Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider (LRS-B)

[sferrin]

Go back and read what was said.

Calmness and politeness are just overflowing... What was said is that you technically SHOULD put arsenal planes to the rear, cuz they are easy and valuable targets. But to exploit that you need missiles that outranges ones that fighters carry at least on the depth of formation OR combined with AAMs on fighters outranges LRAAMs of enemy. Putting missile trucks in the back in the situation where enemy can reach them without entering launch envelope of either fighter lead or missile truck might end in shabby situation.

What is the point of placing arsenal planes so far back that their missiles only reach your own aircraft? Put them where they're useful: up with the fighters. (Maybe 20 miles back but not all the way back with tankers/AWACS.)

 

[sferrin]

The whole point of an aresenal plane, with long range, is to extend the distance you can defend. Parking them back with tankers defeats the entire point of having arsenal planes.

More like it stops them being shot down by stealth fighters carrying similar missiles, which won't even be detectable at 200 miles. There's no point in the missiles having 200 mile range if you can only detect stealth fighters at say 30-50 miles and they can detect you at 150-200 miles and you're in a large unmanoeuvrable blob. Ideally would want unmanned drones detecting the enemy planes up front, but in the meantime stealth fighters up front are the best option.

How would that be any different with AWACS, tankers, F-15s, etc?

 

[GARGEAN]

What is the point of placing arsenal planes so far back that their missiles only reach your own aircraft? Put them where they're useful: up with the fighters. (Maybe 20 miles back but not all the way back with tankers/AWACS.)

You need to put them that way that reach of their missiles will be at least equal to fighter front. But way farther than 20 miles, that will make close to zero difference. But for that you need proper long range AAMs.

 

[sferrin]

What is the point of placing arsenal planes so far back that their missiles only reach your own aircraft? Put them where they're useful: up with the fighters. (Maybe 20 miles back but not all the way back with tankers/AWACS.)

You need to put them that way that reach of their missiles will be at least equal to fighter front. But way farther than 20 miles, that will make close to zero difference. But for that you need proper long range AAMs.

If F-22s, F-15s, and B-1Bs are all carrying AIM-260s, what's it going to accomplish putting the B-1Bs hundreds of miles behind the fighters? Of what use is that?

 

[GARGEAN]

If F-22s, F-15s, and B-1Bs are all carrying AIM-260s, what's it going to accomplish putting the B-1Bs hundreds of miles behind the fighters? Of what use is that?

In that situation you don't need missile trucks at all. They are needed if proper LRAAM is available.

 

[sferrin]

If F-22s, F-15s, and B-1Bs are all carrying AIM-260s, what's it going to accomplish putting the B-1Bs hundreds of miles behind the fighters? Of what use is that?

In that situation you don't need missile trucks at all. They are needed if proper LRAAM is available.

You need missile trucks because there are more targets than defenders. As for "proper" LRAAM, AIM-260 is what we've been discussing the entire time.

 

[Forest Green]

How would that be any different with AWACS, tankers, F-15s, etc?

You would put your stealth fighter assets up front to target the enemy because they are the least detectable. The arsenal planes would be forward of the AWACS and tankers but behind the stealth fighters.

 

[sferrin]

How would that be any different with AWACS, tankers, F-15s, etc?

You would put your stealth fighter assets up front to target the enemy because they are the least detectable. The arsenal planes would be forward of the AWACS and tankers but behind the stealth fighters.

Then we're pretty much on the same page. The arsenal planes need to be far enough forward for the stealth fighters to make use of their missiles.

 

[Forest Green]

If F-22s, F-15s, and B-1Bs are all carrying AIM-260s, what's it going to accomplish putting the B-1Bs hundreds of miles behind the fighters? Of what use is that?

Because the B-1Bs are gigantic and much more easily detected on radar than F-22s and F-35s, and the AIM-260's range wouldn't even be useful in an upfront encounter with say J-20s because you won't be able to detect them from outside AIM-120 range anyway. The J-20 will detect the lumbering B-1B first and shoot it down before it is even detected. Put the F-22s up front however and they can detect the J-20s before they are detected or at least at around the same time (depending on actual performance) and relay targeting information back to the B-1Bs, which are still outside J-20 firing range.

 

[GARGEAN]

You need missile trucks because there are more targets than defenders. As for "proper" LRAAM, AIM-260 is what we've been discussing the entire time.

Can't say that I am considering 260 as proper LRAAM. Extended range MRAAM would be better call imho.

