Post - B-21 long range strike capability

[Scott Kenny]

Would a fighter bomber variant of the F-47 be the way forward to replace the Strike Eagle Scott Kenny? I would think so.

You really need to design a plane with weapons bays around whatever the largest weapon you plan on carrying from the beginning, you can't really refit one like you could the Strike Eagle and get away with it.

So it really depends on what the bays are shaped for. If they're only as deep as the F-22's bays, then the biggest load that could be carried is a 1000lb JDAM (standard range, I don't think the -ER wings will fit). No B-61s, either. Mostly AMRAAMs or 2x SDBs in the same space.

Honestly, the FAXX would have bays deep enough for big stuff, it's being designed as a strike plane that can do BARCAP. But as I understand the engines are limiting the range significantly because USN isn't willing to wait for 3stream engines to develop out. An FAXX with engines out of the F-47 might have the same range as an F-47. USAF would hate it because it's a Navy plane, so it's very unlikely to happen.

Would it be feasible to replace that skin with a composite? Faster/easier to create and just bond it in place

I have no clue. Not sure it'd be worth making the huge mold tooling it'd take, plus the large autoclaves, just for ~75 parts.

 

[FighterJock]

I see your point Scott Kenny, like wise for the US Navy they Navy hated the F-111B when it was forced on them.

 

[Hanse]

For air-breathing hypersonics, it lies with materials, propulsion and thermal management for sure and has to get a decent range and be reliable. When I worked on DARPA RASCAL, our F100 propulsion system used MIPCC (Mass Injection Pre-Compressor Cooling) and was rated to M3.5 up to 150K feet altitude with full "sea level" performance from the engines. For a theater strike platform, you could use MIPCC and get very high speed at theater strike altitudes and definitely do some serious supercruising but you have to carry water on-board unfortunately, nothing is free. We used a mix LOX and water via an inlet spray bar system but after test cell propulsion testing completed, could use atomized water alone and performance met predictions. Would be nice to have an VLO/LO, evolved F-111 type for this type of strike mission, we still need a good mix of platform types.

One of my favorites. (Though I did like this earlier iteration more than what it evolved into.) I'd hoped, if it had ever gone into operation, that they'd have used it to destroy some FAI records, but apparently that isn't a thing anymore. Also kind of annoying the way they portray Hermeus as performing bleeding edge work where they're basically replicating what you guys did decades ago.

 

[Foo Fighter]

You really need to design a plane with weapons bays around whatever the largest weapon you plan on carrying from the beginning, you can't really refit one like you could the Strike Eagle and get away with it.

So it really depends on what the bays are shaped for. If they're only as deep as the F-22's bays, then the biggest load that could be carried is a 1000lb JDAM (standard range, I don't think the -ER wings will fit). No B-61s, either. Mostly AMRAAMs or 2x SDBs in the same space.

Honestly, the FAXX would have bays deep enough for big stuff, it's being designed as a strike plane that can do BARCAP. But as I understand the engines are limiting the range significantly because USN isn't willing to wait for 3stream engines to develop out. An FAXX with engines out of the F-47 might have the same range as an F-47. USAF would hate it because it's a Navy plane, so it's very unlikely to happen.



I have no clue. Not sure it'd be worth making the huge mold tooling it'd take, plus the large autoclaves, just for ~75 parts.

How much would it i save with capability extension. Considering they have to decide what they want and what they want it to do.

 

[Josh_TN]

Disagree, if only because Ukraine is proving that you're not crossing the FLOT unless you're in a stealthy platform. So even Europe needs a stealthy Strike Eagle.

F-35 has plenty of range for that environment and already exists in much larger numbers in Europe than F-15E.

 

[Josh_TN]

Would a fighter bomber variant of the F-47 be the way forward to replace the Strike Eagle Scott Kenny? I would think so.

We do not know enough to be sure, but I personally suspect it sacrifices internal payload to meet all its other requirements. The bigger question to my mind is where and why a strike aircraft would be necessary, and the answer I come up with is that it simply would not be, or it is, more F-15EX can meet the need.

 

[bobbymike]

I will always believe the answer to peer competitors with highly advanced A2A is a long range semi stealthy BWB “arsenal plane” with a massive payload carrying VLR cruise and hypersonic weapons.

 

[Josh_TN]

I will always believe the answer to peer competitors with highly advanced A2A is a long range semi stealthy BWB “arsenal plane” with a massive payload carrying VLR cruise and hypersonic weapons.

