New American USAF Bomber

[Todjaeger]

yeah, like cruise missiles, but with a larger net payload.

(BTW: my mistake, I meant AGM not ATGM)

for example, the current Tomahawk has a 1000 lb warhead, while the current AGM-65 Maverick has a 125lb max warhead. So, mathematically, 5 Mavericks equal One Tomahawk's payload.
{note, this is independent of "specialty" payloads, like shaped charges, HEAT warheads, etc.}

So, why not use high-altitude fighter/attacker aircraft (Like the F-15E, which can hold 6 Mavericks) to lob modified missiles at high altitudes.


Basically, this method would serve the PURPOSE of cruise missiles, but would allow multiple munition support, as well as increase PoK (prob. of kill) against hardened, CIWS-enabled systems.

the B-52 has a 90,000lb payload, which is about 130 full-load Mavericks, which is a total 16,250lb of warhead.

now, if one squadron of B-52s expended ordnance in this manner, think of the hell this would rain on any surface enemies....:ar15

At present, the B-52 and B-1 bombers are still being used to provide long-ranged, long loiter CAS for units in the Ghan, utilizing PGM's. It is not that the aircraft lack a use in the current OrBat. The issue is more that the aircraft are aging, the airframes are racking up flight hours, and at some point, the age/cost to maintain the aircraft is going to outweigh the potential use of the aircraft. The USAF has already tacitly accepted that the B-52 and to a lesser degree the B-1 are unsuitable for operations in contested airspace.

That is why there are some programmes examining a Future Bomber, and/or alternate capability providers.

-Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

At present, the B-52 and B-1 bombers are still being used to provide long-ranged, long loiter CAS for units in the Ghan, utilizing PGM's.

In fact they are doing the majority of CAS in theatre - in Afghanistan in particular, in depth CAS by the heavies is what the warfighters want and need, helos and manned fighters (of any flavour) just don't deliver against the demands and constraints imposed by geography and logistics.

Afghanistan is not Iraq - and CAS, as you, I and many others have repeatedly said, is about a capability set, its no longer about the platform. This something that some of the A-10, and helo advocates struggle to comprehend.

 

[My2Cents]

for example, the current Tomahawk has a 1000 lb warhead, while the current AGM-65 Maverick has a 125lb max warhead. So, mathematically, 5 Mavericks equal One Tomahawk's payload.
{note, this is independent of "specialty" payloads, like shaped charges, HEAT warheads, etc.}

Actually, your need 8 x 125lb warheads to equal 1 x 1000lb warhead, probably more because a larger percentage of the smaller warheads is devoted to the casing.

But the important things are not the warhead weight, but the missile weight (2900 lb for Tomahawk, 466 lb for the Maverick with 125lb warhead), and range (1000 miles for Tomahawk, 15 miles for the Maverick). There is really no substitution here, their designs are just too different.

Instead of the Maverick use the Small Diameter Bomb (285 lb with a 50 lb warhead and a 60 mile range). A B-52 can carry up to 144.

So, why not use high-altitude fighter/attacker aircraft (Like the F-15E, which can hold 6 Mavericks) to lob modified missiles at high altitudes.

Basically, this method would serve the PURPOSE of cruise missiles, but would allow multiple munition support, as well as increase PoK (prob. of kill) against hardened, CIWS-enabled systems.

The purpose of cruise missiles is to handle missions too dangerous for manned aircraft through a combination of stealth and expendability. Much of the stealth comes from operating at low altitudes (<100’) to avoid enemy radar as long as possible. Lobbing missiles in from high elevations may keep you safe from AAA guns and MANPADS, but makes you extremely vulnerable to larger SAM systems, which have ranges up to 250 miles.

the B-52 has a 90,000lb payload, which is about 130 full-load Mavericks, which is a total 16,250lb of warhead.

now, if one squadron of B-52s expended ordnance in this manner, think of the hell this would rain on any surface enemies....:ar15

Payload is 70,000 lb in late models. You also need to account for the weight of the bomb racks, etc., so probably only 45 missiles (the same as the number of 500 lb bombs) :argue

 

[GelbOne]

oh yeah.
I just wanted to clarify that I didn't intend that stuff I was proposing to be used in Afghanistan or any current US theaters of operation.

derp. that was a stupid math mistake.
I agree with what you said about the larger SAM systems, but the RCS of a AGM which is traveling perpendicular to the earth (at terminal velocity) would be really small, right?
plus, AGMs are smaller than Tomahawks, and if you have 8 or 10 AGMs, it'd require at least a couple of precision CIWS systems as well as distinct seeker radars to destroy targets that small...

