The Air Force’s simple, no-frills, advanced new bomber

The Air Force’s simple, no-frills, advanced new bomber

The Air Force doesn’t even want you to know it’s building a new bomber, but service officials graciously included two paragraphs about the program in DoD’s budget overview on Monday. Here they are in their entirety:

The next generation bomber is a new acquisition program that began in FY 2012. By leveraging the “Family of Systems” synergistic capabilities, the new bomber will not need the same capabilities that were planned for the previous Next Generation Bomber. The new bomber will incorporate many subsystems (engines, radars, other avionics) and technologies that are already proven. The bomber will carry precision-guided conventional weapons and nuclear weapons. It will be optionally manned, providing operational flexibility when planning missions of long duration or in challenging anti-access environments.

By relying on proven technologies and by planning to evolve the aircraft over time as threats evolve, similar to the B-52 legacy fleet, the up-front acquisition costs will be reduced significantly from the B-2 experience. The average procurement unit cost is anticipated to be about $550 million in FY 2010 dollars for a fleet of 80–100 aircraft. The Air Force plans to utilize an executive-level, highly streamlined, stable oversight structure to manage the program, and keep requirements manageable, tradable and affordable. Funding in FY 2013 is $0.3 billion and totals $6.3 billion from FY 2013 – FY 2017.


Let’s review: The new official line for mass consumption seems to be that the Air Force no longer wants a hypersonic Romulan Warbird complete with cloaking device and disruptor beams. Rather, it wants a good ‘ol pickup that borrows components from airplanes that already fly, and one that, like the eternal B-52, can eventually take missions its original designers might never have dreamed of. The airplane won’t cost anything close to a $2 billion B-2, and that means the Air Force can buy as many as 100 of them — the most of any one model bomber it will have flown in decades.

Since it’s no longer the Next-Generation Bomber, the Air Force needed a new name. So it reached deep into its poetic blue soul — the place that has given us aircraft with incredible names such as “Valkyrie;” “Stratofortress;” and “Thunderchief,” and decided to call the new bomber “LRS-B.” Here’s what the service said in its own budget synopsis Monday:

The Air Force is committed to modernizing bomber capacity and capabilities to support LRS [Long-Range Strike] military options. Development of the next steps to advance the family of systems critical to the LRS capability is ongoing. These steps include the platforms, ISR, electronic warfare, communications and weapons that make up this critical national capability. The future bomber, LRS-B, must be able to penetrate the increasingly dense anti-access/area denial environments developing around the world. To this end, the Air Force FY 2013 Budget Request includes funding to continue the development of an affordable, long range, penetrating aircraft that incorporates proven technologies. This follow-on bomber represents a key component to the Joint portfolio of conventional and nuclear deepstrike capabilities.

Not quite as down-to-earth and not quite as rosy in the service-level documents. Inside its wedge of the Building, the Air Force evidently still views its new bomber as only one system sibling in the system family of systems that will collectively put steel on tomorrow’s targets. This muddies the waters a little — it’s one thing to build a reliable ‘ol airplane that can haul a buncha bombs, but it’s another to assume that your new bomber must also have new off-board “ISR, electronic warfare, communications and weapons.”

The danger for the Air Force is that for however simple and cheap it makes the new airplanes, it could wind up like the surface Navy when GAO asked about the Air and Missile Defense Radar: Contemplating a less-capable platform that relies on as-yet undeveloped, “Enemy of the State”-level sensor and space network integration. Or, at worst, Long Range Strike could become the Air Force’s version of Future Combat Systems, involving so many new programs and requiring so much integration that it could collapse under its own weight. So not only does the service need to tackle the already difficult job of just building a new airplane, it needs to make sure it can actually field all the accessories, too.

Join the Conversation

I’m waiting for the “fighter mafia” to object, considering that it could become a rival for F-35’s strike and CAS mission — particularly in the Pacific where range is important.

Long Range Strike that can deal with anti-access areas. So are we going for a stealth B-2 or a hopefully less problematic B-1?

Dont you get it yet. The current administration hates American power. They will ensure that ALL US weapons programs are cut. The are committed to unilateral nuclear disarmament. Of course the main tool they have to work with is simply the senior officer promotions list. War fighters will be bypassed and sycophants and grocery clerks will be promoted.

It looks bad, why the USAF not restart the B2 line or better said why he not take the probed B2 Design and build 100 of them at the end the B2 will be possible better them the now planed “LRS-B”.

But to the LRS-B Program:

The biggest Problem what I see with this “LRS-B” Bomber is the low rate of production. So the B2 cost 2 Billion why the production Number was a consequence of the idiotic peace dividend of the nineties cut from 100–120 Bombers to only 21. So them the B2 would be produced in the planed Numbers he has cost about 500 Million or lover or better said he has been comparable expensive like the now planed “LRS-B”.

The other big Problem what I see is this idiotic description “optional” Manned. To develop an Aircraft how can operate Unmanned and manned will double the cost in compare them you decide for a classic manned design. So I hope what this BS idea of a hybrid Platform between manned and unmanned will quickly disappear in favor of a classic manned platform. Why Drones are in the reality not cheaper them Manned Platforms them they have to fulfill complex high end missions why for this scenarios you will need also a big infrastructure like Multibillion Satellites, encrypted communication and a Signal how cannot block by Jammers what a manned Platform don’t need to works. So it is very probably what you will invest alone 30 Billion to get the right Software and the Infrastructure for an unreliable and very vulnerable unnamed Aircraft and this without any Success and they have already seen a comparable programs like this, so for example with the already the now complete canceled FCS Program or with the RQ160 debacle and also with the now canceled Global Hawk Block 30.

An optional manned Platform makes no sense and this thinking is a result of the not rationally Drone hype of the War on Terror era. The ridiculous fact is what exactly the War on Terror campaign has demonstrated how limited Drones are although the Condition for drones were optimal in Afghanistan and Iraq so for example the lack of any enemy Air Defense or Electronic Warfare Skills and also of any enemy early warning. The LRS-B will have to operate under completely different situation against enemy’s how have are equipped with the best Air Defense Systems of the World and the best cyber War and electronic warfare skills and also with the Ability’s to destroy all US Satellites. Make no mistake them the USA will have to fight the red Chinese military today they will have to do this without GPS or Communications Satellites why red China is already enable to kill them or them not to kill to jam them effectively so you can forget Drones.

My recommendation to the USAF

1.First forget this idiotic idea of an unnamed Strategic Bomber immediately before the cost will kill the Program.

2.Second buy more them 100 units and to lower the cost per unit a number of 300 units are wiser.

3.Make the Bomber only optional Nuclear Armed so what you can declare a large part of the Bomber Fleet as conventional and avoid possible limitations of the START treaty.

4.Don’t forget to develop also a modern Ammunition for the Bomber the best bomber is only so good how is weapons are.

Ron Paul’s not president, so yes, you’re exagerrating.

Save money dump the B-1 the B-52 will be around with cruise missiles so don’t need to replace that what they want is a improved B-2 as so called B-3 possibly a B-2 with cool new features. Dose it matter since there no foreign bomber with any of our capabilities like the B-52 and B-2. Maybe a whole new version of each plane is needed more and can save money.

Or a BUFF with HoundDogs and SRAMs…. and maybe a rack or two of HARMs just for the personal touch.…Dale Brown, are you listening? :-)

There ARE at least two ways to get through an air defense system, only one of those requires that the penetrating bomber be invisible! LOL!

“Optionally Manned” might actually make sense for a penetrating bomber. If its fragged against a fixed, heavily defended target, and optionally manned platform will never leave a trail of POWs parachuting down into unfriendly territory. On the other hand.… and as we are rapidly finding out with the Predators and Global Hawks, the recent blind infatuation with “unmanned anythings” just really doesnt necessarily make sense, so a totally unmanned “next generation bomber” probably doesnt either!

For my $0.02 worth, a fresher version of something with the basic mission description of the current BUFF might not be bad, but start out with a proven airframe (Im thinking along the lines of the B-747 SP, freighter version), Make most if not all of the ordnance and sensors palletized into C-vans that can be rolled into the back end via a “tail door and ramp”. Yeah, I know, this sounds like a light blue, flying LCS, but… if done right (and I would point to the special warfare C-130s as the example) it gives you a LOT of flexibility.

Starting with a totally proven airframe with enough payload and volume and power generation capability,as well as a logistics system already in place, there are many good things that could be done for not much bucks and on a quick timeline. As for the detectable signature of the aluminum cloud that is a 747SP, so what? If the defense is not just suppressed (the kinder more gentle method but one that must be successfully repeated each mission), but DESTROYED (a more permanent solution by the way!), who cares if your aircraft has an RCS measured in football fields? :-)

“The up-front acquisition costs will be reduced significantly from the B-2 experience.”

The B-2 took half as long to design and make operational as the F-22, cost half as much per pound as the F-22, and carries 20 times the payload. All those numbers get worse with the F-35, so now we’re supposed to believe that they will toe the line on costs for another stealth bomber? They really must think you people are stupid to even try to float that notion one more time

Here’s an idea. How about this time the Air Force doesn’t sign the US taxpayer up to a contract with one of thier defense contractor buddies that says they we will reimburse that contractor for 110% of all their development costs? I mean, if someone signed a contract with you saying they’d pay you $1.10 for every dollar you spent, and you can keep the extra 10 cents free and clear, would you feel a great incentive to spend more or less money? I’m sure we can count on the usual military industrial complex shills to tell us again how defense contractors are only motivated by a deep inner need to do good rather than profit.

What did you just say?

“Flight of the Old Dog” for real! So, will this become an EB-52 or an EB-1? I’d be fine with either upgrade. As for the notion of making an EB-2. Anyone subscribing to that notion obviously isn’t paying attention. You DO NOT need anymore stealth bombers! You can use electronic countermeasures (ECM), and the entire strike package (think carrier battle group only airborne i.e. wild weasels, attack planes, etc.) and get the job done with a more stable and durable platform.

whats wrong with taking a 737 similar to the P-8 Posiden, giving it wing mounts, added fuel compacity, bomb bay doors and calling it a day??? Figure it could carry 14 JASSAM missiles or 14 2,000 JDAMs giving it similar punch as a Virginia class SSN. Thats all you need basically. Order about 50 of them, retire the B-1, reduce B-52 numbers, and modernize the B-2 force. Now thats bomber savings.

