"RFP for bomber coming soon, Air Force's top buyer says" Topic

"The request for proposal (RFP) on the Air Force's long range strike-bomber program will be issued soon, perhaps in a matter of days, according to the service's top civil acquisitions official.

"That program is in a competitive phase," William LaPlante, assistant Air Force secretary for acquisition, said during a speech at the Atlantic Council in Washington on Friday. "We're probably days away from releasing the final RFP for that program."

Asked to clarify the timetable for the contract award, LaPlante indicated the award date was set for the first half of 2015…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Hrmmmm…

It will be interesting to see what the specs are. I figure the bare minimum bombload is going to be 50klbs, same as the B2. The B1 can actually haul 75klbs internally, and if we ever decided to break/cancel one of the arms treaties with the Russians the B1 has external pylons for another 50klbs.

I might be surprised, and the USAF goes for a 25klb bombload, but that's only one rotary launcher, 8 nukes or 2000lb bombs. But 25,000lbs capacity is potentially 100 Small Diameter Bombs, or 24 1000lb bombs (triple-ejector racks on the rotary launcher).

I think it would be interesting if Northrup went with a heavily-modified YF23 type, with the forward fuselage enlarged to hold a single rotary launcher. It'd look something like the Strike Flanker, with that big, wide forward fuselage.

I still don't understand the point of this thing.

A subsonic stealth heavy bomber in an era dominated by stand off munitions and where the number of IADS is in terminal decline.

Subsonic because that makes the airframe cheaper and dramatically simplifies the computer programming for the flight control system.

While ground-based national IADS are on a relative decline, ship-based IADS seem to be on the rise, with more and more nations building (or trying to build) aircraft carriers and the required escorts.

Stealth still has a purpose, even if the opponent doesn't have an IADS. Actually, I'm half-way expecting a solution like the F35. A relatively limited internal bombload (possibly as light as 25klbs), but external stores to put a total bombload on par with B1, 125klbs.

This would allow for stealthy ingress for those mission locations requiring it, and serious bomb-trucking if the mission doesn't demand stealth.

Subsonic because that makes the airframe cheaper and dramatically simplifies the computer programming for the flight control system.

Given unspoken purpose of the bomber is penetrating IADS and laying smack down on China and Russia, speed might be a valuable thing.

Basically the longer you spend over a target area, the greater the area of intercept, regardless of stealth.

Especially if new radars and systems fielded by these countries are as good as some US analysts and US Naval staff have indicated.

Indeed at least one senior USMC general has questioned utility of this platform, especially in a conventional fight against a large power.

And USN seems sceptical of stealth in a high density AD environment. They also seem to prefer non-stealthy F/A-18E/F/G to stealthy F-35C which they seem to be trying to avoid (e.g. attempts to have F-35 production delayed and having already slashed F-35 buy from 480 to 360 and stating that might be even lower).

Old saying is don't put all your eggs in one basket and the USAF has certainly put all their eggs in the stealth basket.

While ground-based national IADS are on a relative decline, ship-based IADS seem to be on the rise, with more and more nations building (or trying to build) aircraft carriers and the required escorts

Ship based IADS are a bit restrictive though (they are located on the sea). Bit useless in terms of guarding Moscow or Beijing or Tehran. :P

Other than Chinese carriers, there's no real push for new carriers, especially with potential US enemies.

The Russians talk carriers but don't put their money where their mouth is – since announcing grand plans for carriers in 2005 there's been no movement in this area.

Russians are focused mainly on bringing older ships back to life and new builds focus on submarines and lighter ships ala medium frigates and corvettes. There's been no building of large Airwarfare Destroyers.

Indeed all building of new "carriers" (mainly LHDs some of which are F-35B/AV-8 capable) has been for American allies – Australia (virtually no defensive capability), Japan, South Korea and Turkey.

The new airwarfare destroyers are also mainly entering service with US (Arleigh Burkes) and her allies (Australia, Japan, UK, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, South Korea etc etc).

As stated the Russians talk but haven't committed to anything.

The Chinese are investing in air warfare destroyers with 8 in service, 1 in sea trials and 6 more being built with more planned (Types 051C, 052C, 052D – all with displacement at 7,000 or more tons).

The only other major navy that is attempting to grow (but is being stymied by usual corruption and bureaucratic incompetence) is the Indian one.

