Opinion: This new high-tech bomber is designed to keep China and Russia at bay

Marketwatch ^ | Published: Nov 16, 2015 6:21 p.m. ET

[Cringing Negativism Network]

The U.S. Air Force is developing a new bomber that promises to secure the U.S. advantage in modern warfare.

The next-generation long-range strike bomber, recently awarded to Northrop Grumman Corp. NOC, +4.36% for development, will not be designed to rely on as yet undeveloped technologies, as is so often the case with new aircraft and weaponry. Instead, the aircraft will combine and fully exploit existing advanced stealth technology, integrated software, ordnance and countermeasures.

In effect, the military is consolidating the best of its technology in one package. At the same time, the U.S. Air Force has decided to aggregate all of its bombers under a single, unified command, clearing the way to making bombers a more central part of its operations. Thus the new long-range strike bomber is poised to become a central pillar of the U.S. strategy to project its power throughout the globe.

(full article)

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-new-high-tech-bomber-is-designed-to-keep-china-and-russia-at-bay-2015-11-16?siteid=yhoof2

[equaviator]

XB-70, eh? That great big 6-engine delta-winged supersonic beauty of a beast, a.k.a. the Valkyrie? Never heard of it!

[Yo-Yo]

We’re already doing that or at least getting ready to.

We've been "getting ready to" since 1985. Currently there is no program of record, nor is there money allocated, to re-engine the B-52. There is only a feasibility study, which is probably the third or fourth such study since 1985.

Time to stop studying the issue, and just do it, using money currently allocated for the Long Range Strike Bomber program.

[equaviator]

Wow, I swear I just read an article (about three months ago)where it was more than just talk of a B-52 re-engine program. I might have missed any mention that it’s been just a wish-list item for all this time. Thirty years?

[schurmann]

“F-15E has great loiter time and bomb-load and the A-10 can fly a long time and carries as much as WWII B-24 bombers did. . .”

Like many, Hulka’s thinking is stuck in the 1930s. And technical errors have crept in.

The F-15E does not have loiter time at all. It can only go as far as it does, thanks to inflight refueling. A-10 has even shorter legs.

Its irresponsible (not to mention disingenuous) to compare the warloads of 1930s-vintage B-17s and B-24s with today’s light attack airplanes like the F-15E and F/A-18.

Fighters of WWII carried less than 2000 rounds of 50 cal ammunition; any bomb-drop capability arrived after the fact and rarely rose above 1000 pounds (that’s two 500-pounders, for those who aren’t up to the math). None of those 1930s-era fighters could fly more than half way across the CONUS; North American’s P-51 - worshiped as the salvation of the Combined Bomber Offensive - was barely able to fly to Berlin and back, and could that much only after modifications adding fuel tankage that rendered it marginally stable and borderline hazardous to fly. That’s with guns only, and drop tanks replacing the two 500-pounders.

F-15Es may lift more munitions than a B-24, but the B-29 (1942) tripled that and doubled attainable range.

Today’s bombers - long range manned strike aircraft, in current parlance - can fly from CONUS to targets in theater, and return to home station after striking. Plus their weapons loadouts are in the 40,000 to 80,000 pound range, many times that of even the most potent fighters. And bombers can fly 6,000 to 12,000 nautical miles nonstop. Augment that by aerial refueling, and there’s no spot on the globe beyond their reach.

[Yo-Yo]

Wow, I swear I just read an article (about three months ago)

Yup, you probably did: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2015/02/12/b52-engine-private-public-partnership/23185827/

[equaviator]

Yep, that’s the one.

[Hulka]

Yup. . .flying CAS, flying A/A and all the maneuvers that come with it (upside down, 7g +, for examples). Of course it is.

[Hulka]

“. . .frequency hopping makes complete jamming impractical”

That is why it is called “jam resistant”

Complete jamming is VERY difficult and usually localized.

Takes a lot of assets to jam more broadly than localized, and that, is a very real threat.

[Hulka]

Gulf War I. . .strategic bombing campaign did keep the Iraqis from heading south, kept them stapled in place with the awful choice of, run and die tired or die in place, and also cut them off from the logistics and supply train necessary to move an army.

[Hulka]

Stand-off is always good.

[Hulka]

They have upgraded the avionic packages and weaponeering systems like you stated, but to “make” (as in new production), cost prohibited because that production line shut-down and no longer exists AND we are limited by START to the number of B-52’s we can have on the line.

[Hulka]

“Like many, Hulka’s thinking is stuck in the 1930s. And technical errors have crept in.”

Yup, that’s me, how do you like my silk scarf and goggles. And 30’s thinking is not all wrong. Giulio Douhet? Billy Mitchell? Hap Arnold? Their basic strategic bombing concepts have been proven when coupled with intelligence and proper ID of essential nodes (CoG).

“The F-15E does not have loiter time at all. It can only go as far as it does, thanks to inflight refueling. A-10 has even shorter legs.”

