B-1R video

[sferrin]

Not sure where this should go, but was buried in the FY2017 budget request story:

http://www.defensenews.com/story/breaking-news/2016/02/02/carter-unveils-budget-details-pentagon-requests-5827b-funding/79686138/

"Finally, Carter offered the vision of an “arsenal plane,” which takes an unnamed, older Air Force platform turns it into “a flying launch pad for all sorts of different conventional payloads. In practice, the arsenal plane will function as a very large airborne magazine, networked to 5th-generation aircraft that act as forward sensor and targeting nodes – essentially combining different systems already in our inventory to create wholly new capabilities."

The B-1 would seem to be the logical candidate as it's already doing that in the air-to-surface role right now. Also, that radar it's got could be useful, as could it's speed.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Could this finally be a reason to have airborne AMRAAM-ER, Patriot, SM-6, etc?

 

[marauder2048]

Could this finally be a reason to have airborne AMRAAM-ER, Patriot, SM-6, etc?

The RAND guys have been talking about the B-1B as an arsenal plane for years now.
IIRC, the external hardpoints were deleted in conformance with START II. Now, there's nothing to prevent them from adding back 50,000 lbs of external goodness.

 

[sferrin]

Could this finally be a reason to have airborne AMRAAM-ER, Patriot, SM-6, etc?

AMRAAM-ER yes. Don't know that Patriot or SM-6 would be worth the space they'd take. (And they're both too long for the bays unless they bring back the option to combine the forward two bays.)

 

[SpudmanWP]

One thing to keep in mind about this type of plan (an arsenal plane), you have to have a longer weapon range than the target's ability to detect you, hence the SM-6 B)

 

[sferrin]

One thing to keep in mind about this type of plan (an arsenal plane), you have to have a longer weapon range than the target's ability to detect you, hence the SM-6 B)

But no room.

 

[DrRansom]

I thought the theory was that PAK-FA and J-20 would be sent after tankers, especially with their super long range missiles and, in the PAK-FA case, powerful radar. Wouldn't that put an arsenal plane at risk?

If anything, I'd be the arsenal plane would just carry 300+ nm range cruise missiles.

 

[SpudmanWP]

But no room.

The SM-6 (16') with a Mk72 booster (5.5') is 21'6" long.

You have four options at this point.
1. Mount them externally.
2. Combine the front two bays as they each can hold a max size of ~18 feet. Put SM-6 in the front section and AMRAAMs (or Meteor/AMRAAM-ER, etc) in the back.
3. Take the booster off but loose its 16 seconds of boost time & range.
4. Develop a shorter booster, lose half of your boost time & range, but still be able to have them in each of the bays.

 

[Triton]

Is the Raytheon RIM-174 Standard Extended Range Active Missile (ERAM), also known as Standard Missile 6 (SM-6), too expensive for this application?

 

[sferrin]

But no room.

The SM-6 (16') with a Mk72 booster (5.5') is 21'6" long.
Take the booster off but loose its 16 seconds of boost time & range.

Where did you get that? It only boosts for about 5 seconds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PnQKhcBzIs

I'd just go with AMRAAM-ER. Maybe develop a 2 foot booster for it so it still fits in a bay. The tricky part will be how do you mount them. You could put pushers around a common axis on a rotary launcher but that seems like an inefficient use of space. The real prize would have been this:



8 of those in one bay, pack the 2nd bay with a bunch of AMRAAM-ERs, and a fuel tank in the third.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Where did you get that? It only boosts for about 5 seconds.

My bad... I was looking the the wrong PDF

 

[sferrin]

Where did you get that? It only boosts for about 5 seconds.

My bad... I was looking the the wrong PDF

Whatever PDF you were looking at sounds interesting. *hint* *hint*

 

[marauder2048]

Also, that radar it's got could be useful, as could it's speed.

SABR-GS being huge and the same band as the AN/APG-77 and the AN/APG-81 opens up some very interesting possibilites.

 

[Moose]

2. Combine the front two bays as they each can hold a max size of ~18 feet. Put SM-6 in the front section and AMRAAMs (or Meteor/AMRAAM-ER, etc) in the back.

