US Next Generation Bomber Studies

[XP67_Moonbat]

The case for an optionally manned LRS-B

 

[bobbymike]

Another article:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-usaf-targets-long-range-strike-bomber-377597/

 

[dark sidius]

All of the specifications are classified, its difficult to imagine what this plane will look like we can just suppose. We just know it will be a penetrating bomber to direct attack, it will be manned/unmanned and I think there is a notion of speed in this concept but all is in the black world.

 

[flateric]

 

[dark sidius]

Beautiful cat and he is Black like the Bomber

 

[dark sidius]

Flateric explain to me how you can penetrate high AA defense with a subsonic design? General says the B-2 is in limit to do that and soon it can't. Why build the same bomber than the B-2 if it can't do the job? The same for Pak-Da, design return to the eighties with a subsonic flying wing?

 

[quellish]

Flateric explain to me how you can penetrate high AA defense with a subsonic design? General says the B-2 is in limit to do that and soon it can't. Why build the same bomber than the B-2 if it can't do the job? The same for Pak-Da, design return to the eighties with a subsonic flying wing?

You absolutely can penetrate - and persist - with a subsonic aircraft. A subsonic aircraft has a lot of advantages for persisting in access denied airspace. A larger aircraft has a better chance against low frequency radars, for example.

The B-2 is, for some things, difficult and expensive to upgrade. Fitting it with some of the more modern countermeasures available now is not affordable.

 

[dark sidius]

Ok I agree with you for the persistence but you need speed to escape the futur 5th gen fighters or Sam battery, in a very high defense environnement how can you survive with high tech supersonics fighter and S-400 type missile?

 

[flateric]

Flateric explain to me how you can penetrate high AA defense with a subsonic design?

there are many important things that go much better with subsonic. easier thermal management for example

 

[bobbymike]

Flateric explain to me how you can penetrate high AA defense with a subsonic design?

there are many important things that go much better with subsonic. easier thermal management for example

With area denial and anti-access the priority for the US's main 'strategic rivals' what do the knowledgable members of SP put on the chance of a DEW as a defensive system on the NGB?

I really think you need something in case a high speed SAM has detected you IMHO.

 

[flateric]

ACES II?

 

[Orionblamblam]

Flateric explain to me how you can penetrate high AA defense with a subsonic design?

Jetliners do it every day.

Imagine a dull, boring 747 that suddenly spews out a hundred cruise missiles...

 

[dark sidius]

Jet liner penetrate AA defense all days? B-747 with cruise missile ok 2 mn of life in this environnement

 

[Triton]

Flateric explain to me how you can penetrate high AA defense with a subsonic design?

Jetliners do it every day.

Imagine a dull, boring 747 that suddenly spews out a hundred cruise missiles...

Wasn't this idea killed in the late 1970s because the Soviets insisted on special transponders identifying United States Air Force missile carriers using civilian airframes and they threatened to shoot down aircraft because they could not differentiate between missile carriers and civilian airliners?

 

[quellish]

Jet liner penetrate AA defense all days? B-747 with cruise missile ok 2 mn of life in this environnement

The 747 stays out of the threat envelope, but the cruise missiles penetrate.

Ok I agree with you for the persistence but you need speed to escape the futur 5th gen fighters or Sam battery, in a very high defense environnement how can you survive with high tech supersonics fighter and S-400 type missile?

I don't see how speed is more helpful than signature reduction here. The threat has to be able to find you, close with with, and engage you. Speed is not going to help much unless you are hypersonic, in which case you're not going to be very subtle.

 

[dark sidius]

Yes but a supersonic dash speed help you to escape missile launch or fighters, and to travel the Pacific distance subsonic is not the good way because you make to mutch time to go. The good way will be a Bomber wit supercruising capabilities and very high altitude. We see years ago a concept of Advent engine bomber it will be the very good way to dominate the ennemy, supersonic dash bomber and a mach 4 cruise missile. Russian have a concept like this with theire Brahmos missile. And for the engine soon GE will test a full scale Advent demonstrator. Remember Bomber will be built for 40 years and it must have the better technology to survive 40 years.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Jet liner penetrate AA defense all days?