You watch a fleet of strategic bombers launch for a strategic mission? Launching from anywhere, CONUS or deployed, re-fueling is part of the mission. Another re-fueling either just before push and always post delivery. Refueling is a fact of life—for bombers and the F-15E.

Loiter time is an interesting question. Do we “need” loiter time?” What does loiter time give you when you have a mission to execute, especially strategic missions where you are launching with precise strategic tgts in mind. So, deploy from the states and you re-fuel or launch from a deployed location, doesn’t matter, LRSB or F-15E, all refuel and loiter is tied to a specific mission, mostly CAS. Most people, not you, know any platform can do CAS as long as it has A/G munitions. Thne A-10’s ability to loiter in a CS environment is legendary and shapes the close battle.

“I’ts irresponsible (not to mention disingenuous) to compare the warloads of 1930s-vintage B-17s and B-24s with today’s light attack airplanes like the F-15E and F/A-18.”

Didn’t say a word about F/A-18’s, but no matter, I get your point. But load-out IS important if you are going to loiter. “Irresponsible” to mention weapons load comparisons? I don’t agree. Today we are remarkably more accurate than WWII platforms, even Vietnam platforms as well. For a 90%Pk on a 90’ x 100’ tgt used to take (WWII) 9,000 free-fall bombs, Korea and Vietnam, took about 30 bombs, today just one. So, our long range strike platforms (too include the F-15E) as very effective per weapon than before, capable of achieving much more with the same tonnage as years before. . .like back in my day in the 1930s. With improvements in weapons and self-protection/5th gen (6th gen is coming along) each day, all platforms can do pretty much all missions.

“Fighters of WWII carried less than 2000 rounds of 50 cal ammunition; any bomb-drop capability arrived after the fact and rarely rose above 1000 pounds (that’s two 500-pounders, for those who aren’t up to the math). None of those 1930s-era fighters could fly more than half way across the CONUS; North American’s P-51 - worshiped as the salvation of the Combined Bomber Offensive - was barely able to fly to Berlin and back, and could that much only after modifications adding fuel tankage that rendered it marginally stable and borderline hazardous to fly. That’s with guns only, and drop tanks replacing the two 500-pounders.”

P-51. . configuring for the mission, not unusual. A/A mission you load-out for that/ A/G and you have a separate load-out. Today, the F-15E provides its own A/A protection while at the same time flying A/G missions, too. Of course, it can also be loaded for A/A only or A/G only. Mission dictates.

Thanks for the lesson. Interesting.

“F-15Es may lift more munitions than a B-24, but the B-29 (1942) tripled that and doubled attainable range.”

But, back then we built aircraft that did not A/A refuel and needed staging, too include the B-29. Staging like the F-15E. . .and with A/A refueling we can stage further from hostile airspace than the B-29. And like I mentioned earlier, the F-15E is exceptionally precise in its weapons delivery, well beyond the B-29 AND that means more mission effectiveness and less aircraft and sorties required to take out a tgt (higher rate of mission success). Basically, the number of bombs dropped is not a measure of success.

“Today’s bombers - long range manned strike aircraft, in current parlance - can fly from CONUS to targets in theater, and return to home station after striking.”

Not without re-fueling and same can be said about the F-15E.

“Plus their weapons loadouts are in the 40,000 to 80,000 pound range, many times that of even the most potent fighters.”

And that means we are launching a hugely expensive CAS aircraft (that is truly the only mission that requires loiter).

“And bombers can fly 6,000 to 12,000 nautical miles nonstop.”

I thought you said they can fly anywhere without refueling? Likely I misunderstood. No matter, number of platforms provides flexibility, an ability to simultaneously engages multiple tgts. And I am sure you heard flexibility is key to air power.

“Augment that by aerial refueling, and there’s no spot on the globe beyond their reach.”

As like ALL A/A refueling capable platforms.

Enjoyed your post. . .but that could just be my senility talking.

Cheers.

;-).

[Hulka]

Not sure what you mean?

“Heavy” means what? What is the definition of “heavy?”

[Don W]

The concept is: Loose lips sink ships!

In other words, if you THINK you know something that MIGHT help the enemy, SAY NOTHING about it to ANYONE.

Keep your mouth SHUT!

You cannot know who is listening to (reading) what you say (type).

The less those who know anything say/type, the less information is available to our foes.

IOW, shaddup and listen. You might hear something, but do you want to be the reason ISIS knew about a new strategy, just because of your speculations?

Yes, really.

[equaviator]

See post #25.

[equaviator]

“And that means we are launching a hugely expensive CAS aircraft”

A-10’s are known to be less expensive to operate in CAS roles, are they not?

[Hulka]

Taking my statement out of context as I was referring to LRSB.

So, yes, A-10 is very cost-effective and by referring to the A-10 as less expensive to operate, you made my argument.

;-)

[equaviator]

To you, maybe I did make your argument. However, it’s the way your writing leaves things open to wondering what the context really is. Very clever!

[Hulka]

Not bad for an old man of the 30’s.

;-)

[equaviator]

Stop winking at me like that!