We need to invest in Cyber, SOF, UAVs, and Submarines

Not only do we not need another bomber, we don’t even need the Air Force.

Novelists dont have to do the engineering, but historically novelists have come up with some very good ideas. Think of Jules Verne with the submarine and space travel or Arthur C. Clarke with the communications satellite. The problem is that the idea of building an “EB-52″ or perhaps, in my personal pipedream, a B-747SP-derived EB-3, just does not appeal to some folk as being “sexy” enough. After all, why use a 40-year old airplane design (B-747 first flight, February 9, 1969), when we could build some sort of funky, futuristic flying wing that sorta looks like a B-2 but isnt ‘cuz it has to be cheaper, etc. Why build an aircraft that has to viciously and violently destroy an air defense system in order to get through and drop a nuclear weapon on the capital city of an enemy country when we can build an aircraft that can just sneak through? LOL!

Give me the payload capacity, the range, the proven durability and logistics support of the B-747 line any day, and I think that we could have another one of those singular airframes that flys far beyond its designed lifespan doing things that we can not even envision today for a fraction of the cost of trying to build a “unique new aircraft” to do the same mission that we DO envison today.

Lets see.…B-1s are already rigged out to carry JASSM and JDAMs and are in the inventory. Why get rid of them?

Oh, now play nice!

While I sometimes wonder if we should dust off those “Army Air Corps” insignia (at least for the tactical / CAS side of the AF), you dont really want to upset the apple cart too much. :-)

You and I agree. I cannot believe the “hate on” for the B-1 that persists even after so many successful missions. Perhaps it’s the fact that it is a bird that does what it was designed for; BOMBING; and is not an all things to all missions platform that seems to be the darling these days. The B-1 has become a pretty good warbird; not to mention MUCH cheaper than pumping out more Billion$ Batwings that carry less ordinance. If people are concerned about the fact that Batwings seat 2 while the Bone seats 4, I have no doubt those backseat systems could be consolidated into either 1 seat or automated.

The real trick is not just the number of seats onboard, but the number of pairs of hands it takes to keep the aircraft flying. In terms of “aircraft systems” (i.e. radios, avionics, etc), I suspect that the B-1 and B-2 might not be too different, but if you throw in the folk required to maintain the B-2s “reason for existance”, the cost delta might get ugly.

What, you think a government agency that’s so stupid they offer to pay their weapons contractors a $1.10 for every $1.00 they spend designing a new weapon is too stupid to exist? Might as well get rid of the Army, Navy, and Marines too. Oh, and don’t forget NASA. They’re the ones who first signed the US taxpayer up to this method of paying contractors on the shuttle program. And didn’t that program turn out nicely? The last 40 years of not being able to repeat the feat of putting a man on the moon like we first did in the 1960’s says they’re doing a damn fine job spending your money.

Not only did the B-2 take half as long to design as the F-22, it cost half as much too. But I’m sure you can trust the US Air Force to hold the line on costs the next time. Oh, wait, the “next time” would be the F-35 program and that’s already a fiasco. Well, the time after that for sure they’ll hold the line on aquisition costs. No, seriously…

LOL! We must be the same era “ex AF”; two ol’ men that remember the military’s raison d’être is to kill people and break things thus, ending a conflict as expeditiously as possible. I believe this infatuation with attempting to become invisible is costing unnecessary lives and treasure. What happened the the good ol’ SHOW of force?

An upgraded version of B1-B? Why dump it? I doubt we have the $$ for anything new. So, wats the deal? Cut existing B-1B’s or BUFFS? Method to the madness?

Calling Dale Brown, Dale Brown.

Air mines and all the toys he stuffed in a BUFF. Once again fact catches up to fiction.

It’s not the bombers ability to evade as much as the protective bubble of E fuzz and steel rain from within and the drones playing the part of the Tuskegee Airman! Hand salute!

Calling Dale Brown, Dale Brown.__Air mines and all the toys he stuffed in a BUFF. Once again fact catches up to fiction.__It’s not the bombers ability to evade as much as the protective bubble of E fuzz and steel rain from within and the drones playing the part of the Tuskegee Airman! Hand salute!

The problem with you’re ECM point is that your method although tried and true takes an extensive amount of airpower and resources to accomplish. 1 B2 can penetrate defenses-hit the target and exit the area without expanding huge resources– B-52s and even B-1s or the “Hybrid” commercial airliner options others are talking on this site would require massive amounts of defense to prevent them going down with their crews and then also creating a CSAR issue putting more assets and lives in harms way. Not saying the B2 is the route…it’s serving a purpose but is an expensive and complicated “Aging” weapons platform and will sooner than later need replacing. That being said it’s only 30yrs old…the B-1 over 40 and the venerable Buff or B-52 is over 60yrs old from the Eisenhower era. In the future shrinking budge era the DoD and the USAF will have to find new and creative ways to fund and field new aircraft or we will have a huge gap in capabilities against other nations like China and India and even a resurgent Russia who are pouring large portions of their GDP into not only current platforms but R&D for their future platforms. The hurts a comin folks.

That “man-on-the-moon” thing cracks me up. I saw the American flag wave where there was no breeze (‘cept the A/C blower). War seems a lot like poker and sometimes a bluff (like an inflatable tank) works well.

How about the proposed B-1R? Take the B-1, strap on four F-22 engines, put on a new stealth coating, add an AESA radar and capabilities to fire long-range air-to-air missiles, and we have a winner. We seem all to willing to spend $550 million a pop for a weapon of dubious value.

Yeah, it’s easier to accept that the generation before faked the moon landing than accept the fact that this one is too stupid and lazy to build on the feat despite having vastly superior technology available. Doing less with more is the new American way, and when someone points out the shame, deny history. How do you people live with yourselves?

Showing the force only works if the bad guys SEE and BELIEVE that they could be the proud recipients.

Fighting wars of attrition is hopefully passed out of our planning vocabularly, but still.… . the objective is to pound the “bad guys”, (take your choice as to which ones), until they decide that giving in beats taking more of the pounding. Historically, the military (ours and theirs) falls in love with some specific “technology”, be that dreadnaughts in the early 1900s or stealthy aircraft in the 1990’s. The technology in both cases had its uses, but in both cases it was not the “doomsday weapon” to end all wars. Unfortunately, until people sobered up, the answer to miltary power in the day was whether you had “fourth” or “fifth” generation fighters, or the length of your country’s line of battleships or.… . going backwards perhaps to one point where it was the number of four wheeled donkey-drawn Sumerian war carts!

In the end it was nothing more or less than your ability to destroy your enemy while not allowing him to destroy you. No smoke and mirrors or erudite euphemisms to that! :-) but.… some now find that basic military mission too distasteful I guess! :-(

It’s pretty easy to give a show of force with someone else’s life on the line. With our current state-of-the-art procurement approach of guaranteeing a defense contractor we’ll pay them 110% of whatever it costs to develop a new weapon, I’m sure they could turn the design of a 747 replica into a 30 year engineering death march. But yeah, it must be the stealth that makes airplanes cost so much.

so it’s sort of the bomber version of Silent Eagle…

The problem with the B-1 is that it’s like using your supercharged big-block V-8 Mustang as a daily driver. That’s not what it’s meant to do, and it can do the job but not as efficiently as a Kia Rio (the B-52). And while there are things the Mustang can do that the Rio can’t do, we never actually do those things.

PS good lord, people, stop tugging Dale Brown’s pole. He wrote USAF fanfic. Yeah, I used to be into it. I used to be thirteen. I’m no longer thirteen.

There you go again, DD! Trying to be practical. The fact of the matter is that the B-52 is a very flexible aircraft (as its continued utility proves). The B-1 is currently in inventory, unlike some of the pipedreams thrown around in this forum (my own included!), and does have a few capabilities beyond the scope of the B-52 repetroire. Whether we have current scenarios that justify those capablities is of course another story.… . and the fact that the B-52 could loiter around over an active battlefield at 25000 ft and accurately deliver precision guided conventional bombs against CAS targets was never, ever envisioned back in the 50s when the airplane was being fielded. Not saying that the B-1 will EVER become the aircraft that a B-52 has been (several times over as it apparently is continuously “reinventing” itself), but.… its got some redeeming virtues! :-)

You are forgiven then! A sixteen year old is not expected to understand this highly technical schtuff! ROTFLMAO!

Its a joke, my friend! ;-)

ECM is OK, particulalry if you use it on the first time in, but its not as good as bouncing the rubble a time or two, and it has to be successfully repeated time and again against sensor operators that are learning how to counter it.

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with using a B-2 (like the F-117 was used during desert storm) to make the IADS a lot less integrated and a lot less defensive, assuming that you have those aircraft at your disposal, but… first, you kill off the IADS and then you let EVERYONE play from their 20,000 ft AGL sanctuary. Once the IADS is smoking rubble, you just dont need those special aircraft.

Oh, come on! Its not quite that bad is it? LOL!

The problem is that desire for the “MAGIC”. If your aircraft is invisible, you can do great things, until.… the bad guys find a way to counter your cloak of invisibility. Then the magic unravels and you are toast.

Any robust bomber aircraft or employment concept should be combination of capabilities each with some significant measure of success and all working to the same end. If your aircraft only brings one capability to the table, for example stealth, or speed, or altitude or ???? you have a very brittle solution. If your field an aircraft with offensive and defensive SEAD/DEAD capabilities, perhaps some measure of signature control and an effective ECM suite.… you become a very difficult target, and perhaps more able to perform your basic mission of bombing the bad guys! :-)

Makes you wonder — why bother to make up imaginary stories about a new bomber when the objective is simply to pay off the contractors to keep them going. No aircraft will be delivered in the end.

Good Morning Folks,

Does this possibly make sense to anybody. The Air Force wants to pay $550 million per plane for a bomber that has a load capacity of 30–40 tons, a range of 5K miles and can evade enemy air defenses. To top off the fantasy they only want to buy 80–100 units.

Lets see the F-22 is estimated to have cost somewhere between $250–450 million per copy, the F-35’s true per unit cost is currently though to be somewhere at about $135–150 million each. A bomber at $550 million and only buying 80–100, what do we have auto leasing salesmen now running procurement at the Pentagon?

Well we are going to use off the shelf parts and existing technology. Well since the B-1B was the last production bomber, you have in storage what you want. We haven’t started a bomber program in four decades. what existing technology, what off the shelf technology?

