Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

They've had proposals and suggestions for bombers by various names like next-generation, interim, 2037, 2018, plus at least one reference seeming to abandon bombers completely in favor of a "long-range strike" system (including multiple types of aircraft but still sounding like it would need at least a smallish bomber, because the other planes in the mix, long-ranged though they might be for fighters, are not long-ranged at all in bomber context). Specific aircraft suggested to fill in these conflicting roles have covered a pretty wide range in size & capacity, speed, and stealth.

And what they all have in common is having been considered for a while and then dropped, leaving us with still no definite plan and an indecisive-looking track record. With a big part of the problem being budget limits, the question is not what bomber you think we should have or what you would want us to have, but what will be found affordable enough to actually get.

I think development & testing costs (plus public perception of such big weapon platforms as Cold War relics) will make any new bomber design entirely out of the question for decades to come. That means we won't have anything to replace the current ones unless we produce physically new planes from an "old" design that's already been through development and testing. (Has that ever happened before?) I haven't heard it proposed, but it's the option that costs the least money other than just letting us eventually end up without any bombers at all.

And looking at it that way, the choice of which plane to restart production of seems simple. A couple of new designs that have been proposed look a lot like B-2 anyway, establishing that that basic plan is deemed at least acceptable (possibly ideal according to some) and that, for example, the much greater payload and speed of a B-1 are not deemed crucial. A new round of B-2 production would also be an easy time to make the new ones with a more durable RAM skin from F-22/F-35, thus eliminating the only technical and cost-of-use problem that gets raised about the original B-2, again without having to invent something new.

So what would you expect is the most likely solution to actually happen?

F-16.net Sponsor

The manned bombers will go away. We'll threaten to arm all of our allies with JDAM(N) carrying JSFs until the Russians agree to curbs on tac nukes and the UCAVs will just grow and grow until they can carry the 20 ton bombs.

I doubt we'll see a manned anything after the F-35.

What disturbes me from the public disclosures of the next bomber discussions is that there doesn't even seem to be agreement on what the mission of the bomber should be. Nukes? Mixed recce? Fleet-in-being threat? Tactical versitility? This wandering scope seems to suggest a missing center of gravity for designers to build to.

Actually a lot of analysis indicates we need more long range aircraft and fewer shorter range fighters. The prospects for a new bomber under the newly articulated strategy are increased and it will be manned. After the F-35 the next US manned fighter is the NGAD (was F/A-XX) to eventually replace the F/A-18E/F. This is a twin engine two crew fighter optimized for air superiority that as far as can determined is still scheduled for technology demonstration phase next year. The F-22 follow will share some systems with NGAD and this fighter will also be manned.

lb wrote:

Actually a lot of analysis indicates we need more long range aircraft and fewer shorter range fighters. The prospects for a new bomber under the newly articulated strategy are increased and it will be manned. After the F-35 the next US manned fighter is the NGAD (was F/A-XX) to eventually replace the F/A-18E/F. This is a twin engine two crew fighter optimized for air superiority that as far as can determined is still scheduled for technology demonstration phase next year. The F-22 follow will share some systems with NGAD and this fighter will also be manned.

IIRC, this thing is going to be in the 60,000lb class. This is a pretty big airframe, and probably will have good range. It's obviously no heavy. but it's better than a Hornet.

As for bombers, I wouldn't be surprised to see a KC-46 or P-8 derivative armed with cruise missiles. When you get down to it, a B-52 has a lot of similarities to common airliners. Imagine a 767/777 airframe with uprated engines and strengthened wings for external hardpoints as well as internal bays. It would be a standoff missile carrier with a possible secondary ELINT/EW/support mission.

The 777 already has the most powerful engines in production, the GE90-115B rated at 115,000lb each. And a 747 cruise missile carrier was considered decades ago.

The USAF has "an arsenal ship of the skies" in the B-52 already. The question is how to penetrate combined air defenses. This means tangling with both ground and air systems.

So either provide fighter escort all the war to Moscow, or use one-way missiles. Otherwise the bomber will not get through.

Silly rabbit, the standoff missiles are your fighter escort.

madrat wrote:

Silly rabbit, the standoff missiles are your fighter escort.

Exactly. The logic he was using was that of the WWII strategic bombing campaigns. To hit Russia, I'd personally come over the Pole out of Minot or Elmendorf, then launch AGM-86s or what have you over the Arctic. Of course, this is really our least-likely target. We'd probably be hitting China or Iran from Diego Garcia, where a feet-wet ALCM launch would be ideal. It would also reduce the time/distance flown, enabling slightly higher sortie-generation rates.

I also fail to see why a B-52 couldn't be set up with an AESA pod/fairing and a few -120Ds or JDRADMs to be self-escorting if an airspace-penetration mission profile was necessitated for whatever reason.

southernphantom wrote:

I also fail to see why a B-52 couldn't be set up with an AESA pod/fairing and a few -120Ds or JDRADMs to be self-escorting if an airspace-penetration mission profile was necessitated for whatever reason.

Because WWII proved that you need fighter escourt, no matter how well armed bombers are?

Arming a bomber with medium range missiles simply means that the fighters it is up against can launch from further out than it can.

If the bomber returns fire at the same extreme range then all the missiles will have burned out and be in their final glide approach. The fighters can pull 9 G turns to evade and the bomber can not. So this is a useless capability to tack onto any of America's bomber platforms.

The answer is to send our fighters out to engage their fighters before they get within missile range of our bombers.

The FB-22 was about the limit for how big you could make a strike fighter that retained sufficient agility for A2A combat. But fortunately the USAF has declared that dogfighting is once again dead for good so they don't need that capability.

For several years, any wargame involving China usually shows that the B-2 is one of the few aircraft that remains useful after the first few days. Carriers and airbases are just too vulnerable to missile attack. Yet for some reason, bringing up a new bomber is like making the "brown noise"; everyone in Congress and the media just $hits themselves.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/6efd2f ... m-thaffner

Well, when Northrop was given a blank check by the Pentagon and told "build the ultimate bomber" they did.

If you're in hot war then you're clearing the bases all the way in. Doesn't matter if they launch fighters the GCI will be in tatters by the time they are within range.

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

What will USAF really end up doing about bombers?