TheRussianLord

USAF Wants New Bomber by 2018

GOOD NEWS: 2006 saw a convergence of opinion within the USAF that a new long-range strike platform was needed. This is understandable given the B-52H Stratofortress fleet’s age (40-50 years), the B-1B Lancer’s internal power and electronics issues, both of these platforms’ low survivability against advanced air defense systems, and the B-2A Spirit stealth bomber’s very small numbers [21, of which 7-12 are generally operational]. The unmanned J-UCAS program, however, was seen as having inadequate range and payload [Boeing X-45C: 1,400 mile radius with 8 GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs]. The USAF decided that it wasn’t a solution and pulled out, stalling American UCAV development until the Navy chose to go ahead with the carrier-based UCAS-D.

In September 2006, Inside Defense reported that the US Air Force was responding to ongoing Congressional pressure with a proposed $5 billion initial investment over the next few years. Their goal was to develop a next-generation long-range strike platform by 2018, with a fly-off before final platform selection. Now the potential contractors are beginning to align – but will the fly-off still take place?..

BAD NEWS: Officials disagreed on what kind of aircraft or missile should be designed to meet the requirement. A single plane? A missile? A family of aircraft? Manned or unmanned? A fighter-bomber like the FB-22/FB-23 idea to fill the FB-111’s vacant shoes, or a full-reach heavy bomber? A traditional land-based platform, or should it be carrier capable? Something comparable to the $2 billion B-2s to take on the toughest strike missions – or more of a utility aircraft like some of the “arsenal aircraft” proposals, aimed at replacing the B-52s with a platform based on a passenger jet or C-17 that would be more economical to fly and maintain? And where do proposals to simply re-engine the B-52 fleet fit in?

Until (unless) this was sorted out, R&D efforts could not succeed – and issues of future force structure remained open questions. An official Analysis of Alternatives was scheduled for Spring 2007, and the articles below chronicle developments in that process as it works its way forward. At this point, it appears certain that the new bomber will fly at subsonic speeds, and incorporate modern advances in stealth technology. Other elements are less clear.

On the contractor side, the program seems to be shaping up more clearly.

On Jan 25/08, Boeing and Lockheed Martin announced that they would be cooperating on a bid of their own. Their team will perform studies and system development efforts “in pursuit of the anticipated U.S. Air Force Next Generation Bomber program.” Their collaborative research and development efforts will include will include work in advanced sensors, future electronic warfare solutions, better networked awareness of the broader battlefield, command and control issues for stealth platforms, and virtual warfare simulation and experimentation.

Northrop Grumman is an obvious contender, as the designer and manufacturer of the B-2A Spirit Stealth bomber. The firm has moved away from designing full-scale manned military aircraft in recent years, however; and if they do not choose to build a competing design, US military hopes for a competitive fly-off could be dashed.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

graal

Seriously, I really wish the US centered their attention to something more productive than war, I see it as a waste of 5 billion, which could be used to many other more useful things...

Well, I didn't understand exactly the idea of this topic, so this is my opinion about these news...

King_Leopold

um well ok...so whats the topic to discuss, bombers?

well i dont know how useful a new bomber will be, seeing as all our existing bombers do mainly is bomb crappy countries who dont have decent air defense anyways.

Go to this link, now. [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

Ellingsoc26

well i think a new heavy bomber is kinda pointless so we need is an aircraft that can do alot of things we dont really like 10 planes doing 10 diff things how about we make like 4 or 5 to do those 10 jobs

UnleashWC3

While i don't think we will see the usage of a heavy bomber like we did in WW2 ever again, it is important that we continue to develop new and better means of technology on all fronts. War, Communications, Traveling, Everything, medical, and everything else i could think of.

What i think we could use is a new heavy bomber that can serve the purpose of the all purpose transport plane. Obviously not a giant cargo plane, but something that fits the needs first of what the USAF wants in its new heavy bomber, and also has the ability to play many different roles for us such as special operations, cargo, and communications.

Ishanul

vehicles and machines will replace men and women on the battlefield.

King Stubby

like a giant robot war, only they would actually try to kill people! THAT sounds humanitarian...

TheRussianLord

Well first off the B-52's are ridiculously old. The airframes are almost falling apart. This is actually a problem for the entire USAF. A short while ago the entire F-15 fleet was grounded because one of the aircraft fell apart as a result of old age in mid-air.

Second off B-52's and other bombers are used in Iraq and Afghan right now. They are perfectly capable platforms for guided weapons.

Thirdly a bomber cannot possibly be used as a cargo plane. Especially not a modern bomber. It has a completely different configuration. New cargo planes should be used as cargo planes. New bombers should be used as bombers.

graal

Well then, tell me... what is the real use of making such a nice bomber, if it is overkill against the countries US usually wars... (let's face it, there is no need for this bomber against Iraq, or Afgan) and also, it won't be useful against strong countries, as they have nuclear technology and the US wouldn't risk bombarding a country which has nuclear technology, as they could counter with a nuke and then, well... let's just say that the world wouldn't be the same...

So, I REALLY think it is useless to make such a great plane... if they were investing in some EFFECTIVE project to protect against missiles (specially nuclear ones), I would understand it...

Ishanul

The reason for this issue is, NO DEMAND. You can have confidence that the USAF would develop a new bomber pretty damn fast if there was a serious need for one.

TheRussianLord

There is a program for a strategic level ABM system in the US. The Patriot MIM-104 has limited ABM capabilites, and finally not many countries with nuclear weapons have the delivery systems to hit the U.S.