Congress funded at $500 million a year keeping open the bomber program for five years in 2008, in 2013 that money will be gone. All this appears is an effort by industry to keep that cash flow coming.

Here is an idea for financing. Do the old railroad thing sell bonds to the public sponsoring a specific bomber. With interest rates at all time lows and the obvious tax incentives that could be worked out this might float.

The good thing about this is that if one goes down its the bond holders that lose not the Pentagon.

Lets see if the editors will pull this posting as they have the last few.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

I would say that Russia has the capabilities of the B-52 or B-1 with the TU-160. They have about 16 left in service. Also, Russia just announced they are going to modernize thier fleet, and by 2020 have about 30 TU-160’s.

The 747 Cruise-Missile Launcher was talked about in the late 1970’s early 80’s. I dont know if we ever built a prototype, but an old book of mine ( The US war Machine copyright 1978 ) said the 747
could have carried 72 cruise missiles.

I’m not crazy about way this turning out. I hope Air Force is able pull this off, build a low cost Bomber. However, I doubt it will work out in the end. Every time they try to develop something that major design for their force it ends up being overdeveloped due to their driving need to have “more” capacities.

With development of the MC-130 Combat Shadows and the KC-130 Harvest HAWK, they’ve been seeing low-entry ability to slip bunch of missiles onto a cargo plane make it cheap support craft. LRS-B could be where their going with purpose built chassis, which they put modules (Weapons, electronics) into a Omni-Mission bay make it more flexiable.

I’m not buying development of unmanned equipment. It good keep our soldiers from harm, but with development of computer technology (Including hacking any computer system) Making this thing optional unmanned capacity, will make it vulnerable to being hacked possibly sabotaged while its doing its mission. Manned or not.

I love the B-52 and would love something a lot like it, but I’m not sure it fits the bill for “anti-access” which was a trait they listed. I think a modular arrangement could work for a bomber much better than an LCS since if the module programs fail, at least you can still load it to the gills with bombs.

Since bombers don’t fight other bombers, what does it matter what other countries have in their fleets?

I think it’s been an economic trend that bombers have cost 4 to 5 times that of a fighter since WW2. If they really want 100 bombers, then they ought to be asking for 200 since we all know the actual number will get cut that much if this thing actually gets built. As for your bond idea, weren’t there Soviet tanks in WW2 that had similar sponsorship by the people?

“””“Optionally Manned” might actually make sense for a penetrating bomber. If its fragged against a fixed, heavily defended target, and optionally manned platform will never leave a trail of POWs parachuting down into unfriendly territory.””””

This is an insignificant option in compare for what you will need to pay for it the possible more them double cost of a classic manned system so it is better to invest this money in better stealth or more units. And you forget also what a heavy defended target will probably also be defend in electromagnetic spectrum with other words the enemy will have strong Jamming technology to kill your drones. Drones are exactly the false choice in Symmetric Wars why they are very easy to kill by asymmetric response like an ASAT Missile how kills the Communications Satellite or simpler by a strong jammer how block the control signal. So the Chinese Military has already heavily invested in jamming technology to block GPS Signals and also the Communication Signals and tested ASAT Weapons. Even the Nord Korean Military have operational GPS Jammer and the Nord Korean Army is not the kind of Force how I will tell modern and they speak about the year 2030 not about yet.

“”“On the other hand.… and as we are rapidly finding out with the Predators and Global Hawks, the recent blind infatuation with “unmanned anythings” just really doesnt necessarily make sense, so a totally unmanned “next generation bomber” probably doesnt either!””””

The Problem with the drones are what they are as consequence of the FCS Disaster and the War on Terror mania extremely overhyped and not cheap in compare with what they really can. So all Drones how are in the moment in use are only useful against enemy without any Air Defense why they are slow, not-stealthy and reliant on a small Number of vulnerable Communications Satellites. So Drones are in the moment really useful against terrorist and also for boarder and Sea monitored but for real War mission they are completely useless. And you have to pay also a lot for this limited use of the actual drones so for example a MQ9 cost about 37 Million Dollar and this without the multimillion control unit and the multibillion Communication satellite.

And so them you adding all this additional costs you will came to the conclusion what a MQ9 is comparable expensive like a F15SE or a F16Block60 or nearly so expansive like a F35 and the MQ9 has also a worser performance data them a World War two P51 Mustang.

Next Gen drones like the X47B are use fuller and enable to fight in real wars but it remains to be seen them they will be affordable or better them manned platforms how already exists. So I’m very skeptic and I have also a good record with my predictions so I have predicted what the FCS will end in a disaster even as I seen the first concept plans and also I predicted the fatal effects of the War on Terror Mania.

And I really fear now what the Idea of a manned Platform how should to be also enable to operate unnamed can kill at last the entire Bomber Program why the planers completely underestimate the challenge to rich this target.

The Tu-160 is a good bomber but is slower and carries less bombs than the B-52 or B-2. Upgrades would be far better no than a whole new copy of a B-2.

looks like a b-52 modified to me

I honestly don’t understand the thinking of the USAF at all. I do support a new bomber but this ‘lets make it cheap and easy and nothing flashy’ baffles me. We’ll pour untold hundreds of billions down the garbage disposals that are the F35 and F22 to have the tippy top best tacair even though we don’t use tacair to go into high threat environments. We take down IADS with stand off weapons launched by the USN and bombers, so it seems to me if we are going to do something affordable and off the shelf it should be the fighters and make the bomber the high end leading edge platform since its the one that will actually be used for penetrating contested air space. We didn’t use the F22s in Liibya, but the 2 pair of B1s and B2s we used sure laid some smack down.

With a 737 platform the time of life in China is two minute, stop to say madness!!!

What is driving the need? The USAF has claimed that the B-52 could go for at least another 20 years. So why now? Especially considering the defense budget woes facing the Air Force. Why not new B-52s built to incude all new avionics/electronic counter measures and engines. OR is the decision being driven by the rquirement for stealth? Because from reading the article, the existing B52 would match the requirement based on certain improvements.And since it will continued to be used as a follow on aircraft.

Yep! The sketches I remember were of a B747SP with multiple rotary launchers and what amounted to torpedo tubes for the AGM-109s. Don’t remember the total number of missiles proposed but it was a lot!Sent from my iPhone

We’ve already seen that new generation of bomber, twice now. They are called the B-1 and B-2 and the justification for both was identical to what they want now. The result two tremendously expensive bombers that the Air Force can’t afford and so…they keep the B-52. Anyone really think this go-round is going to be any different?

Or a B-1 version of the EB-52 “Old Dog”!

Boeing has proposed a B-1R model (regional) with new engines, avionics, etc… they want to take the 33 or so already in the bone yard and re-work them. Might be a good interim solution for what we’re using them for right now.

Hell yes, it will be different. It will be way worse this time around.

And you are a Veteran or Active Duty member of WHICH branch of the United States Military? If you have never worn the uniform of this country’s military, you need to keep juvenile comments like that to yourself. If you have served in another branch of the service, I’d asked you to prove your service in that branch was more important than my service to the United States of American in my branch: The United States Air Force.

The AF can get a bomber for $500 million a pop if the President and the Congress don’t cut the numbers on. The less investment in technology gives the AF the ability to keep costs under control.

I agree with you. Contractors should only be reimbursed $1 for every $1 that they spend. We should repay them for only their costs. They certainly shouldn’t expect to make a profit. They are in business to serve the US Government and don’t deserve to make any profit. In fact, they should only be given $.95 for every $1 that they spend. The PRIVLEDGE of serving the US Government is enough that the shareholders should subsidize the work.

Exactly. This is why the drastically smaller number of B-2s and the intentionally small number of F-117s (why they are not A-117s is beyond me. They don’t fight) weren’t a problem in past conflicts. Basic doctrine hasn’t changed; either deny your enemy’s ability to shoot your birds down, blow past him or sneak past him.

I get that we need to come up with ways to defeat his new ways of finding and shooting us down, but I cannot for the life of me understand why the higher ups don’t understand ONE plane cannot RULE them all. If you want an R/E/F/A/B-XX aircraft that also needs to be Carrier, Unimproved LZ, and STOVL capable, the problems we are seeing are the problems of scope creep and there is NO way around them.

What works on paper or in simulation software doesn’t always translate to real-space.

Some quick history for you, Carter killed the original B-1A and the Reagan administration resurrected the program as the B-1B and built 100 aircraft. This was an interim purchase until the B-2 program was ready which was supposed to deliver 132 aircraft. But that number was cut to 75, then 21 after the end of the Cold War.

The B-1B requires a lot of maintenance but we could and can afford it. The B-2A faced many issues related to stealth materials early in its career but it is largely “unaffordable” because the production run was sliced to 1/6 the original.

There is nothing wrong with the flying wing configuration, Jack Northrop and company proved that with numerous designs. That wasn’t the reason the B-2A was so expensive.

For a subsonic bomber it is probably the best solution.

“Think of Jules Verne with the submarine…”

er, actually da Vinci thought of it first.

The B-52 is flexible like the F-16 is flexible.

An 80,000-pound bomb capacity would certainly be a unique capability.

That company will stay in business for about 5 minutes after that is implemented. Companies serve their shareholders, that’s how they get their investment capital. If the company doesn’t see a return on the shareholder’s investment, then no more investment.

If anyone believes this is gonna come at 500k apiece, i’ve got a great bridge to sell you — what never seems to get talked about is — where is the threat? is a new shiny stealth machine going to be better at killing guys in caves in afghanistan — unless they go stealth, those 50 caliber chinese machine guns might get them — its just an iron rice bowl for the bomber guys for the next 20 years

That can’t be true! According to Dfens, Companies should be lining up to do this on their own nickle and anyhow, the government can do it all by themselves.__Full Disclosure: Years back, I was a Program Manager for a second source program. The governement had come to my company (which made about 1/3 of the product for the existing prime) and ASKED us to bid as a second source prime. They said that they were committed to having 2 sources and the program would be going on for 20 or more years. So, we bid and won after investing millions of dollars in facilities and equipment. The other prime stopped buying stuff from us (as they had to) and we now were building whole systems. This went on for 3 years and then the Government in the post cold war “peace dividend” announced an end to second sourcing on this product. Not only were we out of the game for whole systems, we were no longer the supplier for the parts that we had made previously. Plus we never had a chance to make back the investment that we’d made in plant and equipment. Our shareholders were not happy and the corporation ended up divesting our entire division. __The Government is a really great customer… Oh yeah <sarcasm>

We really need only half that many Next Generation Bombers. A fleet of fifty bombers will provide one each for a museum in every state.