 

[sferrin]

You need missile trucks because there are more targets than defenders. As for "proper" LRAAM, AIM-260 is what we've been discussing the entire time.

Can't say that I am considering 260 as proper LRAAM. Extended range MRAAM would be better call imho.

We don't even know what it's range is. What would you consider a "proper" LRAAM?

 

[GARGEAN]

We don't even know what it's range is.

Indeed, but from what we heard before (120 replacement, proper internal carry) I think expecting more than 200km is quite a bit optimistic

What would you consider a "proper" LRAAM?

Something big, fast and drastically outranging AAMs of tech class. R-37/37M for example.

 

[FighterJock]

We don't even know what it's range is.

Indeed, but from what we heard before (120 replacement, proper internal carry) I think expecting more than 200km is quite a bit optimistic

What would you consider a "proper" LRAAM?

Something big, fast and drastically outranging AAMs of tech class. R-37/37M for example.

How about an air-air missile with a top speed of Mach 10 and with a range of something like 500-600 km's, that should just about do it.

 

[Forest Green]

How about an air-air missile with a top speed of Mach 10 and with a range of something like 500-600 km's, that should just about do it.

It would be nice if you could target the enemy planes from that range but then there is also a cash attrition ratio. A Mach 10 AAM capable of 600km might cost almost as much as the aircraft it's trying to shoot down.

 

[FighterJock]

I can see your point Forest Green, I did not realize such a missile would cost so much. I was just day dreaming.

 

[Forest Green]

I can see your point Forest Green, I did not realize such a missile would cost so much. I was just day dreaming.

I don't know it the cost ratio is a fact or not but such a missile wouldn't be small or cheap and unmanned assets may be a cheaper and more survivable option.

We've kind of strayed off-topic here though.

 

[GARGEAN]

How about an air-air missile with a top speed of Mach 10 and with a range of something like 500-600 km's, that should just about do it.

Will barely make sence, especially range part. You CAN do such missile, but it will use it's potential of the full in EXTREMELY rare ocassions, thus rendering inevitable huge cost being spent into nothing.

 

[sferrin]

We don't even know what it's range is.

Indeed, but from what we heard before (120 replacement, proper internal carry) I think expecting more than 200km is quite a bit optimistic

Maybe you could get there with a CUDA mounted on an 8"dia. booster, depending on the flight profile. We''l just have to see. Given the AIM-120D is credited with a 180km range it would hardly seem worth the effort to make a new program just for 20km more.

What would you consider a "proper" LRAAM?

Something big, fast and drastically outranging AAMs of tech class. R-37/37M for example.

How likely are you to run into the R-37M over the Pacific?

 

[GARGEAN]

Maybe you could get there with a CUDA mounted on an 8"dia. booster, depending on the flight profile. We''l just have to see. Given the AIM-120D is credited with a 180km range it would hardly seem worth the effort to make a new program just for 20km more.

Oh yes. Aside the problem that 120D is not "credited" with 180km.

How likely are you to run into the R-37M over the Pacific?

Are you creating missiles for one specific theater?

 

[sferrin]

Maybe you could get there with a CUDA mounted on an 8"dia. booster, depending on the flight profile. We''l just have to see. Given the AIM-120D is credited with a 180km range it would hardly seem worth the effort to make a new program just for 20km more.

Oh yes. Aside the problem that 120D is not "credited" with 180km.

How likely are you to run into the R-37M over the Pacific?

Are you creating missiles for one specific theater?

No. It sounds like you are though.

 

[GARGEAN]

No. It sounds like you are though.

I am... What?

 

[marauder2048]

In the absence of a directly equivalent role or need (with similar assumptions of lack of opposing fighters) not seeing a driver for any of the existing US bombers to pick up such a role;

Cruise missile defense. A pretty strong driver and an abundantly urgent need.

 

[NeilChapman]

... only the B-52 likely to live long enough for any major hardware changes to be worth while anyway. And the B-2 would appear highly mismatched for this role.

Re: the B-21 seems potentially a very risky tasking for such a high value asset (that will also be highly tasked in its actual intended role); if this air-to-air arsenal role is 100 percent needed then surely better done by less expensive more expendable and tailored UCAVs and the like.

I think it's good to note that we're not talking about a fight today. It does matter when this engagement is taking place. In 2025 there are no B-21's. In 2030 there are potentially a couple of squadrons of B-21's. The role of the B-2 likely changes as B-21's come online.

To what major hardware changes are you referring?