They have 1 new carrier in service (ex Soviet Kiev class ship) and have 2 new builds on order. These replace an existing Harrier equipped carrier (old Centaur class INS Viraat).

They also have 3 AESA radar equipped large destroyers on order. None of existing destroyers are of the air defence design.

Most other countries continue to buy small frigates and corvettes with their "teeth" being submarines (usually Kilo or German 209/214 variants).

So I'm not seeing a growth in naval IADS in potential OPFOR navies. As stated the exception is China.

Stealth still has a purpose, even if the opponent doesn't have an IADS.

I don't see how stealth is useful in a Libyan, Afghanistan, Iraq (post invasion) or Mali type situation (most common type of operation performed by US military).

Also external bombloads decrease performance considerably – more drag = more fuel consumption = less range.

I actually think that's one of the big problems of the F-35. It's stealth ordnance load is not that great.

If the US is reorientating towards conventional war against major powers and especially in Asian region, then longer range with larger loads seem more logical than a tactical fighter that seems to be designed for Western Europe circa 1986 or Iraq circa 1991.

Stealth still has a purpose, even if the opponent doesn't have an IADS.

I don't see how stealth is useful in a Libyan, Afghanistan, Iraq (post invasion) or Mali type situation (most common type of operation performed by US military).

Makes it harder to track by aircraft, particularly by aircraft not supported by AWACS, so it makes it 'safer' to send the bird in.

Also external bombloads decrease performance considerably – more drag = more fuel consumption = less range.

While true, there's this wonderful new invention called a conformal fuel tank, which minimizes drag and adds a whole pile of fuel. They can also even hold ordnance internally (see the F15SE's conformal fuel tanks), or hold ordnance externally in a drag-minimizing positions (see the F15E).

I actually think that's one of the big problems of the F-35. It's stealth ordnance load is not that great.

It's two AMRAAMs more than the F117 (the F117 could only carry two weapons, period), and a pair of HARMs lighter than the A12 Avenger's. The F35C can carry 8x Small Diameter Bombs (or 1x 2000lb and 4x SDB), which are generally all you need for most work. Who needs a 2000lb bomb when you can put a 250lber on the dude's desk?

If you want more than 5000lbs internal bombload, you need a dang big airframe. Bigger than an F111, and that's a 100,000lb aircraft!

Makes it harder to track by aircraft, particularly by aircraft not supported by AWACS, so it makes it 'safer' to send the bird in.

Errrr no IADS also means no interceptors.

Mali – no IADS, no SAMs, no fighter planes.

Afghanistan – no IADS, no SAMs and only some ground attack aircraft operational (L-39 and Su-22)

Libya – IADS was largely nonoperational after decades of neglect and sanctions as well as impact of civil war
. Functional fighter fleet was some obsolete MiG-21s and monkey model MiG-23s which stayed on the ground.

Conformal tanks

Yep and internal bomb bay is still preferred.

It's two AMRAAMs more than the F117 (the F117 could only carry two weapons, period), and a pair of HARMs lighter than the A12 Avenger's. The F35C can carry 8x Small Diameter Bombs (or 1x 2000lb and 4x SDB), which are generally all you need for most work. Who needs a 2000lb bomb when you can put a 250lber on the dude's desk?

Fair call.

However there is a loss of flexibility in terms of inability to use stand off weapons ala most air to ground, anti-shipping or anti-radiation missiles.

Bare in mind no AGM-88 HARMS can fit in F-35 or F-22 bomb bay as they're too big.

If you want more than 5000lbs internal bombload, you need a dang big airframe. Bigger than an F111, and that's a 100,000lb aircraft!

It all comes down to who the target it.

You don't need stealth for most wars and in fact small stealth B-2 fleet backed up by large numbers of non-stealth B-1B and B-52H has proved more than adequate.

That B-52s can lumber even over Iraq in 1991 without losses is proof of how poor most countries air defence systems are.

And against the opponents you do need such heavy saturation of stealth (aka China and Russia), stealth might be compromised and either a faster potentially stand off solution is a far better option.

IADS means Integrated Air Defense System.

The US doesn't have a national IADS (we're missing the SAM launchers), and we still send fighters up to escort unidentified aircraft approaching the ADIZ.

Stealthy bombers make it much harder for any patrolling fighters to find the bomber. Stealthy bombers also make it much less likely for interceptors to be scrambled in the first place, though the big ground-based radars seem to be the stealth-busters.