So what does this mean? they will dropping the bombs over the side as they did back in days of
biplanes??

Since the BUFF is a “Legacy Bomber” and is so respected as the current “Bomb Truck” of the US Air Force, why couldn’t we just build more of them with all modern systems and manufacturing methods?

Gee, .…. why not just build a bunch of “new” B-52’s?

A B-52 on even a primitive radar screen looks like a giant flying barn that ECM cannot deal with. There’s no way to make it a penetrater thus it’s a one-way mission and good luck getting to the drop point..

Oh the savings just in toner from changing Next Generation to next generation! Maybe we should’ve used all those Iraqi oil revenues we were promised to do the development…oh yeah, they disappeared, like the $2 trillion taxpayer dollars

I agree. Just pull out the B-52 drawings and build new ones with modern electronics.

Building a new bomber that’s unmanned makes sense. Utilizing AI an computer control makes sense. Putting America’s aircraft industry to work full time makes sense.…

Great idea. We need this to maintain a lead… In a war the fleet would be destroyed with the first incoming weapons before they ever lifted off unless they were widely dispersed and ablt to autonomously launch…

Dfens,

What you are alleging is a “cost-plus-percentage-of-cost” contract. That type of contract has been illegal for US Government contracts since the 1920s. The 10 cents you are talking about are “fees,” and 10 cents on the dollar is the maximum amount of fee that can be earned on a Government cost-reimbursable contract. Most are in the 3–5 percent range. The way these contracts work is an estimate of the actual costs is negotiated, and the fee is based on the negotiated estimate. If there are cost overruns or underruns, the amount of funding on the contract is adjusted, but the amount of fee due to the contractor is not.

Take this example: The Government and a contractor negotiate an estimate of $100 million for R&D costs on a new aircraft, with a 6 percent ($6 million) fee. The contractor experiences a significant cost overrun, and the actual costs are $150 million. The contractor does not get an extra $3 million in fees on this amount — its $6 million fee is now actually only 4 percent of the $150 million spent on the contract. How do you think that looks to the contractor’s shareholders?

Every major defense contractor in the country is publicly traded. The mission statements for all publicly-traded companies are the same: maximize shareholder wealth. The danger on contracts of these types is allowing a really high estimate to drive the cost of negotiations, which would drive up the fees. As long as Government buyers understand that up front, and negotiate in good faith on behalf of the taxpayers, we will get a decent deal for the American public while maintaining our defense base and our strong military.

Of course, we could do as OldRetSWO recommends and try to force all of our publicly-traded contractors to take a loss on all of our Government contracts for the PRIVILEGE of serving the Government and the taxpayers. Of course, that would result in every major contractor getting out of the defense business and we would get overrun by China. No problem though…rice for every meal!

BTW, I did my 20 years and have been deployed to combat 4 times. When you’re sitting in a high-priced piece of Government equipment praying that the armor will hold out when the IED hits your vehicle, you are thankful for the ingenuity of the American contractor’s armoring system when it actually does.

Agree with a lot of you but, if the “Top Dog” gets wind of all this he will add it to His STOP Treedie thingy. We will be A Socialist Military and not be able to fight our way out of a Paper Bag!! We need good underwater Platforms (DBF’s) A lot of nations are going back to Very, very, very quite Sub’s (Diesel Boats) even better then the Virginia Class. No one will know till they are blowen away! Love Surprise!!

My recommendation to you:

1. Take an English / Spelling / Grammar course
2. Don’t post idiotic gibberish until you can master the written word

Seriously, by the time the next generation bomber is ready, what are the chances that any manned bomber will survive in any sort of competently defended air space. And if we fight more wars like Afghanistan and Iraq, then what the Air Force really needs is a C17 equipped to loiter at 35,000 feet all day and drop precision guided munitions on request from the ground pounders.But what the heck. The real mission of the next bomber is to justify a bigger piece of the shrinking pie for the Air Force.

Actually, we’ll only need 49. Obama will make sure that Texas doesn’t get one, just as the Johnson Space Center didn’t get a Shuttle.

Can it be done? Yes
Will it be done? No

You don’t get it. We cannot rule the world. We will always be broke by the military. American has not won a war since 1945, but we keep spending our selves into poverty. America is it’s people, we need to spend on them. We should spend enough to defend ourselves and stay out of the worlds troubles. All other countries laugh at us as if we are fools, we deprive our people and spend our money on wars that cannot be won. In addition, the money spent on Fighters is useless. They have no range to reach China or Russia and we have no save location to launch them from. Why do we consider everything is our interest? If it is our interest, then it should be all other countries interest, yet they don’t go to war the way that we do. Defend America an make our people whole.

The question at present seems to be do we want to spend millions to fight a non-existent threat or do we look for a solution to low tech warfare that seems to be the way the world is heading. if you don’t need a battleship to fight a destroyer war why build battleships. Several hundred destroyers are better than a few battleships. Likewise why spend millions to build airborne trucks to drop hundreds of bombs on a few guerrillas. when you can build a hundred fighters to drop napalm at a thousand feet. Better results less cost. Right now we can control most any airspace with what we have and we already have the bugs all worked out. Better to do some planing and stop at that, while we build more of the systems we have for the next 20 years or so.

Then President Barak “57 States“Obam would order 56 in your scenario.

are you stupid lance “slower” really do some research. The Tu 160’s top speed is mach 2.06. So the
B-52 and B-2 are slower!!!.

Cool your jets son. No American wants to destroy our country. Not obama, not bush nor any other name you can come up. We all love and will defend our country, and there will be 300 million dead patriots before you ever see a foreign flag planted on our soil. This may not be as cool as a next gen “Romulan Warbird” but if it gets the job done then so be it. We have the best pilots in the world for a reason. They’ll make it work.

„, Your a political hack danf!!

Good thinking,OldRetSWO. just say’n

This is another answer to the Bomber problem. Keep doing what were doing and we will keep getting what were getting. How many planes we have, against the ones we have lost in COMBAT. ? Hey IF IT WORKS
DON’T FIX IT. We better work on keepin our right for personal weapons cause it’s up for grabs AGAIN

Not to fear men!! We’ll make up a name for it as soon as it is used. I think we should name it Larry.

Go back to sleep.….….

I’m also waiting for the EB-52 from “Flight of the Old Dog” to become reality.

Yes the B-52 can carry cruise missles and is a good old reliable bomber. But it is one other thing as well — A BIG EASY TARGET! If the Air Force is going to keep the B-52, then as Birddog said go with the EB-52. The next bomber will need to be fast and very manuverable. Personally, if they want something as described in the article, then they should go with the B-1R. http://​www​.youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​F​F​s​Y​c​K​5​l​WrQ The B-2 is good for now because of its stealth, but once that stealth is compromised, then that aircraft is also one big, slow, easy target.

danf, the fact that the Air Force is building a new boomber make your post moot. If what you say were even remotely true, why would we build a new boomber?.….…“Ponder that on the tree of woe”, I got that from Conan the barbarian by the way, “tree of woe”, I think it’s funny. My question is, do we really need a new boomber? seeing as how we barely broke in the last one.

Thats bomber, I think I drank too much strong coffee this morning.

Really.…Is that what you really believe? I’ll bet a $1,000.00 that when you go vote, you pull the lever with a “D” beside every name. Pinhead.…..

What do you mean? Unmanned does not = automatic. The alert forces have had the ability to autonomously launch once certain criteria have been met specific to their location and/or posture since the Cold War started. The UAVs still sit on the ramp and in hangars from time to time and are susceptible to the same threats as manned planes; not to mention UAV pilots also sit on the ground.

And all the AI proponents keep glossing over or ignoring the cyber threat such platforms face. Do you really want an armada of fully loaded bombers flying overhead with no human override/backup if they get hacked?

You must be a squid!

Good to see at least one of the defense schills coming out of the closet. Not that it is hard to pick them out anyway. They’re the one’s who know for certain capitalism doesn’t work. They can’t figure out how Apple manages to stay in business without the federal government covering all of their development costs and giving them an extra 10 cents profit on every dollar they spend. Wow, it must be magic. Let’s never go back to that way of doing business with the US taxpayer’s money.

Roger that! .…Garbled comms, .….say again — huh?

While I do not agree with his comments and think he’s just a troll here to fire people up, I must comment on your post. I find a disturbing trend of my fellow veterans condeming those who haven’t served. I find many comments from veterans saying that those who haven’t served should just shut up. This is wrong and any veteran should know this. All Americans are afforded the right to say what ever the hell they want to. A little document, you may have heard of it, called the Constitution, which you and I both swore to defend, gives us all that right. As veterans, we either SERVED or are currently SERVING. Makes us no better than anyone else.

You’re an idiot…Must be a Marine or Army dude that sits behind a desk…Cause believe me, if he was actually some boots on the ground in a fire fight and had to call in an F-15 or an A-10 to drop some thangs on an enemy he would be saying no crap like that…Trust!!!

Back in the day, my job was reverse engineering “foreign” technology under the FTD (no they don’t deliver flowers (ha!)) out of Wright-Pat — The budget people had grossly overstated the capabilities of the “big nasty bear” — Our reverse engineering (RE) work (and SR overflights) provided a realistic picture. — we were amazed at the delta between what we were being told, what was assumed and the true strategic situation, starting with the “platform” that was flown into Japan. Later, intel sources and methods continued to provide a realistic picture. In some cases, those findings were “shaped” to fit around requested budgets. What I’m saying (and I do realize that technology has advanced greatly) — is that we have to be careful to accurately assess capabilities, and apply the principle of proportionality to the situation. Unless and until “we” are able to do what we did under the auspices of the FTD, i.e. R.E. every single system, from powerplant to EW and ECM, we will not have a true understanding of the platforms threat, only what we are told. I’m not in the “business” any longer, so its possible that we have done exactly that — if so those efforts are classified, as they should be. I think we must be careful not to slide into the situation we were in in the 60’s — 80’s many assumptions were made, many of them incorrect — As Robert McNamara stated so succinctly “The convergence of human fallibility and nuclear weapons will destroy nations” — or more directly as mom always said — “Never assume — it makes an ass out of you and me”

First of all, award fees for large programs are typically in the 10%+ range, not 6%. Cost overruns should not earn an award fee, but the reality is that contracts for large programs are renegotiated every year so that cost overruns can be eliminated and an award fee can be paid on the entire amount the contractor spent. This GAO report (http://​www​.gao​.gov/​n​e​w​.​i​t​e​m​s​/​d​0​6​6​6​.​pdf) found that defense contractors typically earn 90% of their award fee regardless of how they perform, though my personal experience with large USAF programs is we get 96–97%. Maybe it’s because I’m just that good, I don’t know. Also, even back when we only paid contractors $1.00 for every $1.00 they spent in development, we still had many problems with contractors over promising and under performing which is how we got to the current method of paying $1.10 for every $1.00 spent.

