New Bomber Program 'Underway' But Cloaked in Secrecy

AolDefense ^ | 2/24/2012 | Colin Clark

[U-238]

America's new long-range bomber program is "underway," will involve somewhere between 80 and 100 planes and will be delivered sometime in the mid-2020's. "And that's about all we're saying," Air Force Secretary Mike Donley told reporters. It's been known for some time that the bombers will not fly alone but will be part of a family of systems that may include UAVs and other systems.

The really interesting part of all this is the secrecy and why it's so dark. It would seem to indicate several things: that the U.S. does not want potential competitors such as China or Russia to know how advanced a system will be delivered or exactly what capabilities it will involve; that the Air Force is still putting the larger architecture together, deciding which capabilities will be available.

The bomber will almost certainly include an unmanned capability, but no one has made a formal decision yet, an Air Force source told me. Many of the important subsystems have not yet been chosen, this source said. Even presuming that the $4 billion for the bomber in the 2013 budget submission spread over five years is supplemented by a few billion more in the black budget that is not much money to build 80 to 100 planes that will cost at least $550 million each. Even if that is flyaway cost -- which excludes research and development costs -- building a bomber able to penetrate denied airspace and fly thousands of miles to do it without refueling has never been cheap.

[FreedomPoster]

Historical point of interest - the concept for RFG was originated by Jerry Pournelle when he was a Cold Warrior involved in strategic weaponry; he has an Operations Research background. He has been a noted computer columnist and science fiction writer for the last few decades, and was a space adviser to Reagan and Gingrich. He is a really interesting guy. I support him and his web site at about the same level I support Free Republic (and I’m a monthly). He is worth it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment

http://jerrypournelle.com/chaosmanor/

[FreedomPoster]

I meant to ping you to my post above as well.

[RoadTest]

The Serif Patrol is going to have to gig the apostrophe in “2020’s there in the first sentence of the article.

Press the buzzer, Madeline.

[RoadTest]

And now the Serif Patrol will acknowledge the missing quotation mark in his post.

[Steve Newton]

True

I too would like to see something from orbit.

Talk about reaching out and touching someone!

[Nowhere Man]

OK, make it an F-15 then.

[Nowhere Man]

It takes 12 hours for the B-52 to reach their targets inside Russia. Do you think with the ever improving air defenses and fighter defenses they can reach their targets?

Well, you have two choices from what I know. The B-52 can be used as a missile carrier or you can go in low. I've seen footage of a B-52 flying Nap of the Earth in West Virginia, it was pretty cool and I'm sure takes a lot of skill.

[Nowhere Man]

One really has to wonder. It’s such a simple and effective idea, why wouldn’t we have done it? Sure can’t be that hard to keep hidden. Rocket launches happen all the time. No spectacular tech to leak out. No real hyper-complex system to maintain outside fuel for the sat - and we repair/refuel them regularly. Just a targeting system computer and a bunch of heavy metal.

I’d be more apt to think it’s been up there since the 60s and that all the rest has been no more than a dog and pony show to hide the fact that we can hit anything, anywhere at damn near any reasonable depth.

That reminds me of a story where my German teacher, back ib the 1970's, took his students over to West and East Germany as well as Switzerland. He saw a shack on top of a mountain in Switzerland and he asked a guard what it was and the guard replied, "it is a laser defense system to knock out any missiles and planes that would attack us, it's been there since 1968." Yeah, perhaps the guard is pulling his leg it is certainly possible but what if he wasn't? Still it would be weird to be free with such information but I digress.

Shifting gears, I just think we put too much faith into a lot of this "Buck Rogers/Flash Gordon stuff" (as my grandmother would say), a lot of this is certainly doable and possible, but very costly to run and you need an extensive network, it is almost to the point to where it is prohibitive and not practical. It would be nice to have the best semi-auto rifle in the world for defense if the SHTF, but if you are limited in a budget, you might have to do with a shotgun and a handgun.

Also, there is no such thing as an obsolete weapon, you just have to change tactics and use of it. Then you have pilot training too, it is the quality of pilots. It's like the scenario I was discussing with a friend where it is certainly possible for a MiG-17 to defeat an F-22. It depends how you apply it, the training and yes, luck of course. You always have intangible factors like that that come into play.