I agree with you, cruise missiles are useful for taking out hardened, isolated, or priority targets with efficiency, but for large numbers of ground targets (an armored formation, per se) a smattering of AGMs used in this manner would achieve the type of range and widespread damage that a single Tomahawk cannot obtain.
(Plus, tomahawks can cost as much as 1.3 Mil each, while a single Maverick costs 160K, so 8 Mavericks cost less than a single Tomahawk)

 

[Todjaeger]

oh yeah.
I just wanted to clarify that I didn't intend that stuff I was proposing to be used in Afghanistan or any current US theaters of operation.

derp. that was a stupid math mistake.
I agree with what you said about the larger SAM systems, but the RCS of a AGM which is traveling perpendicular to the earth (at terminal velocity) would be really small, right?
plus, AGMs are smaller than Tomahawks, and if you have 8 or 10 AGMs, it'd require at least a couple of precision CIWS systems as well as distinct seeker radars to destroy targets that small...

I agree with you, cruise missiles are useful for taking out hardened, isolated, or priority targets with efficiency, but for large numbers of ground targets (an armored formation, per se) a smattering of AGMs used in this manner would achieve the type of range and widespread damage that a single Tomahawk cannot obtain.
(Plus, tomahawks can cost as much as 1.3 Mil each, while a single Maverick costs 160K, so 8 Mavericks cost less than a single Tomahawk)

You seemed to have missed where you were advised that B-1 and B-52 bombers are operating over Afghanistan, providing CAS using things like SDB. These aircraft are proving the CAS mission because of their long range, signigicant payload, ability to loiter, and the relative remoteness of Afghan airspace.

Also, there are differences between hostile, contested and controlled airspace. In hostile or contested airspace, a ground unit formation would not be considered a strategic target, unless it was a C4ISR asset. Therefore, a B-52 or B-1 would not be 'sent in' even with a massive number of SBD's to strike the target(s). Aside from the risk of loss for the aircraft, if it/they were operating under such conditions, they would have better targets to hit.

-Cheers

 

[GelbOne]

You seemed to have missed where you were advised that B-1 and B-52 bombers are operating over Afghanistan, providing CAS using things like SDB. These aircraft are proving the CAS mission because of their long range, signigicant payload, ability to loiter, and the relative remoteness of Afghan airspace.

Also, there are differences between hostile, contested and controlled airspace. In hostile or contested airspace, a ground unit formation would not be considered a strategic target, unless it was a C4ISR asset. Therefore, a B-52 or B-1 would not be 'sent in' even with a massive number of SBD's to strike the target(s). Aside from the risk of loss for the aircraft, if it/they were operating under such conditions, they would have better targets to hit.

-Cheers

hmm. I guess you're right.
but about the formation targeting thing:
that's precisely what I'm talking about. Since exposing the bomber group to the mobile AA which accompanies armored groups, the B-52s could just be used as long-range AGM missile trucks!

 

[Todjaeger]

hmm. I guess you're right.
but about the formation targeting thing:
that's precisely what I'm talking about. Since exposing the bomber group to the mobile AA which accompanies armored groups, the B-52s could just be used as long-range AGM missile trucks!

<insert facepalm here> Okay, you seem to have missed a basic concept.

Formation targetting would only occur after an opposing IADS has been delaminated, C4ISR have been struck or otherwise rendered insignificant, and the targeting requirements had shifted over to providing tacair.

At this point, then aircraft like the B-52 and B-1 would effectively be getting used to provide CAS, and/or smaller fighter/strike aircraft, depending on a number of factors. If B-52 and B-1 bombers get used, they would most likely get loaded with the significant numbers of SDB which these bombers can carry. Given the massive number of bombers, as well as wingkits available, these aircraft could savage an armoured formation was dozens of kilometres away. But that is still just a new use for an older aircraft design.

It does not get into what the USAF wants/needs for a future bomber or strike capability, which can penetrate hostile airspace, and/or be used to delaminate a hostile IADS.

-Cheers

 

[My2Cents]

I agree with what you said about the larger SAM systems, but the RCS of a AGM which is traveling perpendicular to the earth (at terminal velocity) would be really small, right?
plus, AGMs are smaller than Tomahawks, and if you have 8 or 10 AGMs, it'd require at least a couple of precision CIWS systems as well as distinct seeker radars to destroy targets that small...