First of all, award fees for large programs are typically in the 10%+ range, not 6%. Cost overruns should not earn an award fee, but the reality is that contracts for large programs are renegotiated every year so that cost overruns can be eliminated and an award fee can be paid on the entire amount the contractor spent. This GAO report (http://​www​.gao​.gov/​n​e​w​.​i​t​e​m​s​/​d​0​6​6​6​.​pdf) found that defense contractors typically earn 90% of their award fee regardless of how they perform, though my personal experience with large USAF programs is we get 96–97%. Also, even back when we only paid contractors $1.00 for every $1.00 they spent in development, we still had many problems with contractors over promising and under performing which is how we got to the current method of paying $1.10 for every $1.00 spent.

You’re right. What was I thinking? Capitalism could never work.

Dfens — I gotta run, but one more comment re: the B-2.… the program (I was read in from its inception), was a disaster of epic proportions and came within 1 test flight of the prototype bird of getting its feathers plucked. Most of the B-2’s R&D and development budget was black. No offense to most of the Northrop engineers, but the people who were running the R&D couldn’t find their fanny with a funnel.

By the way, which American made MRAP did you ride in? I thought most of them were foreign made and designed.

Too bad you weren’t around for the F-22 program. You’d be thinking of the B-2 as “the good old days”. Ironically, we had many B-2 engineers on F-22, and they’d always say, “we’re going to do this one right, not like the B-2″. Pretty damn funny now.

I saw a program on the Mil. channel, they were working out possible air war scenarios, and a new or improved model of the B1-B was shown, they were using F-22’s to target enemy aircraft, and this new bomber was being used as a “bomb truck” even equipped with air to air [AMRAAMS?] it had a stealth coating and could hit enemy planes from BVR. Is this wat their proposing?

Sorry Mike but anyone who has been in the “real” military meaning not the Air Farce knows that everyone else can do what the Air Farce does and then some.

“Danger close please!” Hooah!

Less problematic B-1? That is a joke…a supersonic bomber that islimited to fly up to 25,000 feet? Uses more fuel in a single mission than 4 B-2 missions? Good choice! And for the record, the B-2 only cost a little over 2-billion each because it was a FIRM FIXED PRICE CONTRACT for an original contract of 156, (1980 numbers), then lowered down to 132…and so forth. The Air Force gave Northrop Grumman a gift by lowering the number of planes.

Right on Lester. What everyone has been saying to each other is out in the open. The “not real military” do not do anything that everyone else can do and then some. So Sad!! Too bad we don’t cut out the Air Farce and their fluff ball costs. They were a great and viable entity in World War II for example and more of them died in WWII than the Marine Corps. But it is over. We have advanced and modified beyond the absolute usefullness for the basic AF. We need to spend the money more wisely and efficiently.

It wouldn’t cost that much to make the plane “optionally manned”. The technology already exists and is easily adaptable.

We need to keep our existing bomber force and modernize them. Give our bombers better tech and better or more updated weapons. The LRS program can move along slowly and we can develop as a future weapon with possibly better production and less crap then the F35 program. No country can rival our current bomber fleet and if we keep updating them and also better tactics no country can rival them in near 50 years. This current administration from Pinetta to our President would love to weaken our military supremacy.… they say it wont be affected but if you look at how things are being placed this administration sucks in chess… we are soon to be checkmated.

I write as a former chief of the Integration Division in the B-52 modernization program (1986–88), and more recently as principal author/editor of the Technology Development Strategy in the Army’s Future Combat Systems program. From that background, I offer the following:

1. The numbers of acquired bomber systems should reflect a deep understanding of likely circumstances where such systems might be used. In my opinion, the nuclear mission of bombers should not a forcing requirement on numbers. Manned bombers in SIOP warfare are unlikely to reach deep targets through the nuclear dust clouds thrown up by earlier arriving ICBMs and SLBMs. We’ve known that for 30 years, even if SAC would rather ignore the reality.

2. Manned bombers almost certainly have a role to play in a wide range of combat scenarios, as delivery platforms for precision-strike ALCMs. ALCMs are also inherently more compatible with stealth penetration than bombers. If we believe that a remotely piloted bomber is technically feasible, then the flexibility of human pilot control can be applied to ALCMs through similar control links, at significantly lower platform cost and less exposure of crews to hostile fire. If we don’t believe remotely piloted ALCMs are practical, then we shouldn’t be assuming the technology can be extended to much larger platforms.

3. While modernization of on-board systems is a necessary part of the next generation of all aircraft, ISR is an inherently thorny issue for penetrating bombers. At low altitude and high velocity, sensors can’t reliably see enough even to protect the platform. At intermediate altitude, aircraft are still vulnerable to passive IR detection and the next generation of mobile IR-guided SAMs. At high altitude, sensors must process a huge volume of high-resolution imagery in order to detect threats — and automated target detection still isn’t good enough for practical operator workloads. ISR needs to be provided by platforms other than penetrating bombers.

4. So-called “network centric warfare” is in my opinion a fantasy, not a viable military strategy in an age of high-power jammers. The recent Iranian drone intercept may offer a cautionary note on link security design, though it does not invalidate the selective use of remote links for mission updates or abort messages. But There is much to be said for vehicle autonomy in preference to active control over remote comm links. But there is much to be said for vehicle autonomy in preference to active control over remote comm links.

Good! A far better approach than Crusader/FCS… taking an existing version and updating it might actually go trough without being canceled. But expect the numbers to be cut several times, the final numbers might be somewhere along the lines of 50.

You sound like a “Herky” troop!!! 130’s..gotta love ‘em!

my nephew is a grocery clerk

If you follow the tiers, it looks to me like Mike is responding to the person who thinks the moon landings were a hoax.

Read my comment above and look at the link I provided.

As you can see, I too wore light blue. Im proud of my years in the AF, but I try to be objective about some of the decisions made by today’s AF. Our USAF has been trying for over 60 years to establish an identity, sometimes with pure swagger, sometimes with dedicated and difficult service, but it still seems to have that internal inferiority complex that you most often find in adolescent boys always trying to prove their mettle. A prime example would be the AF treatment of CAS, where the AF has an obvious supporting role as the poor brother to offensive counter air, where AF takes point.

In other words, Chill, friend, let the bluster from outside go by and just dont add to the fire. Each services has something very important to bring to the table, it just might not always be the dish we would prefer to serve up.

Why does the USAF need a new bomber if we cut our nuc bombs to 80 — per Obama plans. In fact the Navy only needs two Boomer boats.

Scratch the bomber

Maybe someone has the answer — I got one. Answer with your vote.

I see the optionally manned bomber as two separate models of the same airframe. The space the crew and supporting equipment could be used for more fuel, bombs, or electronics. I don’t see one model that can be either manned or autonomous as this would just be a duplication of effort.

To mitigate the threat of the UAVs getting hacked, you could send them in autonomously with their antennas turned off. That would reduce the signals signature of the aircraft and prevent them from being hacked.

The B-52 assembly lines and production capabilities have been closed for decades. All the infratstructure and R&D initial costs are going to be there regardless of what airplane is built. So why not use that money towards a newer, more capable and efficient airframe?

For a great read on the bomber situation in generall, google “B-52 lrs white paper”, then read the digitalcommons paper “U.S. Air Force Long-Range Strike Aircraft White Paper“
You’ll notice that at no point is there a re-engine program for any of the existing bombers.
The DOD is the biggest budget for the government, within DOD, the Air Force is the most expensive, and within the Air Force GAS is the biggest expense. A new airframe means a more efficient airframe.

“Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of the women!”

“America is it’s people, we need to spend on them” — how about we just let them keep their own money that they earn to spend on themselves?

I say do away with the air force and army entirely,then split the money we would save between navy and marines. Roll all the airforce personel in the navy and the army personel into the marines,these two branches are more than capable of doing it all.

As a prior service Marine, I must say that you sir, are a damn fool…

I was working on the EB-52 concept 13 years ago at ACC HQ. Some folks wanted to have an acft with loiter capability more than the 45 minutes of the EA-6B, and the BUFF was the only answer, since it had onboard ECM as well. But they wanted to use ALQ-99 pods on the external racks. Wrong way to go. You don’t take away combat capability. The BUFF is old and has no stealth, but carries a lot of different weapons a long way and employs at high altitude. The B-1 carries a lot, has minimal supersonic dash capability, has almost no ECM, and can’t employ high. The B-2 is limited in number, carries a lot, and is expensive to maintain. Speed is not necessarily the answer, unless you can outrun a Mach 3 missile. The right answer to me is a new acft with attributes of all 3. Boeing’s blended wing/body would work great, as long as you include some stealthiness, internal carriage, and onboard ECM with conformal antennas. The ability to employ above 35K ft would be a must and have the capability to fly 1.5 Mach. It’s all do-able.

1. “why the USAF not restart the B2 line “
2. “why he not take the probed B2 Design“
3. “The biggest Problem what I see“
4. “The other big Problem what I see“
5. “To develop an Aircraft how can operate“
6. “a Signal how cannot block“
7. “enemy’s how have are equipped“
8. “you will need to pay for it the possible more them double“
9. “the best bomber is only so good how is weapons are.“
10. “the Nord Korean Army is not the kind of Force how I will tell modern“
11. “the X47B are use fuller and enable to fight“
12. “a manned Platform how should to be also enable to operate”

ARAYA,

Please! Just.….….….……QUIT!

Which MRAPS were foreign made and designed? The big players in the MRAP procurement was Force Protetion in South Carolina and BAE Systems in York PA. Before you say BAE, understand that part of BAE Systems inc is a US company with a US board of directors.

I hope you recognized that I was being sarcastic.

