Forum: General F-35 Forum

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?

Troll much?

GEO I think that you may have answered your own question here.

Both the upgraded B-1BR and the upgraded B-52H won't transform into hugely better aircraft with those costly changes. They may do what they do right now somewhat more efficiently but their basic capabilities won't be transformed. The B-52 won't become supersonic or stealthy, it will still be ugly and do it's job. The B-1B may be able to cruise supersonic longer than the current sprint capability but it still won't be able to do that for very long so it will largely be the same aircraft it is now. If you talk to B-1 maintenance crews, it isn't the engines that have them working overtime to maintain ready rates, it is old ECM systems and mazes of 80s era wiring, swing wing glove stuff etc. Both these cold war machines are still going to need large wing staff to support them.

But the improved stand-off weapons development has a lot of pluses.
You don't need to make ANY significant improvements to these two aircraft to accept those new weapons. And those new weapons can be used on the NGB if it ever appears. I don't see a huge downside to pushing forward on the new stand-off weapons and kicking the bomber upgrade 'can' down the road.

Eagles may soar, but a weasle never gets sucked into a Pratt & Whitney.

Please stay on topic and stop the actting like a 17 year old on facebook.

One or what two extra stops at the tanker on a round the world flights not bad.

I got a $20 on the next bomber running two F135 based engines.

You might lose - probably going to be whatever makes it out of the AATE program, which might be a derivative of the F135 - or something GE comes up with...

Isn't AATE an Army program? You know... for helicopters?

[edit] Perhaps you meant AETD, which replaced ADVENT after P&W was substituted for RR. http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... ml&p=1

I say poppy-cock! I don't know about Russia/China the US has the ability to track bombers from space. A while ago there was an effort, akin to GPS, to place radar equipped satellites in space around the globe - but was cancelled by politics. What nation wants somone in "Florida" to know in real time what flying over occupied Tibet? Higher flying objects are easier to detect, plain and simple, I used to work with CCD imagining hardware back in the 1990s, and it was amazing even then.. Now CCDs are better, electronics have lower noise levels, and SOFTWARE algorithms (along with OOP and better multithreading and multicore) For forward 20 years, and unless the bomber;s skin temperature is that of the surround atmosphere (+ a few degrees), it CAN be seen. Stealthy aircraft like the Raptor and Lightining II make use of the fog of war in batter.... A lone bomber with a few decoys /and over 50k feet is en entirely different matter.

Those sholder fired missiles are golden bb's. Fly a straight in and stright out mission is nutso (per Fonzie). This aircraft is going to fly in at night, and there those types of shourlde fired weapons are 1/100000 likely of taking down a poperly planned mission. We're not going to fly straight over Hinh Koing at 600 ft weaving through the skyline. Most of the world is sparsely poplulated and there ain't going to be someone with a should fired missile spead out over over every 4 square miles of terrain. That's nutso. And the bomber will have countermeasures (not just flares) to deal with those exceedingly rare and very brief glimpses of the aircraft. Ordinary night field vision goggles are useless to a guy with a shoulder fired SAM...... One last point, our ALCMS are all low flying... ie flying low mission profiles, which some seem the think is the riskiest mission profile of them all for a fast move LO aircraft. Damn, our cruise missles are all going to get taken down by AAA, ak-47s, and shoulder fired missiles.... Damn, all of the low flying anti-ship missiles are missing the point as well. Ok, let's go back to 1959.
....Until we have a "bomber" that has something like low orbital flight abilities, high altitude flight is like walking into Giants stadium butt naked. Again, fighters are a different story because its a battlefield environment, and not a lone bomber flying deep into bad guy airspace.

Just in time to provide the "answer" to the Pak-Da which is now slated to rollout in 2020.

But what are the Russians going to do about the Pak Da? There isn't any time for them to copy the design? They're going to be left with copying a 30 year old B-2 design!

are you applying that the Russian's can't come up with their own design?

Not one nearly as LO as the B-2.