Forum: General F-35 Forum

The question of penetrating at high or low altitude isn't as easy to answer as it seems. What needs to be taken into account is whether an adversary can develop the real-time aquisition, tracking and targeting system that has the resolution that is required to provide weapon guidance? Adjustments like flying in at medium altitude leaving enough water vapor above you to limit your IR signature to a few bands, providing high fidelity decoys and the use of tactics to roll back and suppress defenses must be taken into account. A determined foe would need to place the satelites in geosynchronous orbit for their surviability and to reduce the system cost. We have already demonstrated that a SM-2 fired from an Aegis ship can take down a LEO satelite.

F-16.net Sponsor

sewerrat wrote:

hb_pencil wrote:

arkadyrenko wrote:

Has anyone else seen the Northrop design for a 'kite' stealth bomber? That's probably the way the LRS-B is going to go, as many people here have already mentioned.

I think the most worrying statement from the story is "speed" included as one of the bombers characteristics. I don't know how they're going to get 'ultra-stealth' and speed at the same time.

If they do go for speed, then its going to have to be a 'low-ish' altitude penatrator, just because it won't have the broadband stealth of the LRS-B. Why low altitude? Because this plane, theoretically, is going to have to do deep strike into China and as such won't have the ability to run and hide like the F-22.

I think you need to reconsider the idea of "low altitude penetration." The AF abandoned that idea in the 1980s because the predicted survival rates of aircraft on low altitude mission was extremely low. That was validated by the experience of Tornado pilots in the Gulf War. If anything the odds are now far far worse against aircraft as MANPADS and low altitude SAMs are ubiquitous. Low altitude also takes more power and increases friction on an aircraft, making them easier targets to hit.

Supersonic dash at medium to high altitude is much more preferable.

In counter point, the USAF abondoned the idea of high altitude bombers in the 1960s/70s. Our Buffs suffered huge losses to Vietnam of all countries. Tornados aren't stealthy in the last iota (spell?).

Actually I do not believe that was the lesson at all. B-52 loss rates during Linebacker depended heavily the successful application of tactics and technology. In the first 3 or 4 days they lost something like 10 aircraft; after they altered their tactics, they lost four in the next three weeks. (see Lon Nordeen Pg 51) Tighter formations, better chaff coverage and effective use of ECM were key factors. Based on this experience you had the AF Chief of Staff General Jones stating that the predictions from the 1960s that bombers could not penetrate at high altitude and high speeds were wrong. By comparison the Airforce became less enamoured with low level penetration as the 1970s wore on. This was partly due to the mauling aircraft like the F-105 received over Vietnam and fears of new Soviet low level AD systems (SA-6 being the first) which were used to fearsome effect during Yom Kippur.

Certainly both the B-1A and B-1B were intended to be low level penetrators, but this was not seen to be particularly safe strategy. The AF thought that their usable life as a deep penetration bomber would end sometime in the 1990s. B-1B was seen as a second best alternative to the Advanced Technology Bomber, which became the B-2 that could just avoid radars altogether. Thus the B-1B was initially designed to carry a dozen ALCMs externally, in order to operate as a stand-off bomber when the B-52 retired and the B-1 survivability was called into question. There was a HUGE difference between ALCMs's survivability over that of B-1; they both fly at roughly the same speed low level, but one is a massive bomber with four large Jet engines, the other is a flying torpedo with one engine. And even if you lose 1/2 of the ALCMs, there is plenty of redundancy remaining to carry out the strike. Lose 1/2 of your bomber fleet and your capabilities have been crippled.

An ALCM is an expendable vehicle. I'm not opposed to the idea of NOE cruise missiles at all. They are necessary. However, a bomber is something that you'd like to preserve as long as possible and low altitude sorties have simply been proven to not be kind to the airframe structure for reasons I and people like hb_pencil have stated.

LEO bombers are a bad idea. It is far too easy to track something like a space shuttle and with a predictable and easily modeled circular orbital trajectory an orbital bomber would be a sitting duck to something akin to an SM-3. To make any maneuvers in a realm sans atmosphere would require time consuming and laborious plane changes and orbital transfers (which use huge amounts of fuel) and stability and attitude control would necessitate for a reactionary control system which would fill up otherwise useful space (and take up weight) with hydrogen peroxide.

That and in order to make this LEO bomber a true Trans-atmospheric vehicle it will still need aerodynamic control surfaces and with high drag and subsequently inefficient blunt leading edged wings (needed to negate heat transfer issues) you can forget about a TAV bomber.

How about the B-1? Boeing suggested a B-1R version which re-engined the B-1Bs with the F-119s. At the same, retired B-1s (33 retired in 2001) can be brought back thru the re-engining program which could allow the B-52s to retire?The B-1 was afterall intended as a B-52 replacement.

Per below the B-1 with the MER in the internal bomb bay actually quadruples the bomb load of the B-52?!
http://www.acc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123249991

If I understand the nuke arms treaty enforcement rules correctly, there are rules that you have to follow if your planning to have an aircraft with mixed capabilities (some nuke capable and some not).
You're suggesting that we make some portion of the B-1 fleet nuke capable again (none currently are nuke capable) so that they can take over part of the leg of the Triad that the B-52 is holding up?
I believe that if you did that then ALL B-1s would count against the US delivery vehicle max capacity, even those without nuke capability.
The reason for this has to do with enforcement rules, you can't claim that only a portion of the fleet is nuke capable but have your treaty signatory members/opponents unable to remotely (satellite) verify where those are stationed and in what operational state those delivery vehicles are in (alert pad, maintenance, etc).
This can be accomplished but you would need to make some modification to not only the engines, but also to the airframe that you can see from above. This was accomplished in the 80s for B-52s by the addition of wing root materials for ALCM capable aircraft.

