USAF News and Discussion

[OPSSG]

I would add that the B-21 is anticipated to have a significantly smaller payload than the B-2, which has a significantly smaller payload than the B-1. So, it's pretty reasonable to expect a better than 1:1 number of airframes to be desired. Plus with ~100 B-21 replacing ~80 B-1/B-2 there will still be a savings in aircrew personnel required to man an increased number of aircraft.

Agreed, the B-21 carries only half the payload of a B-2.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1410829324249411588

The Raider's curvature profile within the fuselage, often referred to as the chine, appears sleeker than the B-2, potentially reducing the aircraft's radar cross-section. The latest updated rendering follows 3 released in 2020.

In its latest factsheet, the Air Force put the average B-21 cost at US$639 million -- or US$673 million today due to inflation. Richard Aboulafia, vice president and analyst at the Teal Group, said that those numbers are only one part of the total purchase price and do not include supporting equipment, among other items.

 

[ngatimozart]

Agreed, the B-21 carries only half the payload of a B-2.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1410829324249411588

The Raider's curvature profile within the fuselage, often referred to as the chine, appears sleeker than the B-2, potentially reducing the aircraft's radar cross-section. The latest updated rendering follows 3 released in 2020.

In its latest factsheet, the Air Force put the average B-21 cost at US$639 million -- or US$673 million today due to inflation. Richard Aboulafia, vice president and analyst at the Teal Group, said that those numbers are only one part of the total purchase price and do not include supporting equipment, among other items.

You can buy a frigate for that amount of money. Or a helluva lot of Ferraris. So basically it's around US$1 billion per aircraft, give or take, when you include all the other costs.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

You can buy a frigate for that amount of money. Or a helluva lot of Ferraris. So basically it's around US$1 billion per aircraft, give or take, when you include all the other costs.

So basically for more money you get less aircraft...


Something else.

How two F-16s from the US Air Force’s ‘boneyard’ will find a second life as digital models

From a collection of dismantled F-16s parts, the Air Force hopes to build a "digital twin" of the jet.

www.defensenews.com

They do not tell from which block these 2 F-16s will be, but i expect it will be one single seat and one twin seat.

 

[ngatimozart]

So basically for more money you get less aircraft...


Something else.

How two F-16s from the US Air Force’s ‘boneyard’ will find a second life as digital models

From a collection of dismantled F-16s parts, the Air Force hopes to build a "digital twin" of the jet.

www.defensenews.com

They do not tell from which block these 2 F-16s will be, but i expect it will be one single seat and one twin seat.

I do like the digital twinning concept because it saves money and time. Hopefully Boeing did it with the F-15EX. Doing it with the F-16 makes a lot of sense. I would hazard a guess that the aircraft are a C and D variant possibility around the Block 30 or Block 50 mark. The USAF has long retired its A and B variants.

 

[ngatimozart]

The USAF AFRL has been working on a a project to counter drone swarms and has developed THOR which sends out an electronic pulse that fries the complete drone swarm electronics. It is working on a smaller version called MJOLNIR which is more mobile than THOR.

A new Air Force weapon will wipe out drone swarms with the push of a button

The Air Force's 'Mjolnir' directed energy weapon knocks out drone swarms with a high-powered microwave beam that zaps the targeted electronics.

taskandpurpose.com

 

[ngatimozart]

The USAF has used a new IRST pod on a F-15 to shoot down a QF-16 with an AIM-120 at long range.

F-15 Uses New Infrared Pod To Shoot Down Target F-16 With AIM-120 Missile

The F-15's new Infrared Search and Track pod has just proved its ability to provide targeting data needed to make a long-range missile kill.

www.thedrive.com

 

[south]

Syria, Airpower, and the Future of Great-Power War - War on the Rocks

During the war in Syria, the U.S. Air Force participated in operations it rarely trained for. Russian fighter aircraft regularly flew sorties across the

warontherocks.com

An article explaining some of the complexity of operations over Iraq and Syria around the 2017/201& period, and how the fight was not just with IS, but was a great power conflict below the threshold of war.