Yes. How often do you hear aout jetliners getting shot down?

Another appoach that has proven successful is to appropriate jetliners within the target nation, and use them to cause a ruckus.

The days when bombers would penetrate enemy airspace every day for months or years, fighting to survive every mile of the way, are very likely long over. In any serious confrontation in the future, the fight will either be over very quickly, or the fight will last a long time but be massively one-sided WRT airpower. Thus, a quick surprise attack using airplanes that look innocuous may prove quite effective.

 

[Sundog]

Yes but a supersonic dash speed help you to escape missile launch or fighters, and to travel the Pacific distance subsonic is not the good way because you make to mutch time to go. The good way will be a Bomber wit supercruising capabilities and very high altitude. We see years ago a concept of Advent engine bomber it will be the very good way to dominate the ennemy, supersonic dash bomber and a mach 4 cruise missile. Russian have a concept like this with theire Brahmos missile. And for the engine soon GE will test a full scale Advent demonstrator. Remember Bomber will be built for 40 years and it must have the better technology to survive 40 years.

The ADVENT engine was designed to greatly increase the fuel efficiency of a subsonic bomber engine. It was not designed for supersonic (supercruise) performance, IIRC. That would be the new engine test program they're beginning to work on for a sixth gen fighter. A high speed cruise bomber doesn't make sense and really won't help it out run missiles, because it can't out run missiles. The secret to tomorrow's bombers are going to be hypervelocity weapons. It's much easier to make weapons go fast than it is to make the launch platform faster.

 

[bobbymike]

Flateric explain to me how you can penetrate high AA defense with a subsonic design?

there are many important things that go much better with subsonic. easier thermal management for example

With area denial and anti-access the priority for the US's main 'strategic rivals' what do the knowledgable members of SP put on the chance of a DEW as a defensive system on the NGB?

I really think you need something in case a high speed SAM has detected you IMHO.

Northrop Grumman Touts Laser Advances: Northrop Grumman has matured the technology for its All Semiconductor Airborne Laser Threat Terminator system that is designed to protect aircraft from infrared-based anti-aircraft threats, announced the company on Oct. 23. ASALTT is an advanced technology quantum cascade laser that can defend fixed-wing and rotary-wing platforms, either over land or at sea, according to the company's release. The technology has undergone "multiple field and lab tests" that "have proven the product line to be successful in countering a variety of threats, including current and advanced scenarios," states the release. The modular architecture is upgradeable and supports a variety of concepts of operation. "ASALTT is more than just new technology. It enables users to solve multiple critical problems with one solution," said Gordon Stewart, general manager of Northrop Grumman's Laser Systems business unit.

 

[RyanC]

Speed is not going to help much unless you are hypersonic, in which case you're not going to be very subtle.

SR-71 combat experience including being shot at by lots and lots of missiles argues otherwise. Also, if you want to go very fast, you need to go very high, which means you defacto become immune to a lot of things; significantly reducing your threat risk.

The trick is identifying the speed/altitude envelope which offers the best return benefit for cost against risk reduction.

 

[quellish]

SR-71 combat experience including being shot at by lots and lots of missiles argues otherwise. Also, if you want to go very fast, you need to go very high, which means you defacto become immune to a lot of things; significantly reducing your threat risk.

The trick is identifying the speed/altitude envelope which offers the best return benefit for cost against risk reduction.

Unfortunately, missiles are a lot faster these days, and radars are a lot better. This is why in my post I stated that speed will not help much unless you are hypersonic.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6195&page=54

"Hypersonic missiles are within the design envelopes of several modern air defense systems that have been designed to defend against tactical ballistic missiles with hypersonic terminal velocities. For the hypothetical defensive system considered above, and for a radar cross section of greater than 0.1 square meter, there is relatively little difference in the lethal range for hypersonic missile speeds between Mach 6.5 and Mach 8. However, the vulnerability of a hypersonic missile to surface-to-air missiles can be reduced through combined reductions in radar cross section and in-flight maneuvering, and, to some extent, an increase in speed. The lethality of command-guided, surface-to-air missiles is markedly reduced for targets with a radar cross section less than 0.1 square meter. Overall, the most important factor in hypersonic missile survivability is the size of radar cross section."

