> according to people with ALOT of aviation experience they're saying the opposite.
Duh, the FB-22's primary contract will be Lockheed Martin; do you really trust Lockheed Martin after huge cost overruns with the F-22 and the F-35?
Nevermind that F-22 is essentially 90`s avionics and computers - the re-engineering of cockpit and sensors would make it resemble something like F-35 rather than good olde Raptor.
DeleteFrom the looks of it, the LRSB is going to be in the form of another flying wing in the mold of the B-2, not a fighter-bomber extension.
ReplyDeleteI sort of see it as a rehashed B-2, so I don't think there is really going to be a lot of drama during development. Just a warning. The per unit price is going to make your eyes water. You'll get the LRSB, but it's going to cost, same as the B-2.
I put to you all that one of the major reasons for the success and quality of legacy fighters like the F16 and F15 is that they have been developed, improved and upgraded continuously for decades.
ReplyDeleteIt takes time and use to find the weaknesses and fix them, to find the strengths and capitalize on them.
The F22 program was cut short and with it the opportunity to put the things learned in practice and to recoup on the investment. My equally modest.. ahem.. advise would be to not only make a bomber variant , but to also develop an F22C, an updated model instead of the F35 AND instead of the sixth generation fantasies floating around.
Chances are that you get a better plane by basing it on the known quantity that is the F22 for a better price. There is no reason to think a family of F22's ( including a bomber) wouldn't be able to rule the skies for a long time, something the F35 will never do.
Lastly: get over the so called secrecy of stealth.. face it, the potential enemies have it also.. and sell F22's to your allies. No better way to keep costs down.
Look.
ReplyDeleteQuote :
Shrouded in Mystery, New Bomber Makes Waves
By Aaron Mehta 4:14 p.m. EST January 18, 2015
635570048174454101-AIR-BTN-New-bomber
(Photo: Northrop Grumman illustration)
CONNECTTWEETLINKEDINCOMMENTEMAILMORE
WASHINGTON — In late spring or early summer, the US Air Force will decide who will build its next-generation bomber. Yet, despite all the hype and public interest, the program remains shrouded in mystery.
The Long Range Strike-Bomber (LRS-B) program is stealthy, literally and figuratively. Few details are actually known about the bomber's capabilities or design. But the program's impact is already being widely felt throughout the Pentagon and its industry partners.
At the annual Air Force Association conference last
At the annual Air Force Association conference last September, Northrop Grumman hung a major ad for its LRS-B program.(Photo: Aaron Mehta/Staff)
The half a dozen analysts and experts interviewed by Defense News for this piece all agree on one thing: the LRS-B has the chance to shape American military aerospace for the next 20 years. Whichever competitor wins will reap a windfall of development money; the loser could find itself out of the military attack airframe business entirely.
And while the program appears to be on track, Congress is waiting in the wings for any sign of cost overrun or technological problems.
"This is crunch time," said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Teal Group. "It's the biggest single outstanding DoD competition by a very wide margin. That makes it important in and of itself."
Known Unknowns
The program is targeting a production line of 80-100 planes. It will replace the fleet of B-52 and B-1 bombers. It will be stealthy, capable of carrying nuclear weapons, and optional manning has been discussed. A down-selection will be made this spring or early summer, with initial operating capability planned for the mid-2020s. Nuclear certification will follow two years after that.
The target price, set by former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, is $550 million a copy. To keep the price down, the Air Force is looking to use mature technologies that are available now, rather than launching new developments. At the same time, the program will have an open architecture approach for future technologies.
Unless there is a secret competitor still unknown — highly unlikely, but like many things with the program, impossible to rule out — there are two teams are bidding for the contract. One is Northrop Grumman, which developed the B-2 stealth bomber. The other is a team of Lockheed Martin and Boeing. Together, those companies represent three of the top five defense firms in the nation.
Breaking down the rest of the program is a master class in the classic "known unknowns" phrase coined by Donald Rumsfeld. What equipment will it carry? Will it be in a flying wing shape? What is more important, stealth or speed? Will the planes, like the B-2, be so classified that they cannot be stationed abroad? If so, does that affect the range vs. payload tradeoff?
A source with knowledge of the program said the Air Force is likely looking at something smaller than a B-2, perhaps as small as half the size, with two engines similar in size to the F135 engines that power the F-35, so enhancement programs can also be applied to the bomber.
"They should go bigger [in terms of airframe], but Gates threw that $500 million figure out there without thinking through the overall effect and requirement," the source said.
Retired Lt. Gen. David Deptula, former deputy chief of staff for ISR, agreed that the focus on the $550 million figure may end up hurting the bomber's capabilities by driving the discussion from what the plane does to what can keep the price down.
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/01/18/air-force-bomber-industry/21805275/
Hot off the oven.
FB-22 was a good concept as a theatre bomber. Now? F-22 supply-chain dead and gone. Should have fired this program up around 2002-2003. More sorties per day. More targets hit per day. More survivable. LRSB? A multi-billion dollar farce. It won't survive modern IADS.
ReplyDeleteWhat.
DeletePlane based off of 90s tech more survivable than one designed and built in 2010`s-2020s?
Depends on who is the better designer Eldererr.
DeleteIt's about bloody time the US got into their heads that technology is not a substitute for a good design.
It doesn't matter, has anyone checked the price tag on this baby? It makes LRSB and F35 look like a bargain.....this country is going to have to ditch one or maybe even 2 legs of the nuke TRIAD to be able to afford it.
ReplyDelete"All together now: "How expensive is SSBN(X)?" Well, according to the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, the very first SSBN(X) built -- before economies of scale kick in -- could set taxpayers back by as much as $13 billion. That's roughly equivalent to the Navy's entire annual shipbuilding budget today."
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/01/18/nuclear-submarine-cost-could-torpedo-navy-budget.aspx
SSBNx should be replaced with a modified Virginia at least for the medium-term, as a stop-gap. Combine with a ngcm?
DeleteRegarding NGB alternatives... NGB Program should really be restructured and redefined as requiring a 'mix' of platforms - some new-build and some refurbished and modernized existing Bomber platforms (e.g., B-52+ and B-1R'esque). Said upgraded B-52s and B-1s could perhaps be consolidated down to a combined 60-70 platform force size, while B-2 being the most expensive to sustain and least reliable could/should arguably be retired once said initial replacement units begin IOC.
A mix of new-build platforms could come in form of an enlarged UCAV, plus an off-the-shelf Predator-C Avenger class strike/ISR platform. Such an aggregate 'mix' could act as both stopgap and risk-mitigated alternative recap plan. It could be followed-on by say a 2040-recap plan to include a leap-ahead platform or mix of platforms to replace said upgraded B-52/B-1B? That would allow sufficient time to seriously evaluate and study more prudent, cost-effective and overall sustainable acquisition strategy and processes, once the current 'broken and constipated' acquisition process is hopefully and finally reformed. In my personal view.
They could save a lot of money by retiring the land-based leg of the triad, freeing plenty of money for the LRS-B and new nukes. And just think of all the scandals you would prevent!
Delete