I don't see the US abandoning the strategic triad so I expect any new bomber to be built with a provision to carry out the nuke mission. I believe a big portion of the accruing costs would have to do with hardening the aircraft systems and installing the necessary mechanisms and safeguards required by nukes.

Interesting reading. Just what it will be required to do is the big question. It could be anything? I don't see it needing to deliver Nuclear Weapons except from a long range. The USA has many other ways of delivering the now greatly reduced numbers allowed under the last treaty. For a first strike at strategically important installations Cruise Missiles and cheaper stealth UAV's have to be a better option than sending in a half billion dollar aircraft.
Will the USA keep something like the B52's or replace them with a simple large bomber to deliver large payloads of conventional bombs is the other question.
To me something like the proposed F22 derived Bomber would be ideal to penetrate and precisely strike specific targets.
If something like a regional Korean type war came up a heavy bomber may be handy but it would not necessarily need to be a really advanced bomber.
Something to take in at high altitude once you had cleared all the SAM's etc.
I imagine Russia is still trying to think this one out also. Do we need a heavy Bomber like the TU160? with stealth or would a bigger Pak Fa do.
Some of there airforce people obviously want both from what they say. I assume there Treasury will have the biggest say though. If it has no export potential to reduce the cost then they probably will get something less.
I have a feeling the USA will end up the same. Smaller and versatile. A compromise because of dollars with no clear threat at present.
I tend to go with a reasonably stealthy aircraft with good performance high and low and of medium size. An enlarged F22 with good range and using all the better technology developed for the F35.

Whatever it is, it will end up having to perform multiple roles. I presume that costs could be beat down further by using the same airframe and avionics package for other large aircraft concepts, like AWACS, tankers, or transports.
Does anyone have a feel for the utility of a B-2 type troop transport capable of airdrop?

count_to_10 wrote:

Whatever it is, it will end up having to perform multiple roles. I presume that costs could be beat down further by using the same airframe and avionics package for other large aircraft concepts, like AWACS, tankers, or transports.
Does anyone have a feel for the utility of a B-2 type troop transport capable of airdrop?

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/09/images-lockheeds-stealth-c-130.html

rkap wrote:

Interesting reading. Just what it will be required to do is the big question. It could be anything?

Whatever its form, speed, # of crew members, mission profile, it will be a "deep strike penetrator". I HOPE we get more than a 1.5 baker's dozen of units.

sewerrat wrote:

rkap wrote:

Interesting reading. Just what it will be required to do is the big question. It could be anything?

Whatever its form, speed, # of crew members, mission profile, it will be a "deep strike penetrator". I HOPE we get more than a 1.5 baker's dozen of units.

Best way of doing that, I think, is to build a lot of versatile modular frames, and then fill them with expensive things later.

marksengineer wrote:

We have already demonstrated that a SM-2 fired from an Aegis ship can take down a LEO satelite.

Yes, we're (they're) able to shoot down non-maneuvering bright-white and gold plated satelites w/o countermeasures. Seems I recall a number years ago that some rat leaked out LO satelite tech... Probably a Democrat sympathizer, or foreign national.

The french leaked out the LO satellite locations on a few occasions and amateurs used them to hone their spotting skills. Loose lips sink orbitals.

And technically an SM-3 is not just an SM-2 on a booster. But his mistake saying SM-2 might just be a missed key. People got the idea either way.

sewerrat wrote:

marksengineer wrote:

We have already demonstrated that a SM-2 fired from an Aegis ship can take down a LEO satelite.

Yes, we're (they're) able to shoot down non-maneuvering bright-white and gold plated satelites w/o countermeasures. Seems I recall a number years ago that some rat leaked out LO satelite tech... Probably a Democrat sympathizer, or foreign national.

Troll much?

Put me in the camp that would consider splitting up the LRS-B into an equivalent 'mix' of platforms... rather than a single high-risk, all-or-nothing, $500m-per-pop (target price) concept. We're at the stage now arguably, where we simply can't afford any more high-stake recapitalization gambles and should instead focus priority on reliability and prudence.

Thus, perhaps the currently envisioned LRS-B requirement could be broken up into into something like: 1) re-engining around 50x B-52 with more efficient commercial liner engines (4x engines replacing the 8x polluting and inefficient TF33) , along with other avionic/EW/SOJ upgrades + 2) 50x or so B-1B retrofitted to a B-1R type concept (w/ reliable GE-132 engine replacement, not the more expensive and less efficient F119), along with avionic and weapon system upgrades + 3) a slightly larger UCAV model, capable of employing JASSM-ER class ordnance?

The costs would likely be considerably less overall, while reliability and delivery to force structure completed much sooner.

Some of the savings could be re-invested in actual, required next-gen stand-off munition classes likely not being affordable if otherwise sinking extreme sums of investment into a next gen Bomber which may or may not come out the other end, later than required?

Forum: General F-35 Forum

LRS-Bomber to look at proven technologies from the F-22/ 35