It's worth noting that this study was done using data for 1995-vintage threat systems.

 

[RyanC]

QUELLISH, you do realize that analysis is in the context of defeating missiles like the SRAM, which have minimal capability to recognize a threat and manouver in response?

In fact one of the graphs even says:

FIGURE C-3 Maximum lethal range of a hypothetical surface-to-air missile system against a nonmaneuvering missile.

 

[dark sidius]

Yes I agree Ryancrierie, this way going Higher than Sam defense is the way of choice to escape defense system, may be the new bomber if it is subsonic can fly very high to defeat defense. I think its impossible to penetrate just with the stealth capacity not with th new Aesa radar system.

 

[TomS]

Jet liner penetrate AA defense all days?

Yes. How often do you hear aout jetliners getting shot down?

Another appoach that has proven successful is to appropriate jetliners within the target nation, and use them to cause a ruckus.

The days when bombers would penetrate enemy airspace every day for months or years, fighting to survive every mile of the way, are very likely long over. In any serious confrontation in the future, the fight will either be over very quickly, or the fight will last a long time but be massively one-sided WRT airpower. Thus, a quick surprise attack using airplanes that look innocuous may prove quite effective.

This strikes me as a very bad idea. I can already find several cases of innocent airliners shot down by long-range air defenses or fighters because someone misidentified them or overreacted to their innocent presence in a sensitive area (Iran Air 655, KAL 007, KAL 902, and Libyan Arab Airlines 114). And these are cases where an airliner simply got lost and flew into sensitive airspace or their proper path took them through a combat zone of which they were unaware.

Deliberately muddying the waters by flying strategic strike aircraft "disguised" as airliners would seem to worsen the situation dramatically -- in a period of tension, any airliner flying within range of a long-range SAM might become a target. In a lot of conflict zones, there will be necessary commercial travel passing by right up until (or even after) shooting actually starts. Bombers pretending to be airliners could lead to hundreds of avoidable civilian deaths.

Yes, I'm aware that ships and aircraft have used deception tactics to conceal their identity and blend with commercial traffic for centuries, but going beyond that to using those deception schemes while actually conducting an attack probably violates several treaty obligations.

 

[pathology_doc]

A relatively unsophisticated, ultra long range bomb truck for hauling massive amounts of ordnance when you have air superiority or supremacy is a useful thing, which probably accounts for the longevity of the B-52 (which can't keep going forever, surely?). From that viewpoint, a weaponised airliner makes sense - so long as it is unequivocally marked out by modifications to its structure as being what it is.


Once you HAVE such a weapon, you aren't going to use it until the time is right - which will likely be well after the war has begun, when your stealth assets have massively whittled down the enemy's surface AA and air-superiority assets and treaty obligations aren't worth toilet paper.

 

[TomS]

This makes a bit more sense (though I'm not sold on pure commercial aircraft for this either). It's Scott's notion of deliberately concealing them as civil traffic that seems rather dangerous.

 

[fightingirish]

Here a screenshot from a Youtube video about ADVENT demonstrator engines and AETD program posted by Graham Warwick (TheWoracle) at Aviation Week.
That triangle in down right corner looks IMHO like a US Next Generation Bomber Study instead of a UCAV.


Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qh5b0fhre3M

 

[flateric]

that's a very OLD placeholder image
but most interesting here is LM F-X new view

 

[sferrin]

that's a very OLD placeholder image
but most interesting here is LM F-X new view

That LM fighter there at the upper left has been around for a while too albeit different views. With this view though I guess it answers the question of if the other one was distorted.

 

[Ogami musashi]

I think you confuse it with the Boeing render at AFA convention in 2011.


This one is only known from a side view.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Yes I agree Ryancrierie, this way going Higher than Sam defense is the way of choice to escape defense system, may be the new bomber if it is subsonic can fly very high to defeat defense. I think its impossible to penetrate just with the stealth capacity not with th new Aesa radar system.

I thought the SR-71 was invented because we learned all the way back in the 1950s after Gary Powers was shot down that we could no longer "fly higher than the missiles could reach" ?? We had to be FAST and high?

Wouldn't any nation that possesses a SAM Defense and AESA radars also posses Fighter interceptors too?

