"Next generation Air bomber." Topic

"That new bomber, the Air Force says, should cost $550 USD million per plane. It'll be stealthy, capable of carrying nuclear weapons, and half robot — that is, it'll only be "optionally manned" by a human pilot. Creating it as a replacement for the ancient B-1 and B-2 bombers is one of the Air Force's top priorities over the next decade.
But if the "Long Range Strike Aircraft" costs more than that $550 USD million estimate, "We don't get a program," lamented Gen. Norton Schwartz.

But Schwartz didn't actually explain how the Air Force would keep the costs of the next-next-generation bomber. The capabilities the service wants it to possess are considerable: jamming enemy radars, shooting off lasers to burn incoming missiles, and controlling a fleet of drones. Oh, and bombing stuff.

"Do you think that the Chinese have established one of the world's best air defense environments, in their eastern provinces, just to invest their national treasure? Or for that matter, that the Iranians have established integrated air defenses in their country?" Schwartz said, when Danger Room asked why the Air Force even needs a new bomber. "I would say they're not doing this, you know, for the fun of it. They're doing this because they have a sense of vulnerability. And I ask you, what is it that conveys this sense of vulnerability to others? One of those things is long-range strike. And that is an asset that the United States of America should not concede."

I was sure that this was the future Air Bomber.

Article from
link

Do you think that USA consider a future conflict with China?

Amicalement
Armand

It's the job of military planners to consider such possibilities. I would hope it was the job of political planners to avoid them, but I'm not that much of an idealist. ;)

Interesting article. Now way that bomber will be at/under $550 USDM though.

Agreed.

It seems to me we need to consider building some low-cost, economical aircraft, instead of these jets they are constructing now, which are superb, but virtually unaffordable.

Sadly, the military procurement folks, top brass, and bureaucrats never seem to learn from previous cost overruns on projects, and exponentially escalating costs.

We need something like the A-10 Warthog, in a bomber variant, e.g. good enough, rugged, durable, low cost so you can build lots of them, and can carry a large payload over long distances.

The west dose not do battle with anyone capable of serious defence so why the ultra hi tech

Uhhh… North Vietnam had the 3rd most advanced and intensive air defense environment in the world when the US was there. Russia and the US being numbers 1 and 2, respectively.

Iraq had a significant AA capability that the US cheated to deal with (F117s).

Iran has a serious ground-based capability, not sure about their actual air force.

And China probably has the toughest air defenses in the entire world right now.

It's the job of military planners to consider such possibilities. I would hope it was the job of political planners to avoid them, but I'm not that much of an idealist. ;)

Well, we *want* it to be job of political planners to avoid wars as much as possible.

Be interesting to see if we spent those billions on giving the grunt better capabilities ( armoured suits ?) would we be better off. It has more applications, and only bombing doesn't win the fight until boots are on the ground anyways.

I just want to wear a cool suit before I retire, like you see in the warfighter of the future tech shows.

For deep strike needs, I'm still not sure why we don't go with cruise missiles. Stealth 'em up, send 'em in. Need on the spot assessment? Rig some of them as recon drones.

Hmm. China has larger agricultural and food production issues than fighting wars (which generally break food production and distribution capabilities). The Gobi expansion rates are chewing up land at serious rates now.

At the rate of imports of food, China is on a head-long rush into seriously troubled waters. If they enter the US gran market, which is inevitable considering their consumption rates rise, look for US grain prices to skyrocket (1.3 billion more people want some wheaties…). The US Market for China would be a nightmare, but they already know there is no other market they haven't tapped and they know the US agricultural products command already ridiculously high prices owing to its quality level compared to everyone else. Considering US retreats from grain production and slumping agricultural supports, one wonders if the US economy wouldn't be thrown into a tailspin right off if China appeared in a big way and started buying up everything in sight. Suddenly, your flour costs more than your gasoline, unless some forward thinker in the US government interior figures he better start growing more at just the right time to offset the need. Right now, China is at the absolute limits of its land and must import millions of tons of rice from Thailand, et al. just to function. Stop that for one day and the entire system crashes.

India is in the same boat but on a different river. If their people starve, they probably wouldn't know the difference. India has a hard enough time running a census much less figuring out how to feed its own people.

Whether these aspects by themselves spark a war is unlikely. Basically, China and India are houses of cards that can't sustain a war that comes within a hair's breadth of threatening their food.

Of course, that doesn't stop people from wanting shiny new aircraft…. Still critical mass is getting nearer everyday.

Silly to have the thing made to carry a human pilot. You will save billions by not having to build life support into the vehicle. Plus we have long range delivery systems now that can do the job as well or better. I agree with Doc put the money into development of better ground and I would add naval capacity. The day and need for manned air craft for combat is drawing to a close.

500 million for each aircraft? Insane.

@ Lion… I guess your right but Nato & the west seem to choose their oppolents not many of whom can not defend themselves against overwhelming odds being `small countries`

"500 million for each aircraft? Insane".

What's a few hundred million $, or half a billion $, give or take?

I guess when you owe the world 14 trillion you are right :)

Hammer, no sane nation fights a war for the challenge and honour. You fight a war to achieve a goal, goals are easier to achieve if your enemy is weaker than you.