I wouldn't say it's an overkill, because currently more and more advanced fighter jets are becoming more and more accessible to less and less significant countries. With the recent popularity of the Flanker family multi-purpose fighters I'd say there are plenty of reasons to be worried.

graal

Indeed, that's what happens when your economy is based on wars... I mean, I always see european countries invading "less significant countries", so they can make some extra bucks... and yes, that's what Afgan and Iraq wars were about... the US government knew they weren't gonna get Osama by invading Afgan (if they really wanna get him, anyway), and also knew there weren't chemical weapons in Iraq, so whatever... if you really think those investiments in weapons is necessary, suit yourself...

I do understand that these billions invested are good for the economy... first, because it generates jobs and helps many companies related to this kind of technology... Secondly, the war will help the economy later on, but I really don't think that's the way to go... (some people do, probably you do, but I can't do anything to change it... everybody has its own mind...)

I think it is pretty possible to compare the US to the Roman Empire... the Roman Empire survived for as long as it kept invading new areas and getting its resources/work force... when they stopped expanding, it was the end... perhaps the US is also based on war, once there is no more war, it might be the end for the US too... (of course nowadays there is also another type of "invasion", the economic one, but I think that's something for another topic... this one is for war...)

Ishanul

The Roman Empire was destroyed because of internal corruption and an increasingly weak economy. The army was too weak to defend itself against any real invading force, so they paid off several tribes of barbarians, including the visigoths.

TheRussianLord

But there were. And they were found. Chemical artillery shells were found in Saddam's arsenal. As well as the Al Samoud rocket (a modified SA-2 with the IR-tracking removed, but the proximity fuse left in tact). It has a 12kg warhead, and with 180km range it violates UN sanctions. Now 12kg of conventional eplosives is nothing against ground. So we're obsiously looking at a NBC delivery system. And finally chlorine-gas filled artillery shells from Saddam's have been used in IED attacks against US troops by the insurgents (this is in addition to the shells they found in his arsenals).

You're making no sense. The Iraq War has not helped the U.S. economy, and is unlikely to in the future. A large chunk of Iraqi oil fields has already been sold off to Russian oil companies as part of an agreement between Iraq and Russia. The rest of the oil fields will barely be able to support Iraq, nevermind give some economic benefit to the U.S. Iraq is a financial burden, not an economic investment (unless you're thinking decades ahead, and even that is unlikely).

No, once the masses of the population became detached from an increasingly corrupt elite, then Rome collapsed. In that sense the modern USA can be compared to Rome.

Ishanul

Russian it probably was a typo, he most likely meant nuclear not chemical.

TheRussianLord

Nobody ever claimed Iraq had nuclear weapons. The whole pretext for invading Iraq was stockpiles of chemical weapons. Those stockpiles did exist. Now they were rather small, and ultimately they were only an excuse for the invasion, but technically Bush did not lie.

Ishanul

I heard differently, but you are TheRussianLord and I have learned to respect your intelligence, so I will take your word for it.

graal

Well, exactly, an excuse for the invasion...

So, if you also think it was only an excuse, why would the US invade Iraq, if not for economical benefits? (specially going against the UN)

Well, as for the Roman Empire comment, you must agree that the problems started when they stopped expanding (on the Pax Romana... sorry, don't really know if this is the term in english), so without the invasions, they didn't have money to afford the corrupted elite.

TheRussianLord

Geo-political benefits. Mr. Bush though that 1) A First Gulf War style conflict would bolster his popularity, and 2) A friendly Iraq would eventually help expand U.S. control in the Persian Gulf (acting as a counter-weight to stable, friendly, but very authoritarian Saudi Arabia, and democratic but unstable and very hostile Iran).

EDIT: The original point still stands. Currently there are 21 operational aircraft capable of piercing an advanced AD-network that includes large numbers of SA-10's (S-300/300V/300PMU1/2). And while the proliferation of this AD-system has been very limited to date (only China and Greece iirc have any outside of Russia) they remain the main reason for the search for a new bomber platform.

Roy_Felix

i don't think we really need a bomber cause if you think about it the planes that are coming out such as the X-35 JSF, the F-22 raptor, and i have heard talk about the Aura(which is a heavy bomber but goes around mach 6) but the X-35 JSF has the joint strike fighter name for a reason its suppose to be able to do everything from interception to bombing runs.the F-22 Raptor is going to be replacing all the F-15 Eagles sometime this year or next year. russian you are right tho the B-52's are getting old since they have been in service for over 50 years but really all there used for now is conventional bombings like on iraq and affganistan. but we also have the B-2 Spirit that is a stealth bomber but its becoming outdated like a lot of these other bombers such as the B-1 Lancer and even the F-117 NightHawk......(even though thats not a bomber but it basicly is). but i just think they are going to use the X-35 and the F-22s to do a lot of the bombing unless they need to really bomb a place then they will most likely keep using the B52s

Ishanul

I think the reason why the US is in no hurry to develop new aircraft is because they want to be dependant on nations such as France or England. Both of these nations have a considerably better airforce than the American Airforce.

TheRussianLord

183 Raptors are replacing 650 Eagles. The USAF asked for 375 Raptors minimum, but Congress gave them 179 (funds for 4 more were gained by cutting other programs). The JSF is a semi-stealth multi-purpose heavy fighter plane. It's usefullness as a strategic bomber is 0.

Did you even bother to read the article?

You, my friend, are full of crap.

King Stubby

Ummm, why would America want to be dependant on France and England? You see, America was created so that it could be INdependant from England.

Roy_Felix

yes i know they are coming out with a new bomber but not until 2018 or around that but what are they going to use until then cause the JSF and the F-22 are coming out sometime this year or next year and the only heavy bombers we have are B-52s and they will probably just upgrade them like always until A the do come out with another bomber or B they find a plane that can do it all

Ishanul

I am not your friend, nor your buddy, nor your pal.

oh yes, and you should probably look up the definition of THINK