Not much chance of this, it would be a START violation.

 

[marauder2048]

2. Combine the front two bays as they each can hold a max size of ~18 feet. Put SM-6 in the front section and AMRAAMs (or Meteor/AMRAAM-ER, etc) in the back.

Not much chance of this, it would be a START violation.

That's unclear now since New START supersedes START "classic" where the bulkhead solution was agreed upon.

 

[bobbymike]

2. Combine the front two bays as they each can hold a max size of ~18 feet. Put SM-6 in the front section and AMRAAMs (or Meteor/AMRAAM-ER, etc) in the back.

Not much chance of this, it would be a START violation.

That's unclear now since New START supersedes START "classic" where the bulkhead solution was agreed upon.

Each bomber is counted as both one launcher and one warhead regardless of how many actual weapons it is carrying so interesting whether earlier START modifications mean anything any more.

 

[marauder2048]

2. Combine the front two bays as they each can hold a max size of ~18 feet. Put SM-6 in the front section and AMRAAMs (or Meteor/AMRAAM-ER, etc) in the back.

Not much chance of this, it would be a START violation.

That's unclear now since New START supersedes START "classic" where the bulkhead solution was agreed upon.

Each bomber is counted as both one launcher and one warhead regardless of how many actual weapons it is carrying so interesting whether earlier START modifications mean anything any more.

B-1B isn't counted at all after the exhibition. If the bulkhead solution was the way to demonstrate compliance then there would have to be a re-exhibition with the new "we can't carry nukes" solution. Probably not a showstopper.

It's also not clear that you need the booster if the B-1B is in a dash at high altitude.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Whatever PDF you were looking at sounds interesting. *hint* *hint*

www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA320272

It's about the upgrading of the SM-3 from it's current 2nd stage to an all 21" 2nd stage. It was that 2nd stage that had a 16 second burn time (page 7). They also envisioned a strike version of the missile (as opposed to BMD) that had a ~550km surface range.

Here is the comparison of the proposed SM-3 upgrade.

 

[ouroboros]

Bulkhead removal may still be on the cards, if nothing else for the electric laser demos that won't be done on AC-130's. If arsenal plane is a go and B-1R fleet retrofit is a go then, who know how thing will play out. Could just as easily see some sort of conventional double hardpoint pylon external carriage for an SM-6 as much as some sort of conformal slot system. Though considering the weights and the necessary nacelle/inlet work, having a slotable conformal carriage panel/pallet on the bottom of the engine nacelles might be more attractive.

 

[sferrin]

Bulkhead removal may still be on the cards, if nothing else for the electric laser demos that won't be done on AC-130's. If arsenal plane is a go and B-1R fleet retrofit is a go then, who know how thing will play out. Could just as easily see some sort of conventional double hardpoint pylon external carriage for an SM-6 as much as some sort of conformal slot system. Though considering the weights and the necessary nacelle/inlet work, having a slotable conformal carriage panel/pallet on the bottom of the engine nacelles might be more attractive.

SM-6 would never be carried externally. Too harsh of an environment.

 

[Moose]

Standards have been carried externally before, in a carrier environment no less. Testing and some development would be needed, but it's an option.

 

[sferrin]

Standards have been carried externally before, in a carrier environment no less. Testing and some development would be needed, but it's an option.

Standard ARM. Totally different missile.

 

[Moose]

Standards have been carried externally before, in a carrier environment no less. Testing and some development would be needed, but it's an option.

Standard ARM. Totally different missile.

Yes, doesn't share one part in common. But the qualities which made the original Standard a candidate to be (relatively) easily converted into the externally-carried Starm persist in the SM-2 and SM-6. They are robust weapons designed to operate in all weather at all latitudes in a maritime environment, so the harsh environment of being externally carried is not the likely reason it wouldn't be a candidate. Hardpoint limitations, weight, cost, and drag considerations would all be more likely problems.

 

[sferrin]

Standards have been carried externally before, in a carrier environment no less. Testing and some development would be needed, but it's an option.

Standard ARM. Totally different missile.