You assume only a single role? It seems more likely to expect "any sensor, any shooter", "engage on remote" or inter service machine to machine communication of targeting data will increase. There are new missiles in the pipeline so can we not expect additional new stand-off weapons will be produced in the future?

--

Squadrons of bombers carrying mixes of ARRW's, HCSW's, JASSM-XR's, or even SM-6 Block 1B's, all currently in development, should offer a significant range of offensive and defensive capabilities. Range being myriad options for combatant commanders as well as distance. Published expectations for some of these weapons are 500 nmi for the hypersonic ARRW and supersonic SM-6 Block 1B, and 1000 nmi for the subsonic JASSM-XR.

From B-21, up front and in the thick of things, these are significant ranges. But why expose the B-21? Launch these missiles from the several hundred miles to the rear and let the B-21, PCA or F-35 guide it in.

 

[Desertfox]

If all you need is a missile truck to lob missiles, why keep the B-52s around? Why not replace them with a KC-46 derivative? Its just as stealthy as a B-52 (probably more so) and will be much cheaper to maintain in the long run, while lowering the price on the KC-46s.

 

[Sundog]

If all you need is a missile truck to lob missiles, why keep the B-52s around? Why not replace them with a KC-46 derivative? Its just as stealthy as a B-52 (probably more so) and will be much cheaper to maintain in the long run, while lowering the price on the KC-46s.

Because the B-52 can carry quite a bit of ordnance at much higher altitudes than a commercial airliner and for longer range.

 

[sferrin]

If all you need is a missile truck to lob missiles, why keep the B-52s around?

Those under-wing pylons on the B-52 are valuable.

 

[marauder2048]

And the B-52 is going to have a large AESA that's extremely useful for communicating with missiles in flight.

 

[VTOLicious]

If all you need is a missile truck to lob missiles, why keep the B-52s around? Why not replace them with a KC-46 derivative? Its just as stealthy as a B-52 (probably more so) and will be much cheaper to maintain in the long run, while lowering the price on the KC-46s.

...you may find the answer to your question here: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/t...-many-lives-americas-mighty-boeing-b-52-18783

 

[bobbymike]

Sorry to quibble on the word “Arsenal” but shouldn’t an arsenal plane carry A2A weapons to get that designation?

I mean the B-52 can already or soon be ready to carry all A2G ordnance and that plane is already called a bomber.

 

[Desertfox]

Sure a KC-46 derivative would lose some payload-range capability (6,000 nm vs 8,000nm with same 70,000 lb payload) but everything else can be replaced, you can add pylons thought the KC-46 should have more internal volume, and you can add an AESA (just like the P-8). But in the process you gain much cheaper maintenance costs, easier basing options, greater sortie rates, and probably more bombers overall as well as more tankers (as the KC-46 price drops), and you can now forward deploy them were you are deploying your tankers, saving time to station and increasing sortie rates. I'll take the cost savings and the increased flexibility over the minor increased payload-range capability.

 

[sferrin]

Sure a KC-46 derivative would lose some payload-range capability (6,000 nm vs 8,000nm with same 70,000 lb payload) but everything else can be replaced, you can add pylons thought the KC-46 should have more internal volume, and you can add an AESA (just like the P-8). But in the process you gain much cheaper maintenance costs, easier basing options, greater sortie rates, and probably more bombers overall as well as more tankers (as the KC-46 price drops), and you can now forward deploy them were you are deploying your tankers, saving time to station and increasing sortie rates. I'll take the cost savings and the increased flexibility over the minor increased payload-range capability.

But what is your purchase price? How does it compare to B-52 sustainment? How many do you need to duplicate the capability of the B-52 fleet? How many additional tankers do you need to support that larger, lower ranged fleet?

 

[Desertfox]

Sure a KC-46 derivative would lose some payload-range capability (6,000 nm vs 8,000nm with same 70,000 lb payload) but everything else can be replaced, you can add pylons thought the KC-46 should have more internal volume, and you can add an AESA (just like the P-8). But in the process you gain much cheaper maintenance costs, easier basing options, greater sortie rates, and probably more bombers overall as well as more tankers (as the KC-46 price drops), and you can now forward deploy them were you are deploying your tankers, saving time to station and increasing sortie rates. I'll take the cost savings and the increased flexibility over the minor increased payload-range capability.

But what is your purchase price? How does it compare to B-52 sustainment? How many do you need to duplicate the capability of the B-52 fleet? How many additional tankers do you need to support that larger, lower ranged fleet?

All are good questions that the Air Force should be asking right now. Those B-52s are not going to last forever, they will require expensive upgrades, and their maintenance cost will keep going up.