The threat of heavy SAMs is not to the missiles but to the launching aircraft. Try bringing a B-52 at 30,000 ft to within 15 miles (Maverick range) of a AAM battery with a 60+ mile range is just a waste of a perfectly good crew and aircraft, and the payload of missiles that will never be launched. :flame

RCS is more a function of shape than size or materials. A Maverick missile has a larger RCS than a Tomahawk because of the location, shape, and number of the fins produces a number of right angle reflectors. :coffee

Also consider the effect of terrain, coming straight down out of a clear sky makes you rather obvious. Take a look outside at noon some day and see how far away you can spot a circling hawk, then look around on the ground and see how far away you can spot a stalking cat on open ground, they are about the same size. Then try to spot a cat in a garden, it can get pretty hard, even when they are not trying to hide. That hawk is you AGM dropping straight down from 30,000 ft (6 miles) up at about 500mph terminal velocity, after being tracked getting to that point so you had plenty of time to get ready. The cat in the garden is the cruise missile that just popping over the 50 ft rise 2 miles away at 500+ mph that you did not see coming – SURPRISE! :nutkick

I agree with you, cruise missiles are useful for taking out hardened, isolated, or priority targets with efficiency, but for large numbers of ground targets (an armored formation, per se) a smattering of AGMs used in this manner would achieve the type of range and widespread damage that a single Tomahawk cannot obtain.

That is what sub-munitions are for. The Tomahawk-D had a ‘dumb’ cluster bomb warhead, but I believe that it was retired and the missiles all converted to the unitary warhead. The Tomahawk was never qualified for smart sub-munitions like the BLU-108 because there no longer seemed to be a need, but the program could be reactivated if the need should arise. :hul

(Plus, Tomahawks can cost as much as 1.3 Mil each, while a single Maverick costs 160K, so 8 Mavericks cost less than a single Tomahawk)

Again, this is apples and oranges because of the huge range difference. To make a proper comparison you need to look at the SDB (125lb bomb, 60 miles, $90K) , Paveway-II (500lb bomb, 9 miles, $19K), JSOW (1000lb bomb,45 miles, $250K), etc. that are closer to the same range envelope. :hitwall

 

[GelbOne]

okay, but if that's the case, then WHAT does the USAF need in a new bomber?
speed? agility? expendability? automation?

if cruise missiles can deliver precision munitions that way, then wouldn't the whole concept of a bomber be obsolete?

 

[Todjaeger]

okay, but if that's the case, then WHAT does the USAF need in a new bomber?
speed? agility? expendability? automation?

if cruise missiles can deliver precision munitions that way, then wouldn't the whole concept of a bomber be obsolete?

For the first part, that is essentially what some of the debate (at least in part of this thread and others) has been about. Just want characteristics the USAF feels is needed in a future bomber/strike capability. Speed and agility are IMO the least likely, given that the latest USAF bomber (the B-2) is a subsonic flying wing. It might have a fair amount of maneuverability, but that and speed are NOT its primary methods for operating/surviving in hostile airspace. I strongly suspect that a significant range/loiter capability would be one of the primary capabilities.

As for cruise missiles replacing a bomber capability... IMO the two are complimentary, but cruise missiles are not a direct replacement. Cruise missiles absolutely provide a standoff strike capability for aircraft, surface vessels and submarines. Depending on the type, that would determine range, speed, warhead and likelihood of detection and intercept. Some of the new or upcoming cruise missiles (JASSM/JASSM-ER) for instance are designed to be LO, meaning that the flight profile should be difficult to detect and track. Cruise missiles themselves can often be hard to detect if they have a low altitude flight profile, sig management would just make that more difficult.

However, cruise missiles are of limited range. The 'classic' US cruise missile, the Tomahawk is AFAIK also the one with the greatest range and payload, but the range tops out at ~1,000 miles/1,600 km. The upcoming JASSM-ER is supposed to have a range of ~1,000 km. While these are indeed long distance, the range is still insufficient to 'reach' some targets.

-Cheers

 

[Bonza]

In addition to the things Tod has mentioned, it seems to me that modularity is on the list of the USAF's requirements for a new bomber. If you have a look around for articles discussing the bomber's capabilities, you'll find quite a bit of information discussing the future bomber's possible applications in areas not directly associated with "bombing" as such (EW, airborne surveillance, etc).

I don't know if "modularity" is the right word exactly, but it seems to me there is a desire for a platform with the space and flexibility to accommodate systems for a variety of mission sets. Early days yet though, so who knows how it'll turn out.

 

[gf0012-aust]

In addition to the things Tod has mentioned, it seems to me that modularity is on the list of the USAF's requirements for a new bomber. If you have a look around for articles discussing the bomber's capabilities, you'll find quite a bit of information discussing the future bomber's possible applications in areas not directly associated with "bombing" as such (EW, airborne surveillance, etc).