Yes, doesn't share one part in common. But the qualities which made the original Standard a candidate to be (relatively) easily converted into the externally-carried Starm persist in the SM-2 and SM-6. They are robust weapons designed to operate in all weather at all latitudes in a maritime environment, so the harsh environment of being externally carried is not the likely reason it wouldn't be a candidate.

Except that you don't see the temperature and pressure cycling, or the vibration on a ship that you see when carried externally on an aircraft. Even PAC-3 needed to be carried in a pod and it at least needs to withstand overland carry by truck.

 

[bobbymike]

http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/02/b52-and-b1-bombers-will-be-converted.html

 

[sferrin]

http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/02/b52-and-b1-bombers-will-be-converted.html

The thing that bugs me about that site is it takes:

"And the last project I want to highlight is one that we’re calling the arsenal plane, which takes one of our oldest aircraft platform and turns it into a flying launchpad for all sorts of different conventional payloads."

and turns it into:

"B52 and B1 bombers will be converted into Arsenal Planes"

1. It's a "project" that is looking into it, not a program of record to actually DO it.
2. It doesn't say BOTH aircraft will be converted, and in fact it only says that one type will.

NextBigFuture isn't the worst by any means but it's up there.

 

[Bill Walker]

http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/02/b52-and-b1-bombers-will-be-converted.html

Not familiar with that source, but since they missed the removal of the B-52 tail gun by a decade or two, you have to wonder....

 

[quellish]

"And the last project I want to highlight is one that we’re calling the arsenal plane, which takes one of our oldest aircraft platform and turns it into a flying launchpad for all sorts of different conventional payloads."

The two platforms they are currently focusing on are the B-52 and C-130. That is not to say they are ruling out other possibilities, from the C-17 to the B-1 to a new build aircraft.

To get a better idea of where the thinking is now take a look at what Raytheon has done privately with deploying Griffin and MALD from C-130s.

 

[sferrin]

"And the last project I want to highlight is one that we’re calling the arsenal plane, which takes one of our oldest aircraft platform and turns it into a flying launchpad for all sorts of different conventional payloads."

The two platforms they are currently focusing on are the B-52 and C-130. That is not to say they are ruling out other possibilities, from the C-17 to the B-1 to a new build aircraft.

To get a better idea of where the thinking is now take a look at what Raytheon has done privately with deploying Griffin and MALD from C-130s.

Yeah. Can't help but jump to the idea of a B-1 festooned with everything that could conceivably be bolted on though. :-[

 

[bobbymike]

"And the last project I want to highlight is one that we’re calling the arsenal plane, which takes one of our oldest aircraft platform and turns it into a flying launchpad for all sorts of different conventional payloads."

The two platforms they are currently focusing on are the B-52 and C-130. That is not to say they are ruling out other possibilities, from the C-17 to the B-1 to a new build aircraft.

To get a better idea of where the thinking is now take a look at what Raytheon has done privately with deploying Griffin and MALD from C-130s.

Yeah. Can't help but jump to the idea of a B-1 festooned with everything that could conceivably be bolted on though. :-[

I can envision 4 or more B-1 streaking in at M2 launching a couple hundred AMRAAM-ERs at a enemy force and while they are reduced by 1/2 or more (depending on the force size of course) and are in total disarray you have a couple of squadrons of F-22s clean up the rest.

 

[marauder2048]

"And the last project I want to highlight is one that we’re calling the arsenal plane, which takes one of our oldest aircraft platform and turns it into a flying launchpad for all sorts of different conventional payloads."

The two platforms they are currently focusing on are the B-52 and C-130. That is not to say they are ruling out other possibilities, from the C-17 to the B-1 to a new build aircraft.

To get a better idea of where the thinking is now take a look at what Raytheon has done privately with deploying Griffin and MALD from C-130s.

Some of the MALD growth variants that Raytheon described a few years ago struck me as having enormous potential. And then there's MALI...

 

[CiTrus90]

I can't help but have a (rather silly) question that pops into my mind every time i read about the arsenal plane concept.

In the event of an air battle (heaven forbid it) considering the F-22/F-35 as the hunter and the arsenal plane as the killer, if the hunter detects, tracks and fires at an enemy aircraft but the missile is physically launched by the arsenal plane, who gets credited for the kill?