I will argue that you could end up requiring less tanker support since you could more easily forward deploy them. A lot more bases can support a KC-46 that can support a B-52.

 

[kaiserd]

In the absence of a directly equivalent role or need (with similar assumptions of lack of opposing fighters) not seeing a driver for any of the existing US bombers to pick up such a role;

Cruise missile defense. A pretty strong driver and an abundantly urgent need.

Re: the pacific the missile carrier/ air land launched long range cruise missile threat is not insignificant in capabilities but is not necessarily yet that great in number (there still aren’t that many Chinese Badgers, their B-21 equivalent is years away). While Chinese long range fighters (J-20, Su-35s) are a factor likely spelling rapid death for any air-to-air B-52s or B-1Bs
Similarly the Russian air launched cruise missile threat has and continues to build back up from a low ebb in capability but not yet a major increase on in numbers. Maybe less likely to see Russians fighters being a factor here.
I’m not focusing on sub launched cruise missiles due to their more unpredictable nature and most limited susceptibility to such defenses.

From my perspective the point about a large aircraft like a strategic bomber in such a role is its endurance and its magazine; you must need to shoot a lot of missiles and not have better alternatives, and their must be an almost complete absence of opposing fighters because you’ll be their must tempting prey.
Otherwise it’s a waste of a bomber and/ or a waste of the resources better diverted to something more attuned to the threat.

And rather like the topic of missile defense if you move in areas of strategic nuclear weapons then cost/ benefit analysis of what’s really what’s worth spending for certain levels of necessarily limited defensive effectiveness comes into play.

 

[marauder2048]

Sure a KC-46 derivative would lose some payload-range capability (6,000 nm vs 8,000nm with same 70,000 lb payload) but everything else can be replaced, you can add pylons thought the KC-46 should have more internal volume, and you can add an AESA (just like the P-8). But in the process you gain much cheaper maintenance costs, easier basing options, greater sortie rates, and probably more bombers overall as well as more tankers (as the KC-46 price drops), and you can now forward deploy them were you are deploying your tankers, saving time to station and increasing sortie rates. I'll take the cost savings and the increased flexibility over the minor increased payload-range capability.

But what is your purchase price? How does it compare to B-52 sustainment? How many do you need to duplicate the capability of the B-52 fleet? How many additional tankers do you need to support that larger, lower ranged fleet?

All are good questions that the Air Force should be asking right now. Those B-52s are not going to last forever, they will require expensive upgrades, and their maintenance cost will keep going up.

I will argue that you could end up requiring less tanker support since you could more easily forward deploy them. A lot more bases can support a KC-46 that can support a B-52.

Not sure how cutting holes in an expensive commercial widebody derivative, recertificating the entire operating envelope
and adding draggy external elements offsets notional gains from commonality particularly as sustaining any crew
currency in weapons delivery will be completely disjoint from actual tanker training and manning.

 

[Desertfox]

It was done (in a smaller scale) quite successfully in the P-8. Boeing even did studies on how to drop ICBMs out off a 747. Pylons might not even be required based on the size of the hypothetical bomb bays. Its not hard to do, its just a question of cost.

Maintenance encompasses a lot more than just crew training.

 

[marauder2048]

Re: the pacific the missile carrier/ air land launched long range cruise missile threat is not insignificant in capabilities but is not necessarily yet that great in number (there still aren’t that many Chinese Badgers, their B-21 equivalent is years away). While Chinese long range fighters (J-20, Su-35s) are a factor likely spelling rapid death for any air-to-air B-52s or B-1Bs
Similarly the Russian air launched cruise missile threat has and continues to build back up from a low ebb in capability but not yet a major increase on in numbers. Maybe less likely to see Russians fighters being a factor here.
I’m not focusing on sub launched cruise missiles due to their more unpredictable nature and most limited susceptibility to such defenses.

From my perspective the point about a large aircraft like a strategic bomber in such a role is its endurance and its magazine; you must need to shoot a lot of missiles and not have better alternatives, and their must be an almost complete absence of opposing fighters because you’ll be their must tempting prey.
Otherwise it’s a waste of a bomber and/ or a waste of the resources better diverted to something more attuned to the threat.

And rather like the topic of missile defense if you move in areas of strategic nuclear weapons then cost/ benefit analysis of what’s really what’s worth spending for certain levels of necessarily limited defensive effectiveness comes into play.

Leaving aside the fact that in the arsenal plane concept you have your fighters flung forward..