While it is USAF centric, it should be viewed as the western Air Forces, rather than just USAF.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

As USAF related posting this here from the General Aviation thread

Essentially USTRANSCOM has issued a warning order to members of the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) for possible activation.
Most likely to transship evacuees from locations outside of Afghanistan. While military airlift would continue to do the evacuations from Kabul.

Defense Secretary Orders US Airlines to Help With Evacuation

It's only the third time in history that the U.S. airlines have been mobilized by the military.

www.defenseone.com

 

[FormerDirtDart]

Air Force Wants to Move Fast on Boat Plane for Special Operators

The Air Force is moving forward with an amphibious, pontoon-equipped version of the MC-130J Commando II.

www.military.com

AFSOC hopes to have a flying prototype within 17 months. Current plan appears to envision removable pontoons. The aggressive development plans is relying on using digital design, virtual reality modeling and computer-aided designs

AFSOC has been working with the Air Force Research Laboratory's Strategic Development Planning and Experimentation directorate, as well as defense contractors, on the amphibious modifications.

The prototypes for the modified plane are being tested virtually on the Digital Proving Ground, using digital design, virtual reality modeling and computer-aided designs, AFSOC said. The hope is this will allow the project to use digital simulation, testing and advanced manufacturing to quickly create and test physical prototypes.

"Being able to experiment with existing technology to evaluate design tradeoffs and test a new system before ever bending metal is a game-changer," said Maj. Kristen Cepak, AFSOC's technology transition branch chief, in the press release.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

Air Force Wants to Move Fast on Boat Plane for Special Operators

The Air Force is moving forward with an amphibious, pontoon-equipped version of the MC-130J Commando II.

www.military.com

AFSOC hopes to have a flying prototype within 17 months. Current plan appears to envision removable pontoons. The aggressive development plans is relying on using digital design, virtual reality modeling and computer-aided designs

919th Special Operations Wing has posted an article which essentially covers information already being reported on. But, they've included a series of concept/design images

Teaching the Commando new tricks

The C-130J is an incredibly versatile aircraft, and since it’s creation, it’s landed on rough fields, in arctic locations and even an aircraft carrier Yet, it cannot land on water, which covers about

www.919sow.afrc.af.mil

Just a touch to wet your whistle. If you want to see more you're gonna need to give the USAF their page veiws too.
LOL

 

[Ananda]

Lockheed Is Bringing Back The Airbus A330 Tanker To Compete Against Boeing

The Air Force wants to buy dozens of new tankers to fill a gap between the last expected deliveries of KC-46As and a future advanced design.

www.thedrive.com

Seems Lockheed will rebadge A330 MRTT as LMXT, and will compete again with Boeing KC-46. I know this is for next stage on USAF tanker batch, but it could be not a good sign for Boeing on USAF confidence with KC-46

 

[FormerDirtDart]

Lockheed Is Bringing Back The Airbus A330 Tanker To Compete Against Boeing

The Air Force wants to buy dozens of new tankers to fill a gap between the last expected deliveries of KC-46As and a future advanced design.

www.thedrive.com

Seems Lockheed will rebadge A330 MRTT as LMXT, and will compete again with Boeing KC-46. I know this is for next stage on USAF tanker batch, but it could be not a good sign for Boeing on USAF confidence with KC-46

It has nothing to do with the USAF confidence in Boeing and the KC-46, it's regulatory. This is a different program, replacing different aircraft, as it involves the KC-10 not just the KC-135. It is required to be an open competition by statute.
My feeling is Lockheed and Airbus are probably going to need to make some changes to the LMXT design. Sure it matches the the 6 pallets capability of the KC-135s it will replace, but not the 25 carried by the KC-10. Not to mention that the USAF aeromedical evacuation equipment is heavily dependent on palletized systems. I would be seriously surprised if the USAF is going to be willing to loose the main deck pallet cargo capability.
I'm a bit embarrassed to say I wasn't aware the MRTT didn't have a main deck cargo door until yesterday

 

[John Fedup]