Are they going to share the victory with half kill markings?

Regards.

 

[Dynoman]

Video of AGM-175A Griffin being air launched from cargo aircraft. Griffin salvo visible in the rear of the cargo bay.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk1Me_AKxxU

 

[Dynoman]

I think the Alternate Strike system sought by the Strategic Capabilities Office is seeking funds for 2017 with a field able prototype by 2018. The Alternate Strike aircraft seems very similar to the Arsenal Aircraft concept.

 

[sferrin]

"And the last project I want to highlight is one that we’re calling the arsenal plane, which takes one of our oldest aircraft platform and turns it into a flying launchpad for all sorts of different conventional payloads."

The two platforms they are currently focusing on are the B-52 and C-130. That is not to say they are ruling out other possibilities, from the C-17 to the B-1 to a new build aircraft.

To get a better idea of where the thinking is now take a look at what Raytheon has done privately with deploying Griffin and MALD from C-130s.

Some of the MALD growth variants that Raytheon described a few years ago struck me as having enormous potential. And then there's MALI...

It's a shame MALI never went anywhere.

 

[NeilChapman]

Well, actually a load of promo crap I'd say...

Yep - how much do they make in maintenance contracts?

Perhaps if we have enough bombers that cannot be picked up by radar then we don't need anything like this. Or, maybe we have a containerized solution that goes into the back of a reasonably close, friendly countries C-130's. Then you can forward deploy the containers and unpack when needed.

 

[bobbymike]

Upgrade will help with arsenal concept in the future?

Upgraded B-1B Lancers flew the first long-range strike exercise with their new cockpits and targeting systems in late February, Air Force Global Strike Command announced on March 2. B-1s and crews from Dyess AFB, Texas, tested the Block 16 upgrades on six B-1s by flying a 15-hour flight to the Yukon Range in Alaska. “This exercise proved that the B-1 fleet is now capable of deploying and employing Block 16 aircraft to provide a global strike presence within hours of being tasked,” Capt. Ryan Stillwell, 7th Bomb Wing weapons officer, said in a release. The exercise also ensured the upgraded BONES are ready for long-duration missions, said Lt. Col. Luke Baker, 7th Bomb Wing director of inspections. B-1s recently returned from the US Central Command area of responsibility to receive the upgrades, marking the first time since 2001 that Lancers are not based in the Middle East. The upgrades include the Vertical Situation Display, which adds a digital cockpit, a Fully Integrated Data Link for targeting and command and control, and a Central Integrated Test System for real-time diagnostics. The 7th Bomb Wing received the first upgraded B-1 in 2014.

 

[bobbymike]

SCO, Air Force exploring several platforms for Arsenal Plane role

The Air Force is exploring the possibility of using more than one aircraft type for Arsenal Plane missions, a new concept the Pentagon hopes to prove out in a prototype capable of ferrying huge amounts of ordnance to standoff ranges that waits for strike assignments from advanced fighters close to the action.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Damn AF! Back at it with the "family of systems" again.

 

[bobbymike]

Stand-In and Stand-Offish Arsenal Planes

—John A. Tirpak4/8/2016

​​So-called “arsenal planes” are part of the “trade studies” determining the right mix of systems and capabilities for Air Superiority 2030, Air Force planners acknowledged at an AFA-sponsored, Air Force breakfast on Thursday. Col. Alex Grynkewich, head of the AS 2030 study, said the trade studies will look at the optimum mixes of “range, payload, survivability, and how you get a [target] cue to whatever [weapon] you’re firing off of that.” Big arsenal planes would likely not be very survivable against a modern air defense system, he said, and so would be relegated to carry standoff weapons at the periphery of a target area. Small arsenal planes would likely be used in a “stand-in … offensive counter-air” mode, carrying extra weapons for other platforms, such as the F-22 and F-35. “We’ll look at both” big and small arsenal concepts “over the next several years,” he said, doing prototyping and experimentation with the Strategic Capabilities Office, a DOD entity intended to streamline acquisition of urgently needed systems. Former senior USAF officials have said the service has been exploring stealthy unmanned stand-in arsenal plane concepts for more than 10 years.