So you doubt the B-21s survivability?

 

[bobbymike]

So you doubt the B-21s survivability?

Sorry should have said in addition given the current 100 B-21s to be built. If we get 200 B-21s then not needed although I still like the arsenal plane concept in general.

This is in response to posts about theater bomber F-XX/F-47 speculation which will never get you the range and payload required imho.

 

[Josh_TN]

Sorry should have said in addition given the current 100 B-21s to be built. If we get 200 B-21s then not needed although I still like the arsenal plane concept in general.

This is in response to posts about theater bomber F-XX/F-47 speculation which will never get you the range and payload required imho.

It seems to me B-52 functionally already is the arsenal plane and that spending development money on new platforms is pretty pointless when the USAF already has the penultimate long range penetration platform in the world in active production.

 

[bobbymike]

It seems to me B-52 functionally already is the arsenal plane and that spending development money on new platforms is pretty pointless when the USAF already has the penultimate long range penetration platform in the world in active production.

Combine with air refueling and cargo.

Anyway it’s not going to happen so will add to my personal never build aerospace/aviation likes - YF-23, McD JSF, WS-120A, F-16XL, etc. -

 

[Scott Kenny]

How much would it i save with capability extension. Considering they have to decide what they want and what they want it to do.

My mental image was to design the F-47 with bays big enough to hold 2000lb JDAMs initially, but set MTOW for only carrying an air-to-air weapons load plus full fuel. So the basic F-47 would have to sacrifice a lot of fuel to carry A2G ordnance heavier than SDBs.

Then do a highly-uprated MTOW increase to allow for full fuel plus full A2G capacity as the Strike NGAD.

For sake of numbers, let's say that the base F-47 has a 90klb MTOW because it carries like 40,000lbs of fuel but only about 5000lbs of AAMs, 45klbs empty. The Strike NGAD would then get an uprated MTOW to something like 115klbs, because it carries 40,000lbs of fuel, 20,000lbs of A2G, and has an extra ~5000lbs of reinforced structure (maybe more) to handle the increased weight.​

​

The F-15C has a 68klb MTOW, while the F-15E has an 81klb MTOW, a 13klb increase.​

F-35 has plenty of range for that environment and already exists in much larger numbers in Europe than F-15E.

Except it's only got space for 2x 2000lb or 1x AARGM and 1x 2000lb.

Which is half or so of what I expect out of a Strike NGAD.

We do not know enough to be sure, but I personally suspect it sacrifices internal payload to meet all its other requirements. The bigger question to my mind is where and why a strike aircraft would be necessary, and the answer I come up with is that it simply would not be, or it is, more F-15EX can meet the need.

That only applies if the threat environment is basically zero ADA/SAMs.

 

[djj]

There wont be a strike NGAD. That role will be filled by B-21 for AF, and FA-XX for Navy.

 

[Josh_TN]

Except it's only got space for 2x 2000lb or 1x AARGM and 1x 2000lb.

Which is half or so of what I expect out of a Strike NGAD.

That only applies if the threat environment is basically zero ADA/SAMs.

Use twice as many F-35s; problem solved. Also if your ordnance is suitably long ranged, 4th gen still works. The ZSU can successfully execute glide bomb attacks; I cannot imagine that the USAF would have a big problem with it. Especially since they can easily engage anything the VKS puts up.

I think tactical aircraft lack the range in the Pacific for a dedicated strike platform to be cost effective* and I do not see a need for a 5th gen striker anywhere else. The USAF already has a 5th gen for every Su-30/34/35/MiG-31M in VKS inventory and the three NATO countries that share a border with Russia will have enough F-35s to outnumber the entire current Su-57 order 2:1 by themselves. There is just no reason for the USAF to spend the money on a new parts/training stream for another aircraft type right when it is attempting to consolidate platforms as a cost saving measure (5 fighters, 2 bombers).

*ETA: the USN is of course a special case since its airfields move and they are size/MTOW limited.

 

[Ainen]

Use twice as many F-35s; problem solved. Also if your ordnance is suitably long ranged, 4th gen still works. The ZSU can successfully execute glide bomb attacks; I cannot imagine that the USAF would have a big problem with it. Especially since they can easily engage anything the VKS puts up.

Glide bombing attack is performed from safe stand off on your side of frontline. It's by definition limited in range and reach.