But part of the job of defence systems is to cover the event that someone starts a war with you. Then your goal may be survival and second best doesn't work.

nv I agree, saturation with cruise missiles and MIRV ICBMs would seem to leave the mega bomber to be a system looking for a job to do.

The problem with using ICBMs with conventional payloads is that everyone knows that you don't use ICBMs except with nuclear payloads. Historically speaking, the accuracy just isn't good enough for anything else.

And lots of countries get *really* nervous when you have a scheduled, publicly announced test launch. Can you imagine the pucker-factor if the Russians launched a ballistic missile at Chechnya?

Manned (or for that matter unmanned) bombers give you an option to NOT drop, all the way until you've made it to the drop-point. You know, maybe a minute or two before BOOM. Cruise missiles or ICBMs are playing 'no take-backs', they cannot be recalled or diverted without destroying something, and you need to decide to use them at least 30 minutes prior to BOOM.

The B52 is getting oooooold, should be reaching the fatigue limit of the airframes soon (I'd bet there are B52 pilots that are flying the same plane their grandfathers did). The B1 is newer, but is probably approaching the fatigue limits faster (it takes more stress-loads due to the mission profile).

So, unless you want airplanes falling out of the sky because they're too old, you need new airplanes.

I'd suggest a replacement for the B1 mission, personally, but with the B52's external stores capability. Yup, replacing two birds with one.

I`m stunned to hear the `52 is still chugging around the skies i think the last FY models were 61.
Grizzlmc some good points, a single raid sorted Osama bin Laden, no need for bombers.I very much like the F-117 & B-2 why not buy more of them?
We in the west seem to choose who we fight Libia ,send `em in Syria no.And a couple of conflicts that are costing us dear in soldiers. By your spelling your UK? There are more pressing domestic issues than new bombers. And if the people in charge did know what they were doing, they sold our a/c carriers & scrapped the Harrier fleet. HH

I agree with Hammerhead, what is wrong with the B2?

Maybe I wasn't being very clear, I was talking about nuke delivery. What is the real need for launching such massive conventional payloads? Modern fighters carry enough to ruin most people's day.

My feelings on western involvement in Libya could be found by searching for the country name, but Syria has the potential to escalate. Getting into a row with the Russians would be unfortunate and giving the Iranians a red herring would not be timely.

This thing looks to me like an Iowa replacement. Very expensive and I cannot see what it would do that can't be done with other platforms.

Hammer, I thought they sold the Harriers and scrapped the carriers. Either way, this seems to make less sense thatn canning the old Ark Royal in the '70s. From the amount of money they are spending on QE and POW they obviously recognise a need for carriers, but just not for 10 years.

I very much like the F-117 & B-2 why not buy more of them?

The last F117 was built in 1979 or 1980, IIRC. They're not really new airframes, and they're incredibly maintenance-intensive. I'd bet that the tooling needed to make them doesn't exist anymore, either.

B2s are obscenely expensive, $2,100,000,000 USD each. That's literally on par with things like naval vessels other than carriers. If you don't include the development costs, they're *still* $929 USDm per aircraft, or 3 frigates/corvettes.

The USAF desperately needs an aircraft that can do missions like the B1 (tooling also destroyed), but with less maintenance required per flight hour.

Hah – so 0.5bn is actually a bargain! A billion here a billion there, soon you are talking real money.

Are these mega loads really nec, could the job be done by something like a Hustler or a Mirage IV or an F111? And could we keep the boondoggle factor under control so that it wasnt an F35 on steroids?

Are these mega loads really nec, could the job be done by something like a Hustler or a Mirage IV or an F111?

Well, a nuclear payload is heavy. The B2 can carry 16 weapons, and the FB111 carried a maximum of 6. But the biggest reason for large aircraft is range. It takes a large bird to fly 10000km or further while carrying some multiple of 24,000lbs of ordnance.

But let's say that we go with 30,000lbs payload (ie, one rotary launcher or 40x500lb bombs plus the rack assembly) 6000 miles (without inflight refueling). That's twice the range of an F111, 4x that of a Hustler. That's also half the payload of a B2 or B52 and a third the payload of a B1 not counting external stores (one-fifth the payload of a B1 if you do count external stores). That also only allows for one MOP super-bunker-buster per bird.

So, you'd need 300 of these new aircraft to cover the same number of objectives as the current B1 fleet, plus another 600 or so to replace the B52 fleet. And the USAF only wants 100 of these, so now they're looking at losing another 200 flight crew slots (assuming a crew of 2 for the manned versions), minimum. Since the bombers are optionally-manned, I'd expect to see 'flights' of 1 manned bird and 2 or 3 unmanned birds, which gives you a needed crewing of 50-75 for the entire program.

I think the USAF would be better served with at least 300 (to replace the B1 fleet), and another ~600 to replace the B52 fleet. Those high numbers are for equal payloads.

And could we keep the boondoggle factor under control so that it wasn't an F35 on steroids?

There is no way in hell that we'll be able to avoid that, unless people stop messing with the design late in the program. As long as we're dreaming, what else would you like? Your own personal castle? [/sarcasm]

Though to be fair, the F35B issues have helped the -35A and -35C versions, by lowering overall weight in shared structures.