Civilian commercial craft are already capable of being unmanned; just copy the same avionics. Although it may be more difficult to attempt to try the “Silent Eagle” approach to a commercial base design, I would think some success could be achievable. We just need a truck like the buff to haul bombs. A big-wide body Boeing could fill the bill, and fill it with the appropriate hardware; just like Thinking_ExUSAF seemed to imply.

Just think of the loiter capabilities of those new fuel sipping fan jets!! He who saves the most energy, wins in any future conflict scenario; the world’s oil supply is totally unreliable.

Well we used to have government arsenals develop and build everything. Anyone have a history on how efficient that was?

What little history I know isn’t worth relating, although I was familiar with the A-bomb project which cost as much as 2/3 the whole WWII budget!

Truman was a rabid bean counter, and when he found that out; he was damned if he was going to NOT use that weapon! The taxpayers were going to get their money’s worth!!

I should think a 787 would beat that old bird hands down.

Depends on how you define the game. 747 would win on range, payload, excess electric power generation(important for radar and ECM) and probably come close on cost. What specifics would you care to compare? ;-)Sent from my iPhone

It seems to me that a modern cargo plane built by Boeing would look better on paper that a new B-52, you can’t strap modern fan jets on that thing!

Kinda hard to intercept a satellite signal isn’t it. Of course that could entail some star wars tactics. That is, unless the Chinese doped the chips in the avionics! Like what happened in Iran ( in my opinion).

That was the prevailing attitude before WW1 and WW2, and look what happened! The world is too small for isolationism. If we really though these little brush fire wars we’ve fought are bad, imagine WWIII!!

“An upgraded version of B1-B? Why dump it?”

I agree completely. After all, the B1-B is our only supersonic bomber!

Couldn’t they mount those AAMRAMS in rotary bombays in the new B1-R? Seems like just having a couple of those big birds hanging around would be a big tipoff that Raptors are close by.

I should think the fact that composite structure alone will be a good start on semi-stealth modification. Of course, the Air Force probably wants something more like a B1 than a true flying bomb truck.

Some rough 747 vs 787 comparisons with a focus on 787–

787 — I get conflicting values for range comparison, so I left it out.
– 50 percent composites
– 20 percent aluminum
777
– 12 percent composites
– 50 percent aluminum
Composites — 50%
Aluminum — 20%
Titanium — 15%
Steel — 10%
Other — 5%

Example of part count reductions (on first barrel section)
1,500 aluminum sheets
40,000 — 50,000 fasteners (80 percent reduction in fasteners)
787 — fewer than 10,000
747 — 1 million holes

More fuel efficient:
20 percent more fuel efficient than similarly sized airplanes

Generators:
Four at 250 kVA (two per engine)
Two at 225 kVA (on auxiliary power unit)

Hydraulic Power -
Distributed at:
5,000 pounds per square inch on the 787
3,000 pounds per square inch standard

Advantages of new electrical architecture:
Extracts as much as 35 percent less power from the engines than traditional pneumatic systems on today’s airplanes

Copper wiring eliminated:
60 miles

Anticipated maintenance savings:
30 percent

US and non-US content on 787 manufacture:
Roughly 70 percent US Roughly 30 percent non-US

Both the 777 and 787 have stretch and/or wide body variants, which make them competitive with the 747 on payload. Even when they are less, the loiter time should be fantastic with the new fuel sipper fan jets.

“We cannot rule the world”

In 1945, as the only nation with nuclear weapons, we could have!

“We will always be broke by the military”

We ARE broke because of entitlements and reckless “socially experimental” spending!

“.…..stay out of the worlds troubles.”

The world’s troubles, left unanswered, can quickly become OUR troubles!

“.….the money spent on Fighters is useless.”

A ridiculous assertion not worthy of a response!

“They have no range to reach China or Russia”

That’s why INFLIGHT REFUELING exists!

“.….we have no save [sic] location to launch them from”

We have numerous bases. And then there are the aircraft carriers! (go back to INFLIGHT REFUELING)

“Why do we consider everything is our interest?”

Because usually, directly or indirectly, it is!

Define win. Technically we are still picking up after WW2 in the middle east. Which of course was sort of left undone after WW1. We didn’t want to be involved in either of those conflicts either but they came to us. The days of being a bunch of frontier pioneers are long gone. Potential adversaries know that whether the US spends what it does on its military, we have the capacity to and that’s what brought WW1 and WW2 to our shores, so we learned from them if we are going to be treated as a potential adversary we might as well stay armed and be ready.

“I say do away with the air force.…..”

As an Air Force (note capitalization) veteran, I say you should be flogged with a stalk of cholla cactus.

Let’s just look at one, and I’d just about consider it an immaterial issue; signature! Glass composite tends to be transparent at RF. that means that a radar would see reflections from every random length of control cable, wire, pushrods, etd; and every equipment rack and electronic box would be a collection of corner reflectors! Perhaps that big curved aluminum surface would not be so bad!Given the economics of commercial air travel, it’s a good bet that ANY fuel economies will quickly migrate to 747 compatible engines, and with the 747 you will always have four vs two!B-52s have been around a very long time, partially because the fatigue of aluminum in rough usage is well understood. Don’t think that composites are even nearly as mature.Think through that comparison again?Sent from my iPhone

It was one hell of a lot more cost effective than paying a contractor $1.10 for every $1.00 they spend on development. We pay defense contractors to spend money, then we wonder why things cost so much. F’ing duh! The contractors want you to think this is the only way we can possibly do business. It’s not. It’s not even the way we did procurement within the lifetimes of most Americans.

The US taxpayer should not pay “for profit” companies to do development. If the development costs are so high that no “for profit” company can afford to lose the contract, then we should have “not for profit” government design bureaus take over the work. This is the way we always did things, not some off the wall, high risk notion. What is high risk is the notion that giving “for profit” companies a profit incentive to screw the US taxpayer is somehow going to work ever.

It was one hell of a lot more cost effective than paying a contractor $1.10 for every $1.00 they spend on development. We pay defense contractors to spend money, then we wonder why things cost so much. F’ing duh! The contractors want you to think this is the only way we can possibly do business. It’s not. It’s not even the way we did procurement within the lifetimes of most Americans.

The US taxpayer should not pay “for profit” companies to do development. If the development costs are so high that no “for profit” company can afford to lose the contract, then we should have “not for profit” government design bureaus take over the work. This is the way we always did things, not some off the wall, high risk notion. What is high risk is the notion that giving “for profit” companies a profit incentive to screw the US taxpayer is somehow going to work ever.

It was one hell of a lot more cost effective than paying a contractor $1.10 for every $1.00 they spend on development. We pay defense contractors to spend money, then we wonder why things cost so much. F’ing duh! The contractors want you to think this is the only way we can possibly do business. It’s not. It’s not even the way we did procurement within the lifetimes of most Americans.

It was one hell of a lot more cost effective than paying a contractor $1.10 for every $1.00 they spend on development. We pay defense contractors to spend money, then we wonder why things cost so much. F’ing duh! The contractors want you to think this is the only way we can possibly do business. It’s not. It’s not even the way we did procurement within the lifetimes of most Americans.

The US taxpayer should not pay “for profit” companies to do development. If the development costs are so high that no “for profit” company can afford to lose the contract, then we should have “not for profit” government design bureaus take over the work. This is the way we always did things, not some off the wall, high risk notion. What is high risk is the notion that giving “for profit” companies a profit incentive to screw the US taxpayer is somehow going to work ever.

Stop!

I agree with much of what you said in this post. However, I still feel that your original comment was uncalled for. Each branch of the military has a job to do. Many of the USAF capabilities can be accomplished by other services; however, today’s Air Force is changing and adapting, becoming more hands-on combat ready. Research how many Airmen have been killed on the GROUND in the past 10 years. Granted, not near the number of Soldiers and Marines. But we continue to make important contributions. Read the new version of the Airman’s Creed. Proud USAF Veteran.

It was one hell of a lot more cost effective than paying a contractor $1.10 for every $1.00 they spend on development. We pay defense contractors to spend money, then we wonder why things cost so much. F’ing duh! The contractors want you to think this is the only way we can possibly do business. It’s not. It’s not even the way we did procurement within the lifetimes of most Americans.

The US taxpayer should not pay “for profit” companies to do development. If the development costs are so high that no “for profit” company can afford to lose the contract, then we should have “not for profit” government design bureaus take over the work. This is the way we always did things, not some off the wall, high risk notion. What is high risk is the notion that giving “for profit” companies a profit incentive to screw the US taxpayer is somehow going to work ever.

I like you style!

Scaled Composits (Burt Rutan’s old company ) has already produced a UAV that can have the UA “Pod” lifted out and a manned station inserted easily, so a proof of the concept is already flying. They are a division of Northrup Grumman (B2 builders). I live near the B2 base and those extremely long flights for 2 pilots are real killers.

“the “real” military.….not the Air Farce.….”

A strange, disrespectful comment. I’m an Air Force veteran and my father was a WW II Eighth Air Force veteran. You seem to be afflicted with those “inter-service rivalry blues”. What other branches of the U.S. Military do you have disdain for, Maxine?

It was one hell of a lot more cost effective than paying a contractor $1.10 for every $1.00 they spend on development. We pay defense contractors to spend money, then we wonder why things cost so much. F’ing duh! The contractors want you to think this is the only way we can possibly do business. It’s not. It’s not even the way we did procurement within the lifetimes of most Americans.

The US taxpayer should not pay “for profit” companies to do development. If the development costs are so high that no “for profit” company can afford to lose the contract, then we should have “not for profit” government design bureaus take over the work. This is the way we always did things, not some off the wall, high risk notion. What is high risk is the notion that giving “for profit” companies a profit incentive to screw the US taxpayer is somehow going to work ever.

It was one hell of a lot more cost effective than paying a contractor $1.10 for every $1.00 they spend on development. We pay defense contractors to spend money, then we wonder why things cost so much. F’ing duh! The contractors want you to think this is the only way we can possibly do business. It’s not. It’s not even the way we did procurement within the lifetimes of most Americans.

The US taxpayer should not pay “for profit” companies to do development. If the development costs are so high that no “for profit” company can afford to lose the contract, then we should have “not for profit” government design bureaus take over the work. This is the way we always did things, not some off the wall, high risk notion. What is high risk is the notion that giving “for profit” companies a profit incentive to screw the US taxpayer is somehow going to work ever.