One question aside from the Boeing’s lack lustre performance on the KC-46, does the USAF want a larger aircraft for Pacific operations? Seems to me that is desirable so what does Boeing offer? The 747-8F, awesome as it is, probably not, the 777, feasible, or a 787 not sure about its composite content and whether that would be an issue. Trying to keep one of the most capable commercial cargo aircraft of all time (747) production line active seems to be a good idea, especially if a tanker application is doable.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

One question aside from the Boeing’s lack lustre performance on the KC-46, does the USAF want a larger aircraft for Pacific operations? Seems to me that is desirable so what does Boeing offer? The 747-8F, awesome as it is, probably not, the 777, feasible, or a 787 not sure about its composite content and whether that would be an issue. Trying to keep one of the most capable commercial cargo aircraft of all time (747) production line active seems to be a good idea, especially if a tanker application is doable.

I think the 747-8F is simply just to much plane for the mission. Plus, those four engines aren't really an attractive option, operational cost wise. Boeing did look at a 777 tanker in the mid "00"s, but determined it wasn't the best direction for KC-X, more fitting for the eventual KC-Z program (at the time the KC-10 replacement).
Well, here we are
Personally, the A330/MRTT/LMXT is probably a suitable option. They make A330 freighters, so it's not like it will require years of development to include a freakin' main deck cargo door

 

[Terran]

Not to mention that 747 8F’s production days are numbered. those in service are likely to be kept as freighters for the airlines who need oversized cargo or VVIP. Boeing To End 747 Jumbo Jet Production After More Than 50 Years: Report
747s as a cargo aircraft have been looked at by the USAF however the role overlaps into the heavier class of C17 to C5 with concepts like the C19, C33. As a tanker and freighters for the USAF the twin engines are to thirsty for the needs as a tanker. For Military oversized cargo it’s to high off the deck to roll on cargo.

 

[Ananda]

Lockheed Video on LMXT, put slogan "Build in America by American". Seems Lockheed will doing significant rebuild and customisation to qualified for that. Either way, Airbus already learned from previous Tankers bid.

 

[John Fedup]

I think the 747-8F is simply just to much plane for the mission. Plus, those four engines aren't really an attractive option, operational cost wise. Boeing did look at a 777 tanker in the mid "00"s, but determined it wasn't the best direction for KC-X, more fitting for the eventual KC-Z program (at the time the KC-10 replacement).
Well, here we are
Personally, the A330/MRTT/LMXT is probably a suitable option. They make A330 freighters, so it's not like it will require years of development to include a freakin' main deck cargo door

I agree, a MRTT/LMXT is a contender. WRT Boeing, I can’t see any advantage for them to offer 767 again which is why perhaps their bigger models should be considered for the extra cargo capability/fuel load. I suspect a large cargo door in the composite 787 wouldn’t be desirable.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

I agree, a MRTT/LMXT is a contender. WRT Boeing, I can’t see any advantage for them to offer 767 again which is why perhaps their bigger models should be considered for the extra cargo capability/fuel load. I suspect a large cargo door in the composite 787 wouldn’t be desirable.

John, I'm relatively sure that putting a cargo door on a 787 is not a technological leap that Boeing can not overcome.
The lower deck ones aren't exactly small

 

[FormerDirtDart]

So, I stumbled onto an old Seattle Times image early this morning, comparing potential tankers back during the original KC-X cycle (c. 2009?)
Note that the EADS/NG KC-30 is NOT the RAAF KC-30. The pallet capacity listed certainly suggests a main deck cargo door. Also of note, the current passenger 777X class planes currently carry as much fuel as the then proposed KC-777 tanker.

 

[Terran]

One of the things I think people forget when complaining about the KC46 is it’s not a KC767. It’s derivative of it but the design changed to meet USAF requirements which mandated a dramatically different aircraft. The same holds for the KC 30. Would have held had EADs gotten the contract. Conflating the two is a problem point as it oversimplifies the issues and isn’t fair to either the bidder or the USAF. I am not giving either a unsoiled reputation either there have been and are issues with the programs. Yet to say buying A330MRTT would have solved the problems before they happened is a falsehood.
Personal opinion I think the USAF should give a good long look at either the 777X or LMXT for a few jobs. Not just tanker but the E4 fleet is aging out as are some of the larger secondary VIP birds.