I don't know if "modularity" is the right word exactly, but it seems to me there is a desire for a platform with the space and flexibility to accommodate systems for a variety of mission sets. Early days yet though, so who knows how it'll turn out.

whats changing for future platforms (and not just aircraft) is that every asset is now seen as an opportunity to be a node

the contribution to the fight is not just about whether it can bring weapons to bear - its about how it advances the common operating picture, how it enhances situational appreciation in the battlespace.

Thats one of the things that a lot of the detractors just don't get about 5th gen aircraft as they generally focus on the sexy bits like speed, signature management or in worst case scenarios the fans just focus on speed and range.

everyone of the platforms envisioned for the future air fighting construct is a node and system enabler in its own right.

 

[My2Cents]

The main requirement for the next ‘bomber’ should be to maximize the number of craft built to spread out the development costs and minimize the ‘per unit’ cost. When the B-2 per unit cost rose from $~700M to $~2100M the majority of the cost increase was from reduction in numbers that spread the development costs over 21 aircraft instead of 132. So the more roles it can fill, the better.

Personally, I would say that the role of the large manned bomber that can penetrate defended enemy airspace with gravity bombs is coming to an end. What is needed as a replacement for the B-52 is a sub-sonic, semi-stealthy, missile and bomb truck (well, more like a semi), an airborne version of the ‘arsenal ship’ or ‘missile barge’. The design also needs to be easily adapted to different applications as needed, not something modular like the LCS fiasco, but designed around a central bay structure in such a way that the factory can repurpose them with a minimum of effort. EW and airborne surveillance have been noted, but it should also be considered for aerial refueling, area defense (Fill the missile bay with long range missiles like the SM-6, and team it up with an AWACs to function as the missile director. This is defensive only and stays over your own territory, it is not meant to ‘fight’ it’s way through to the enemy’s defenses) and as a military cargo hauler. Get the numbers up to drive the per unit costs down.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

My2Cents,

It's interesting you bring up the LCS case. If anything, it undermines your argument that the Next-Generation Bomber should be a jack of all trades.

One of the most frequently-repeated criticisms of the LCS concept is that it's trying to be too much. "Modularity or not," they say, "there's no way you can roll the minesweeper, SEAL, transport, ASW, etc. roles into one hull." (There's some arguments against this position, but I won't derail the thread further)

Point is, trying to develop an NGB that moonlights as a tanker and transport is probably over-ambitious. Specialized aircraft do those roles more effectively (and arguably more affordably). However, as Bonza and gf0012-aust have said, the NGB will unquestionably do more than just drop bombs. EW, ISR, UAV networking, etc. applications immediately come to mind.

It's going to be interesting how (if at all) the progress of the Global Strike program will shape the mission, design, etc. of the NGB.

 

[Haavarla]

Interesting dabate.
It will be very interesting to see what kind of layout the new bomber platform will get.
I think it will differ from the 'flying wing' design of the B-2.
My bet is more on the B-1 design, but improved of course.

As the USAF are planning and designing its new bomber, so are the Russian.
It has been suggested that the new Russian bomber will be a evolution of the Tu-160 platform, but possible with no swing wings..

How much difference in requirements do you think we will see in both the Russian and USAF new bombers?
And how much funding will these program eventuall get?

It is still early i know, but it is not a given that the USAF bomber program will dwarf the Russian counterpart in term of funding consider to current situation of ongoing cuts in US defence programs.

 

[My2Cents]

My2Cents,

It's interesting you bring up the LCS case. If anything, it undermines your argument that the Next-Generation Bomber should be a jack of all trades.

One of the most frequently-repeated criticisms of the LCS concept is that it's trying to be too much. "Modularity or not," they say, "there's no way you can roll the minesweeper, SEAL, transport, ASW, etc. roles into one hull." (There's some arguments against this position, but I won't derail the thread further)

Point is, trying to develop an NGB that moonlights as a tanker and transport is probably over-ambitious. Specialized aircraft do those roles more effectively (and arguably more affordably). However, as Bonza and gf0012-aust have said, the NGB will unquestionably do more than just drop bombs. EW, ISR, UAV networking, etc. applications immediately come to mind.

It's going to be interesting how (if at all) the progress of the Global Strike program will shape the mission, design, etc. of the NGB.

Read it again. I brought up the LCS specifically to make it clear that it was “not something modular like the LCS fiasco” and “that the factory can repurpose them with a minimum of effort”. The LCS was supposed to be able to pull into any port with a crane that could handle standard intermodal shipping containers to swap out the module in a day or 2. The equivalent to what I am proposing would be to bring the ship back to a US naval yard and putting it up in dry dock for a couple months while they rip out and replace everything inside the hull except the bridge and engine rooms. The two are not even close.