It was one hell of a lot more cost effective than paying a contractor $1.10 for every $1.00 they spend on development. We pay defense contractors to spend money, then we wonder why things cost so much. F’ing duh! The contractors want you to think this is the only way we can possibly do business. It’s not. It’s not even the way we did procurement within the lifetimes of most Americans.

The US taxpayer should not pay “for profit” companies to do development. If the development costs are so high that no “for profit” company can afford to lose the contract, then we should have “not for profit” government design bureaus take over the work. This is the way we always did things, not some off the wall, high risk notion. What is high risk is the notion that giving “for profit” companies a profit incentive to screw the US taxpayer is somehow going to work ever.

When SAC got folded in TAC and they called it ACC with TAC people in charge (and still in charge) this new bomber future is on shaky ground from the ACC top brass and the Air Force top brass, also fighter jocks. One final point if by chance this aircraft does get built, it needs to be maned. If it’s not it to could be landed in Iran.

It was one hell of a lot more cost effective than paying a contractor $1.10 for every $1.00 they spend on development. We pay defense contractors to spend money, then we wonder why things cost so much. F’ing duh! The contractors want you to think this is the only way we can possibly do business. It’s not. It’s not even the way we did procurement within the lifetimes of most Americans.

The US taxpayer should not pay “for profit” companies to do development. If the development costs are so high that no “for profit” company can afford to lose the contract, then we should have “not for profit” government design bureaus take over the work. This is the way we always did things, not some off the wall, high risk notion. What is high risk is the notion that giving “for profit” companies a profit incentive to screw the US taxpayer is somehow going to work ever.

Forget bombers. Build MIRV’d ICBMs with non-nuclear warheads. Anyone gets outta line, launch a missle!

Could hypersonic cruise missiles make any large bomber obsolete in the future? DARPA seems to be spending quite a bit of money on hypersonic technologies.

And now, how exactly do we convince the world that those re-entering warheads are conventionals instead of nukes?

Methinks that a swarm of WW2 technology (cheap planes and easy to train pilots) can overwhelm any country on the planet. Of course, there will be losses but really? That much more than a with fangdangled, costly, hard to control, capturable by the enemy, contraption?

A swarm of the very best of WW2 technology can NOT overwhelm even a modicum of modern technology. If you choose to fight the technology war, the best technology will present a very humbling advantage.… so long as the numbers are not totally out of whack. One M1A2 would pose a serious threat to even a regiment of Tigers, but when that M1 is out of ammunition.… .

The real threat to high tech is the “no tech” approach. No high tech tank or aircraft or missile can really fight the “People’s War” as identified by none other than Chairman Mao and practiced for thousands of years previous by various groups worldwide. The Scythians did it with the Black Sea Greeks. The VC did it to us in Vietnam, and today the “insurgents” are doing it in Iraq and Afghanistan. High tech will kill a lot of hostiles, but. … unless the objective is either just an equally futile re-visit of McNamara’s body counts, or the extermination of the hostiles, high tech will NOT win that war.

Hypersonic cruise missiles, unless you go with something like the now somewhat humorous (and scary!) Project Pluto missile from the late 50’s, still need to be carried out to the launch point, and one of the easiest ways is that “large bomber”.

The original concept of the modern day MRAP was derived from the vehicles designed and used by the South Africans in their conflicts in what was then Rhodesia and South West Africa. The ones deployed with US forces were, as noted in other posts, built in the USA and often re-designed in ways to make them more amenable to the intended uses.

http://​www​.casr​.ca/​i​d​-​b​l​a​s​t​-​r​e​s​i​s​t​a​n​t​-​v​e​h​i​c​l​e​s-2.…

http://​pogoarchives​.org/​m​/​n​s​/​m​r​a​p​/​m​r​a​p​-​g​a​y​l​-​2​0​080

Just let me remind you of the new (and old!) version of the oath that we all took. In it, I swore (several times over the years) to support and defend the Constitution of the united states, not the USAF or any other institution. When supporting the USAF gets in the way of supporting the Constitution and defending the United States, at least my oath sorts out the conflicts quite nicely.

Inter-service rivalries (and for that matter, unprincipled program advocacy!), aside from the usually alcohol –fueled bravado, conflict with my oath; what about yours?

I rose my right hand and swore the same oath as you and every Soldier, Marine, Navy, and Coast Guard personnel. There has always been, and will always be, inter-service rivalries. Each individual will always feel that they did more or had it tougher than others. I just have a problem with your original comment implying that the Air Force is a joke. We all did our jobs, no matter what Uncle Same assigned us to do and where we were sent to do it. Don’t tell me what I did in service to my country was a waste of time and accomplished nothing. I stood behind my oath then as I continue to do today as a Veteran/civilian. Your comment belittles what thousands of USAF Veterans and active personnel have done over the decades. And coming from an Air Force Veteran, such as yourself, your attitude disgusts me. I am also a proud Blue Star Mom of an Air Force TSgt. with over 17 years of active duty. And I type this as my son leaves for his fifth deployment, in as many years, back to the desert.

And I salute you and your son. My son has two tours under his belt so far, with the Army (82nd Airborne and 172nd Armor), so I definitely have the same point of view as you on many very important things.

However, I did not say that the Air Force was a joke, just that sometimes the mindless “gamesmanship” and political jockeying that we sometimes see is sickening (not just on the part of the AF either). You get some of the same from all of the services, it just seems that the AF is the most prone to stick to that party line long after the logic and reason argues for something else. If all of the “politicians in uniform” would just remember that oath (that as far as I know, you are never really offered the opportunity to repudiate short of treason!), there would be more of the good natured rivalry and less of the internal dog fighting over every dollar of budgetary authority. Out on “the point”, the differences between the USAF fighting man (and woman), and any of the other services is little more than the pattern of the uniform; all serve with great honor and bravery. The true REMFs, no matter what uniform or business suit they happen to wear, with their posturing, “spinning” braggadocio and backstabbing for a few beltway trading chips and an attaboy at their next promotion board, are simply disgusting.

May your son return safely to you after his deployment.

Well, lets see.… since glass composites, even those with the lightning mesh embedded, are usually pretty transparent to RF, every random length of metal wire in the fuselage, every pushrod or cable, every equipment rack or “black box” becomes a reflector or resonator for the RF. And since the lengths and edges are basically random, these little radiators light up major portions of the RF spectrum. Given the widespread penetration of the commercial market for 747, Id just about bet that any fuel saving technologies available in the engines for the 777 or 787 will VERY rapidly be found in a 747 compatible engine. Generator capacity is a big item, but.… two generators on a single engine share the same power source and the same CSD/gearbox. In other words, all else equal, you are more likely to loose 1/2 of your power generation capability with a single failure. High hydraulic pressure is a great little weight saving measure, but again, its a retrofittable feature in a design, if not on a given already-in-service aircraft.

ALSO, the long term metal fatigue characteristics of an aluminum structure under rough usage is a very well known quantity. The same can not be said for large composite aircraft structure.

Don’t necessarily have to intercept the signal to make the signal unusable. You could just make a counter-signal to blank it out, or make a higher intensity signal. GPS jamming is a real threat, but there are ways around it. Inertial navigation, celestial navigation, and good ole clock-to-map-to-ground are viable alternatives IF there is GPS jamming.

Each of the present heavy bombers in the inventory fills a roll. All three are long range, so expect that at least to be in the next bomber.
B-1B: Low-level, high speed, and somewhat stealth
B-2: High altitude, stealth
B-52: High (with some low level capabilities in a permissive environment) with long loiter times.

Each of these tend to be mutually exclusive to one another. You also have unique airframes amongst the three (conventional, swing-wing, and flying wing) each tailored to fit the purpose of the bomber. I think the idea of going with off-the-shelf technology with one of the above layouts is practical, and probably more likely to make it than a more out there plane. I don’t expect any surprises from the initial proposals for the next next-gen bomber.

I would agree with you on just about all of the above, except:

1. The B-52 low level capability came about to retain a penetration capability against a non-permissive, moderate to high threat level that precluded high level penetration. NOBODY really enjoys a ride in a BUFF, low level, with a hard ride dialed in, but.… . it does keep that big aluminum cloud invisible, at least to the radar horizon! LOL!

2. There is no real off the shelf technology suitable for a heavy bomber in either the flying wing or swing wing configuration, short of the B-2, the B-1 and the Blackjack. Dont think that the Blackjack will be considered as a candidate! LOL!

Your handheld GPS “intercepts” a satellite signal, and if its an airborne system designed to permit precision GPS approaches/landings, it can intercept the ground based GPS augmentation signal. If we are to believe what was published in the trade rags (and makes a bit of sense if you think it through), the Iranians, perhaps with some help, “convinced” the drone that it had lost the command link and also spoofed its autonomous “come home and land” system to land at the airport of their choice.

If that was anything even vaguely close to the truth, it just demonstrates that we have been very careless in our blind infatuation with all things UAV and that we left it out there “dangling”, just waiting for some fairly smart and technically savvy enemy to exploit. SHAME!!!!

My interpretation of the off-the-shelf technology was to use components of the aircraft (engines, avionics, displays, sensors, landing gear, APU, fiddly bits) that are already in production. I don’t consider aircraft structures (wings, control surfaces) “off-the-shelf”, though if Kelly Johnson was still alive and in charge of Skunk Works, he would probably find a way.
You still have to design and build the airframe.

Seems like our fighter fleet is suffering the same problem. I’d think their would be a way to be more modular in composite construction, but that may be counterintuitive to the goal. A complete light weight mono construction of composite material. Boeing was the first to complete an all in one carbon fiber fuselage, and the huge kiln to cure it! I think they were in the 44 passenger class, or there abouts.

Market disappeared company couldn’t adapt so it dies to make way for others that could. Good to see a story by OldRetSWO on how things are supposed to work. For a moment there I thought he was going to tells us how his incompetent company lived on for 20 years on no-bid contracts.

So it is supposed to work by the DoD giving a 20 year contract, then cancelling it and screwing over the company?

Do you work in DC? Because you’d fit in well enough with those crooks.