US air bases in the actual campaign models that RAND has published are contending against a combined GLCM/ALCM
salvos (along with IRBMs and MRBMs) but there is no fighter opposition.

You need to shoot a lot of missiles and there don't appear to be better alternatives.

I'm not sure what resources you are wasting since you will have bombers with the appropriate
radars, they can carry the AAMs and their employment in standoff attacks (their only other role) is going to be constrained
by the BDA/ISR cycle and their MC rate for heavy weapons.

 

[marauder2048]

It was done (in a smaller scale) quite successfully in the P-8.

Which is adapting an existing aft cargo compartment for a small number of comparatively small weapons.
IIUC, that's not what you are suggesting for the KC-46.

Boeing even did studies on how to drop ICBMs out off a 747

And it went nowhere for good reasons.

Maintenance encompasses a lot more than just crew training.

Manning is already the single largest projected O&S cost of the KC-46 and
you are now talking about a custom variant of a custom variant.

 

[NeilChapman]

Looks like B-52's will last as long as is needed.

Cruise missile defense. A pretty strong driver and an abundantly urgent need.

Re: the pacific the missile carrier/ air land launched long range cruise missile threat is not insignificant in capabilities but is not necessarily yet that great in number (there still aren’t that many Chinese Badgers, their B-21 equivalent is years away). While Chinese long range fighters (J-20, Su-35s) are a factor likely spelling rapid death for any air-to-air B-52s or B-1Bs
Similarly the Russian air launched cruise missile threat has and continues to build back up from a low ebb in capability but not yet a major increase on in numbers. Maybe less likely to see Russians fighters being a factor here.
I’m not focusing on sub launched cruise missiles due to their more unpredictable nature and most limited susceptibility to such defenses.

From my perspective the point about a large aircraft like a strategic bomber in such a role is its endurance and its magazine; you must need to shoot a lot of missiles and not have better alternatives, and their must be an almost complete absence of opposing fighters because you’ll be their must tempting prey.
Otherwise it’s a waste of a bomber and/ or a waste of the resources better diverted to something more attuned to the threat.

And rather like the topic of missile defense if you move in areas of strategic nuclear weapons then cost/ benefit analysis of what’s really what’s worth spending for certain levels of necessarily limited defensive effectiveness comes into play.

My experience is that the United States and her allies want to dissuade bad actors with overwhelming power projection. If a country or countries is/are threatening US allies and her Navy with ballistic missiles then there will be focus on negating that threat. Currently, that threat is seen as ballistic missiles

In 2030, B-21's will likely be ready to fulfill their mission. They could even be forward based. The US and her allies will have between 300 and 500 F-35's in the Indo-Pacific region. When you consider the force multiplier the F-35 is expected to be this is an extremely significant air force on its own. The US may have ~1000 F-35's worldwide by 2030.

Were hostilities to start, F-22, F-35(D?) or PCA will be dealing with any 5th gen adversaries. F-15's and F-16's are also likely to still be based in the region. B-2's with an F-35 cap might make a great ballistic missile defense platform helping to defend forward bases, large naval groups and then, perhaps, a long range missile carrier for B-21's. It's much easier to rearm B-2's than frigates.

One might expect B-52's and B-1B's to be somewhat further back. Perhaps providing long range fires for targets of opportunity. I couldn't imagine non-stealth bombers will get nowhere near an area where an adversaries 5th gen fighters may slip in to shoot them down.

But who knows. Maybe by then a large reusable rocket could be a delivery platform. Launch it 60 miles up, release 25-30 hypersonic boost-glide missiles, land, and reload. Hmmm.

 

[TomcatViP]

Plus the fact that a re-usable rocket can be forward deployed in time of crisis drastically reducing intercept times, forcing your enemy to redeploy zone defense assets declustering their overall defense.
Add the psy effect of a nuclear carrying rocket landing next to your country border in the evening news and you'd see that this might be the next akin to B-52 in strategic deterrence.

 

[Jeb]

If you're going to fly an arsenal plane, you're going to have room in the airframe to carry some heavy jamming/EW gear, and if you're doing it up smart (and presuming that we're looking forward a decade or so), you're also going to have the opportunity and power generation for some DEWs to defend against inbound threats. Imagine the B-52's LLTV and FLIR chin pods replaced with lasers, for example. Add to that some loyal wingman UCAVs or Gremlins to fly alongside and complicate the enemy targeting process, and it may not even matter that much if the arsenal plane is LO, just because it's harder to hit in general.