Almost all the tankers, AWACs, and most the EW planes are just modified cargo transports. None are custom airframes. And when you get down to it, a bomb hauler like the B-52 is just a transport with a specialized adaptation for aerial unloading. Only when you need to penetrate through competent enemy defenses, as opposed to launching stand-off cruise missiles from outside the range of those defenses, do you need something better. That is the niche occupied by the B-2. I think what they need is just a bomb and missile hauler, i.e. a B-52 replacement. :argue

 

[GelbOne]

Interesting dabate.
It will be very interesting to see what kind of layout the new bomber platform will get.
I think it will differ from the 'flying wing' design of the B-2.
My bet is more on the B-1 design, but improved of course.

IMO, the B-1 design is pretty solid. it has massive range, and a relatively low-profile design (compared to the B-52, which is a flying brick) as well as supersonic speed.If a B-1 upgrade/variant ("C" model maybe) was submitted, I think it would feature things like the AEW or composites.
hell, maybe it'd even be unmanned! that would definitely increase payload.

For the first part, that is essentially what some of the debate (at least in part of this thread and others) has been about. Just want characteristics the USAF feels is needed in a future bomber/strike capability. Speed and agility are IMO the least likely, given that the latest USAF bomber (the B-2) is a subsonic flying wing. It might have a fair amount of maneuverability, but that and speed are NOT its primary methods for operating/surviving in hostile airspace. I strongly suspect that a significant range/loiter capability would be one of the primary capabilities.

As for cruise missiles replacing a bomber capability... IMO the two are complimentary, but cruise missiles are not a direct replacement. Cruise missiles absolutely provide a standoff strike capability for aircraft, surface vessels and submarines. Depending on the type, that would determine range, speed, warhead and likelihood of detection and intercept. Some of the new or upcoming cruise missiles (JASSM/JASSM-ER) for instance are designed to be LO, meaning that the flight profile should be difficult to detect and track. Cruise missiles themselves can often be hard to detect if they have a low altitude flight profile, sig management would just make that more difficult.

However, cruise missiles are of limited range. The 'classic' US cruise missile, the Tomahawk is AFAIK also the one with the greatest range and payload, but the range tops out at ~1,000 miles/1,600 km. The upcoming JASSM-ER is supposed to have a range of ~1,000 km. While these are indeed long distance, the range is still insufficient to 'reach' some targets.

-Cheers

as you said, these systems complement each other.
So, why not use a bomber to carry cruise missiles like the BrahMos?
it's super fast, and unlike Russia, the US isn't restricted from having a mid missile.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

My2Cents, if you want to discuss this further, someone is welcome to start or revive an LCS thread.

I think you're seeing the issue from a very short-term perspective. Yes, the B-2 is a VLO platform which has proven capable of penetrating enemy air defenses time and time again. And, yes, it may seem redundant to go with a similar design for the NGB. However, there will come a time the B-2s are lying at AMARC and the NGB may well be the only strategic bomber in the US inventory. When that time comes, having a VLO NGB is going to be vital to preserving USAF capability.

Cruise missile-oriented platforms also have some fairly serious drawbacks. For one, they aren't optimized for penetrating IADS and delivering gravity munitions (useful for engaging hardened targets, which are a major concern as Iran and North Korea move forward with their nuclear programs). In order to achieve an acceptable degree of survivability on such a mission with the platform you propose, you start putting tremendous strain on your EW and SEAD assets.

 

[gf0012-aust]

So, why not use a bomber to carry cruise missiles like the BrahMos?
it's super fast, and unlike Russia, the US isn't restricted from having a mid missile.

part of the US vision is about new CONOPs (Concept of Operations) which drives how they fight.

Its why bombers are still in favour as it fits hand in glove with developments of multi-stage hypersonic weapons - which can and would be launched from bombers as bombers can and do provide persistence and projection, and even though the weapons will be hypersonic, an impact on launch flexibility through other standard bomber capabilities such as opportunity placement and presence

 

[GelbOne]

part of the US vision is about new CONOPs (Concept of Operations) which drives how they fight.

Its why bombers are still in favour as it fits hand in glove with developments of multi-stage hypersonic weapons - which can and would be launched from bombers as bombers can and do provide persistence and projection, and even though the weapons will be hypersonic, an impact on launch flexibility through other standard bomber capabilities such as opportunity placement and presence

that's right.
plus, in case of a pre-war scenario, Bombers can be sent out carrying warloads with plausible deniability
(if you launch a missile, even if you abort it mid flight, it can still be considered a declaration of war)