UNLESS of course you just take an airframe that is already in production, well proven and well supplied (logistically). Thats why I suggested the B-747. Its a very well proven airframe with NO unknowns, thanks to the civilian aviation usage. Its big and roomy, has outstanding range capability, and carries a very large payload (all of these, along with the proven airframe, decrease the development and integration risks). In other words, you dont have to spend your time and effort trying to squeeze every cubic inch or ounce out of the equipment to be put on board. Thanks to those four big engines, you dont have the chase every watt of electrical power out of the the systems, AND you can install those systems for true ease of maintenance.You need a platform to get the weapons and avionics systems airborne you dont need to develop that platform.

With composites, and Im not an expert here, I believe that you have competing issues. First off, its increasingly difficult to manufacture components as the increase in size. It was explained to me in terms of the likelihood of physical flaws is a function of the volume of composite material used, in other words, the more material in the end product the more likely that the part will have to be rejected (since repairs to many of the flaws are impossible!). The flip side is that the weakest area in composite structures are often the joints, so the more “modular” you make it the more likely you are to have structural issues as well. The bottom line is that there may be some inflection point between the two size considerations that is an optimum, but.… does that really offer any advantage over the conventional aluminum construction? Or do we just have a sad case of “target fixation” with the word “composite”? The 787 is likely to be the test point, but.… how long before we know the answer?

Government Arsenals went out of the business of producing equipment a very very long time ago. Time after time, there have been studies and analysis that have showed that buying ships, planes, vehicles, etc is much cheaper when you go to industry. The only reason that the government still has repair depots doing half of the depot work is that it is guaranteed under the law. The unions and congressman for the districts involved led the fight for that.

Oh, how stupid of me. I thought that having two sources for the system guaranteed competition for every production contract and having the government switch back to one producer guaranteed that it would be a sole sourvce procurement. I am so happy that I was wrong and the one remaining company that has gotten every contract for the past 20 years is NOT on sole source procurement. Thanks for clearing that up for me itfunk, you clearly have a great understanding of the acquisition system.

I think some of the problems you refer to regarding the gamesmanship and political jockeying is due, in part, to the fact that so many of those making the decisions regarding our military, including our CIC, never so much as wore the uniform of our nation’s military. They have not “been there”, and they have not “done that”. It’s all a numbers game. It’s not realistic. They are not part of the team. Do they, especially as politicians, even understand the concept?

Thank you for the sentiments regarding my son. And I wish to thank yours for his service and sacrifices.

I can almost (ALMOST!) forgive those who have never “been there and done that” for bad decisions and ignorant positions. I say “almost” only because if the politicians are unqualified and otherwise smart enough to be in the position of authority, they should also have been smart enough to disqualify themselves from the decisions. The politicians that are neither qualified nor smart enough to disqualify themselves are pretty much inescapable.……until the next election! :-)The ones that get me to gagging are those who actually WEAR the uniform (any one of the uniforms!), have the necessary experience and present “credibility”, but still act like politicians.Wars would be far fewer and far quicker if fought by old men (and women). May all of the sons and daughters get home safely!

Agreed.

The problems in taking a civilian passenger/cargo plane is that it wasn’t designed to be a bomber. You would have to completely redo the structure of the airframe because the bomb bays would be cutting right through the main wing spars and fuel tanks. Cargo planes load/unload from the front, back, or sides; bombers release from the bottom.

Also, the 747 is HUGE, even compared to all the bombers in the USAF inventory. It is a matter of cargo density. Bombs are dense, people and cargo are fluffy. You don’t need a huge cargo space for bombs. Either way you go, it would mean designing a new airframe.

If the objective was to deliver 400k lbs of ordnance in a single ripple salvo, you are absolutely correct. Now back off a bit on the payload to perhaps 50–60 500 lb JDAMs in pairs, or perhaps a singleton or pair of MOABs. Don’t need barndoor bombay doors. So long as the payload is something short of an Arclight, a far less radical reengineering would be required. As for where you might put payload .….. One bay fwd of wing one aft. Scale backbone rack and doors for one of the 30k penetrators each, and I’d saw you would be able to do everything else through conveniently placed ‘torpedo tubes’. :-). It can be made too difficult, but that is NOT required! Sent from my iPhone

The mods you just described would easily amount to $500M each

Yes, and can you imagine the size of that fuselage kiln?And there in lies the conundrum. Fixated? Yup! As I said earlier, they probably just want a modified B1. After seeing the success on the “silent” helicopter used in the bin Laden raid; I began convincing myself almost anything can be greatly enhanced for low radar signature. I know — that is a pretty long shot, unless you hug the terrain.

50–60 500lb JDAMs? That only comes out to 30K lbs of bomb…did you miss a decimal place there? Maybe 48K if you go for the installed weight of 800lb, this is the same weigh all our present bombers have. I guess I am missing why you would use an aircraft 50 wider & longer, 20 feet taller, with almost twice the maximum takeoff weight of a B-52 to carry the same amount of bombs.

Here’s a cool article about just how BIG a B-747 is compared to a B-52 http://​blog​.seattlepi​.com/​a​e​r​o​s​p​a​c​e​/​2​0​1​0​/​0​4​/​1​3​/bo

They had to park it diagonally, plus trim off the wingtips and tailtip.

Translate those 50–60 JDAMS into 25–30 DMPIs and you might see the practicalities of a B-747 airframe. If I take a mere 10 minutes to receive the 9-line, move to the IP, and release the pair of bombs, that translates into about 300 minutes of plowing around the target area. (But if the 9lines are not stacked up and cued for immediate sequential servicing, you need even more time moping around in the target area!) so… that big ole airplane could be used to carry some serious fuel bladders to extend range and loiter. WIth that extended range, I might even want to add a second crew and crew accommodations (ala the old B-36). Since I have the SWAP, I might include a much more extensive ISR suite as well as the operators and comm gear to put all of that gear to good use. with just a little bit of imagination, I dont think that a cubic inch of the B-747 could not be put to gainful use!

Hmmm Take the C-17 and do a Air Crane conversion on the fuselage. Have the Cargo Module, Refueling Boom Module, Bomb Module, Cruise Missile Module, Spectre Module (Lots of 20mm, 105’s and 40mm’s), and the MOAFB dropable module.

Mother Of All F*******g Bomb’s

Add point defense modules out of a B-52 and you’ll have a multi use aircraft. Long Beach then can keep turning out AC-17’s indefinitely. It costs $260ish mil per C17. What can you do with another $290mil per air frame… How many modules do you need per air frame? I’d like to think of a Bomb/Missile combined module… 170,900 lb cargo load… That’s 85 tons! translate that into 60tons of bombs in racks.

B2 and B1-B’s for fancy delivery and the AC-17 for everything else…

I think you missed the point, the 747 can carry hundreds of thousands of pounds of cargo. Why use a plane that big when it can be done with a much smaller one?

B-52s and B-1s can already loiter on station for a long time.

We already have assets for use for ISR, and aircraft are already configured with SNIPER and LITENING pods but aren’t used for ISR. You’re talking about making an assault ship and cramming a JSTARS, AWACS, Rivet Joint, MQ-9, and a B-52 into one aircraft with a pricetag of $500 million when a clean 747–8 freighter cost $333 million. http://​www​.boeing​.com/​c​o​m​m​e​r​c​i​a​l​/​p​r​i​c​es/

That is neither no frills nor simple.

One more great plane to keep the Russians and Chinese from ever messing with us.God bless America

We already have gunships coming up in development (AC-130J) and tankers coming up (KC-46). Also, the C-17 was designed to take a combat ready M1A1 tank into a rough airfield of ~3000 ft, backup, offload, and takeoff in the same distance. This role the C-17 performs very well. It does not however, perform any of these tasks efficiently (such is the sacrifice for short landing distances). Adapting the C-17 to perform any of the previous mentioned capabilities (including airdropping bombs) would require re-certification, new training, new infrastructure, AND a redesign of the airframe. The air force has tried before for a M-A-C-K-X type catchall aircraft. It just gets too expensive. Easier to ask Congress (and the American taxpayer) for specific funding for a specific reason.

object out

can any bomb be dropped in during the supersonic run if so how does its aerodynamic stability would differ

Where’s the threat? Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, and other countries with advanced IADSes and/or fighters. Against such threats, nonstealthy aircraft such as the B-1 and the B-52 are unsurvivable and therefore useless. The B-3 is ABSOLUTLEY NECESSARY.

$550 mn per plane is a very realistic price — the cost of one F-35 is about $189 mn, and the flyaway cost of one F-22 is only $137-$150 mn. Moreover, unlike the F-22 and the F-35, the LRSB will use many EXISTING technologies, which will significantly drive down the cost of each plane, and of the development of the type. I’d bet that in addition to the engines, radar, and other avionics, they’ll also use many other parts from existing aircraft, including landing gear, LG and bomb bay doors, the mission computer, the crew escape system, the fire suppression system, and many others. CSBA’s Mark Gunzinger has even produced a complete, detailed blueprint of what such LRSB would look like. The F-117 was built that way.

I thought he posted very well for an obvious non-native english speaker. You obviously could take a course too. I really dislike spelling nazi’s, which you obviously are. Learn to be more considerate and you will go further in life, unless you rely on internet anonymity to be a jerk. ’nuff said. 07.

Well we seem to be paying for an imaginary number of F35’s so why not?

militaries’ sequences that is anti developer side making use influencing desies it is not so easy. huge area’s developing it need one methods.

Any bomber program is guaranteed to have procurement costs of twice as much as budgeted, require incredibly expensive maintenance for avionics and stealth systems, be inadequate in numbers vs. an industrial power and overkill against the semi-literate shmucks we’re fighting now, and all too soon vulnerable to advanced detection or sheer volume (fill the likely flight path with high carbon crap.…) air defenses. We need a truck to haul SP ordnance to a standoff point and say bye-bye. A modified P8 would work, but a C17 or old C5 would be the 18 wheeler to the P8’s Ford F150. Hell, in 1982 the Argentinians used 25 year old C130’s. Screw stealth. Al Qaeda does not have Aegis, and we’re damned well not assaulting the Russians or Chinese. As for a big UAV, what kind of madman would put an atomic weapon at the other end of a satellite link? We can barely make DISH TV work.….

It is vital to confirm that a roofer is fully licensed in one’s state before giving the roofer the
go ahead to begin work. Most people are intimated by the idea of even holding an instrument, but there are a number of
do-it-yourself assignments that may be undertaken even by way
of a complete klutz. For some people this may seem like overkill that thwarts the
spirit of competitive bidding.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Like us on , follow us on and join us on Google+
© 2014 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.