 

[chuck4]

Even if the enemy possesses fighters and SAM that can reach the speed and altitude of the bomber, and have radar that can detect the bomber, making the bomber fly fast and high still makes the job of the fighter and SAM much harder, requiring the enemy to invest in more SAM installation and more fighters just to achieve the same level of protection.

The goal of the bomber design should be simply to ensure it would cost the enemy more to protect the strategic targets against our bombers to any level they feel comfortable with than it cost for us to built and operate the bombers.


I bet even now, the Chinese may theoretically be able to shoot down a single B-70, it would bankrupt them to assure protection of all their major cities against a fleet of 100 B-70s.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Even if the enemy possesses fighters and SAM that can reach the speed and altitude of the bomber, and have radar that can detect the bomber, making the bomber fly fast and high still makes the job of the fighter and SAM much harder, requiring the enemy to invest in more SAM installation and more fighters to assure protection of the target.


I think we are condition by hypersensitivity to casualty to think a weapon must be invulnerable to be worthwhile. We will loss any arms race with any major power if the enemy's goal is "good enough to hurt you", while ours is "invulnerability".


The goal of the bomber design should be simply to ensure it would cost the enemy more to protect the strategic targets against our bombers to any level they feel comfortable with than it takes to built and operate the bombers.

I've heard the exact same arguments for LO aircraft. ;D

So what is the acceptable speed and altitude of Next gen bomber to keep it safe?

Mach 2+ at 80K?

 

[chuck4]

Such speed and altitude that requires the enemy to invest in many more fighters and SAMs to protect their critical sites.

a fleet of 100 airplanes super cruising at Mach 2 at 60,000 feet, coming in from different directions, tracing routes calculated to avoid densest SAM, and sufficiently stealthy to be undet table outside, say 50 miles, and canlosses a dozen or so stand off stealthy supercruising cruise missiles with range of a few hundred miles of their own, would probably be nearly impossible to defend against.

Say a fleet of 100 bombers that require the Chinese to invest in a fleet of 1000 dedicated interceptors. We probably win. Not only is that 1000 expensive interceptors, it is many less tactical and air superiority fighters they otherwise might have built and brought to bear in other theaters.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Such speed and altitude that requires the enemy to invest in many more fighters and SAMs to protect their critical sites.

Thanks for the specifics

What if that speed is Mach 4? Altitude 100K+? How much do you spend to make that happen?

Say a fleet of 100 bombers that require the Chinese to invest in a fleet of 1000 j-20s. we win.

J-20s must be real Pieces of Junk if it takes 1000 to cause casualties to a 100 B-1 rehashes. I'm pretty sure if you asked the Russians right now they would say the Mig-31 would have no problem intercepting this "high flying" how high? "fast" How fast is fast? strategic bomber

The USAF is always saying "if we can see it, we can hit it" I assume they think the same thing about our enemies, because the USAFs solution seems to be "dont be seen" and invest in LO.

 

[chuck4]

The soviets built 400-500 mig-31s, backed by another 400-500 SU-27s in air defence role, with many more of both planned, just to defend against 2 hundred or so none stealthy, essentially subsonic bombers.


As to what the Russians say now, bragging is most of what they have left, so they deploy that a lot.


If I can see it, maybe I can hit it, but I really won't actually hit it. That's been demonstrated again and again.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

I knew this all sounded familiar!!

 

[chuck4]

I thin resurrecting a couple of hundred b-70 for $200 million a copy is a severely underrated option.

 

[Avimimus]

I thin resurrecting a couple of hundred b-70 for $200 million a copy is a severely underrated option.

To agree with you in general - we are reaching a point where some new technologies are less effective per dollar than their earlier counterparts.

On the other hand the first two prototypes cost the equivalent of 5.5 billion apiece in today's dollars...
Production costs would be lower, but... still... any Mach 3 bomber might remain quite espensive in todays dollars (especially as it would need biofuel plants to support it)!

 

[Steve Pace]

Personally - I could not precisely hit a stategic target from 95,000 feet while flying at more than 2,300 miles per hour. More - like the SAMs coming up to meet me/tagets would not great me. -SP