What @Scott Kenny discribes is proper interdiction. It is a PCA/theater bomber mission, but with sufficient ammo depth. F-35 isn't built to do that, and up to a debate if it can against modern adversary (Russia, but over the course of 2020s increasingly even Iran/DPRK).
One thing is to dart in and out, preventing closure of engagement loop, or setting up engagement through SEAD/DEAD.
Very different thing is going in and out, while SAM networks and air force are alive.

GCAP may have hard numbers, but at least per famous art of eye-gauging RCS, it doesn't appear to be truly built for the mission. FCAS may be, but we don't know all that much about its goals yet.
Among existing planes, J-36 now seems to be a much better candidate, but even if it will be in theater, very unlikely it will be in bluefor.

B-21 are likely best at it (in fact, interesting problem case for Russia; how to even approach this problem?) ... but those aren't exactly optimal assets for the mission(and one would guess they may have other work in their main capacity).

The USAF already has a 5th gen for every Su-30/34/35/MiG-31M in VKS inventory and the three NATO countries that share a border with Russia will have enough F-35s to outnumber the entire current Su-57 order 2:1 by themselves. There is just no reason for the USAF to spend the money on a new parts/training stream for another aircraft type right when it is attempting to consolidate platforms as a cost saving measure (5 fighters, 2 bombers).

Russia likely has Su-57 for every operational Ukrainian fixed wing aircraft.
It doesn't mean much when aerial stalemate is enforced by risk of SAM ambush. Though, it appears, it's mostly a EU problem anyway.

 

[Josh_TN]

Glide bombing attack is performed from safe stand off on your side of frontline. It's by definition limited in range and reach.

There is probably no shortage of targets in that range bracket, and there are a wide variety of longer ranged weapons for the USAF to employ, and quite honestly deepening the inventory of stand off weapons is a much better use of funds than a strike fighter.

What @Scott Kenny discribes is proper interdiction. It is a PCA/theater bomber mission, but with sufficient ammo depth. F-35 isn't built to do that, and up to a debate if it can against modern adversary (Russia, but over the course of 2020s increasingly even Iran/DPRK).
One thing is to dart in and out, preventing closure of engagement loop, or setting up engagement through SEAD/DEAD.
Very different thing is going in and out, while SAM networks and air force are alive.

GCAP may have hard numbers, but at least per famous art of eye-gauging RCS, it doesn't appear to be truly built for the mission. FCAS may be, but we don't know all that much about its goals yet.

It’s probably good enough for relatively shallow strikes. I rather question NATOs political will to do interdiction strikes into Russia in the first place, and if truly necessary, use stand off or B-21.

B-21 are likely best at it (in fact, interesting problem case for Russia; how to even approach this problem?) ... but those aren't exactly optimal assets for the mission(and one would guess they may have other work in their main capacity).

Why not? What is there main capacity, bombing China? I suspect they can be equally effective bombing Russia, so just buy a dozen more and call it a day.

Russia likely has Su-57 for every operational Ukrainian fixed wing aircraft.
It doesn't mean much when aerial stalemate is enforced by risk of SAM ambush. Though, it appears, it's mostly a EU problem anyway.

Probably not, and more over they seen to have no interest in risking them. But the Ukraine situation is still a good example: the ZSU does not fly at high altitude near the FLOT because of the VKS, not the AD systems. In a fight against NATO those roles would be reversed in a best case scenario for Russia.

 

[Ainen]

There is probably no shortage of targets in that range bracket, and there are a wide variety of longer ranged weapons for the USAF to employ, and quite honestly deepening the inventory of stand off weapons is a much better use of funds than a strike fighter.

Agreed. It's just that's a different mission.
Problem with stand off is that powered stand off munitions, for all intents and purposes, are suicide planes. Higher end ones tend to cost.
Lower end...i assume Ukraine war, which is their shining moment, will also do much to limit their effectiveness.

Why not? What is there main capacity, bombing China? I suspect they can be equally effective bombing Russia, so just buy a dozen more and call it a day.

Well, Russia is the original reason why US SAC was born in the first place. It is the largest country out there, with the most annoying geographic spread of targets single country can provide.
If bombers cover for shorter range missions (with high additional risks for themselves) - strategic role suffers.

Probably not, and more over they seen to have no interest in risking them. But the Ukraine situation is still a good example: the ZSU does not fly at high altitude near the FLOT because of the VKS, not the AD systems. In a fight against NATO those roles would be reversed in a best case scenario for Russia.

I assume it's exactly AD systems (majority of which are under VKS). FIghters, when they're around, can engage in look down anyways.