I think we have become too used to technology improving at a rapid pace. Again, we basically plateaued in jet performance when it comes to speed, maneuverability and range around 1960 or so. Computers have gone beyond that of course, but again, cost comes into play, it costs a lot to make one plane and like Dad's Ferrari, it will be so costly, you'd be worried that you'd wreck it if you drive it. B-)

We live or have lived in a unique part of history. In many ways, I think we have slowed down a lot in technology, at least in the practical application of it. The 20th Century was the era of fastest technology growth, we went from horses and steam engines in 1900 to landing man on them Moon in less than 70 years and to the internet almost 100 years later. I think we've slowed down quite a bit with the exception of medical technology, well, that will happen too, think Obamacare.

So overall, I do see the logic of keeping the B-52's and B-1's flying as more of a practical thing than a space plane that has been discussed. It is a neat concept, but when I think of all the problems we had with the Space Shuttle, it will be a worse hanger queen than the B-2 bomber.

[rlmorel]

Hahaha...that was a good way out of that one!

[Nowhere Man]

True. I still think the F-4 can do the job, but some say it lacked some dexterity although if it was the only thing I had to fly, well so be it. I was a bit tired anyhoo when I posted that.

[rlmorel]

LOL, that’s okay. Glad I was the only one who jumped on you..;)

I loved the Phantom. Classic plane . Sure, it can handle more ordinance, so as a flying ordinance truck, that is about the only thing it might have an advantage, but it would get toasted in 100 out of 100 air superiority metrics.

If some gave ME a Phantom to fly, I wouldn’t throw it out bed for eating crackers in the rack!

[STD]

Can you say ‘stand off’ cruise missiles until the enemies AA system’s shut down. The US Navy can do it, the Air Force should do it. I love Hienlan’s ‘Rods from Gods’ program. No radioactive fall out or emp

[STD]

Robert A. Heinlein’s novel The Moon is a Harsh Mistress employs the concept of kinetic bombardment of the Earth from mass drivers on the Moon during a war of secession between the two planets.

[chemicalman]

Have to check that out. Thanks

[PapaBear3625]

Anybody here remember the B-58 (Hustler) the super sonic bomber that was supposed to release guided missles to where ever ?

Minuteman ICBM being launched from C-5 Galaxy cargo plane.

The C-5 wouldn't need to be able to penetrate Soviet air space. It could just be flying during times of threat, and launch the missile from somewhere over Canada if an attack was confirmed.

[PapaBear3625]

It takes 12 hours for the B-52 to reach their targets inside Russia.

The B-52 would have a problem with modern air defenses. It would be best as a missile platform, bringing large loads of cruise missiles near the target while staying out of range of enemy AAM. It would also be good for leveling places without modern air defenses.

[Doe Eyes]

Apparently you don't know much about the B-1B.

The B1-B was not used in the Iraq war until after the US had completely destroyed Iraq's air defenses. It was not used until after B-52's were flying missions there.

The B-1B is pretty much a sitting duck against an opponent with modern air defenses because of its size/RCS, and problems protecting it with on-board electronic warfare equipment. The B-2 was developed to counter this vulnerability.

The B-1B is good for dumping a lot of bombs on unprotected targets (as is the B-52). I suppose it can get to the targets very fast (830+ mph) but I very much doubt that capability was required in any of its operational missions to date.

[U-238]

You waste fuel faster when going tree top level. You do have to contend with the laws of gravitation.

[U-238]

Excellent Point. By the time B-52s reach their targets nothing would be left of Russia and there would be not too many operational air bases funtioning in the United States.
Some Russian SLBMs would strike civilian airport runways that are at least 7000 Ft long. This is the minimum length required by B-52s; there were 210 such runways in the U.S. in 1977. During a crisis, big bombers would be dispersed to many of these long runways, and enemy SLBMs would be likely to target and hit these runways in an effort to destroy the maximum number of bombers. I have a plan to bring back any surviving bombers who managed to complete their objectives home but its only a plan.

[U-238]

A big problem with bombers, that most of them are located near ICBM bases.Making them susceptible to be destroyed in a sneak attack. That is why they are dispersed in civilian airports in emergencies.