US Next Generation Bomber Studies

[SOC]

Err why not? That is exactly the B-2's purpose.

To my knowledge, B-2's mission is predefined before it gets airborne. It never went up there not knowing exactly what it's gonna do.

False. They can self-designate for JDAMs. Really amusing capability, given that it can carry a cubic buttload of 500lb JDAMs. Not sure if this has actually been tried in combat as most of the missions it's been used for have involved precalculated targets as far as I recall, but the capability is there.

And sferrin is correct, one of the original missions for the B-2 was as a mobile ICBM hunter.

 

[quellish]

Err why not? That is exactly the B-2's purpose.

To my knowledge, B-2's mission is predefined before it gets airborne. It never went up there not knowing exactly what it's gonna do.

The B-2 was designed for the strategic relocatable targets mission - penetrating denied airspace to find and destroy mobile ICBMs. This is why it has the super-cool radar, sekrit data links, the uber-stealth, and of course the microwave.

 

[F-14D]

Well first of all, there is no longer a 2018 bombers, so that is moot. Besides, with the overly centralized RoEs we have now, by the time you get permission to actually hit the thing, it may well be gone. The point I'm getting at is that we are spending so much time and money for networking and surveillance techniques, but not really addressing, "How do we hit 'em after (if) we find 'em. Examples include the F-22 that was designed to also have built-in information gathering capabilities, but unable to communicate what it found securely to anything other than another F-22.

The basis of surveillance capability fused with firepower still carries from the 2018 to what the air force wants now (though that doesn't what they'll gonna get). The f-22's case is in its inability to share securely with other assets beside another f-22, which is a problem of surveillance, not firepower. So I don't really understand where u getting at. However, there's one interesting thing that should be noted, is that when the air force put down these requirements for f-22, they were thinking buying around 700 of these, effectively replace every f-15.

In the case of the Long Range Strike concept (new name for the Next Generation Bomber), apparently we are not going to develop a bomber that can secondarily be used for surveillance, but rather a surveillance platform that has a secondary capability for strike.

I think the mistake here is to seperate surveillance role from strike role, which easily lead the the question of comparison.

We may have a semantic difference between surveillance and target location. I am using surveillance in the Webster definition sense, "To watch over". This would be like U-2, SR-71 or Global Hawk. Target location would be be something like LANTIRN, Sniper, or the B-1's various systems.

In the case of F-22, it was advertised as having great target locating abilities and reconnaissance possibilities, which would be of benefit to other units not necessarily involved with air-to-air operations: ground forces, say. USAF made a point of discussing this. Problem was that although Raptor could indeed gather much of this data, it couldn't actually securely tell anyone about it except another F-22. "Wow. I've detected an armored column approaching that Ranger postion. Can't warn them, but hey; I've got two AIM-9s". "Hmm, those Sukhois are going to pop up too far away for me to get there, bu they'll be in range of that Patriot battery when they do. Too bad I can't warn them, but I sure have good area awareness".

 

[Matej]

Wasn't Tier III supposed to do the reconnaissance part of the B-2 mission?

 

[donnage99]

We may have a semantic difference between surveillance and target location. I am using surveillance in the Webster definition sense, "To watch over". This would be like U-2, SR-71 or Global Hawk. Target location would be be something like LANTIRN, Sniper, or the B-1's various systems.

The ability of targeting location isn't enough to carrying out the strike. Watching over to get sufficient information is also crucial to reach the decision and aid in the strike.

In the case of F-22, it was advertised as having great target locating abilities and reconnaissance possibilities, which would be of benefit to other units not necessarily involved with air-to-air operations: ground forces, say. USAF made a point of discussing this. Problem was that although Raptor could indeed gather much of this data, it couldn't actually securely tell anyone about it except another F-22. "Wow. I've detected an armored column approaching that Ranger postion. Can't warn them, but hey; I've got two AIM-9s". "Hmm, those Sukhois are going to pop up too far away for me to get there, bu they'll be in range of that Patriot battery when they do. Too bad I can't warn them, but I sure have good area awareness".

I think that the advertise is only to fight off those who want to cancel production, not an original requirement. F-22's requirement was air to air exclusively, and the unability to pass information to other platform because they didn't think of f-22 as a force multiplier to other less capable assets, since we were gonna replace all of them.

 

[bobbymike]

Let's not forget that the most recent stories about "Next Generation Long Range Strike" mention a "family" of assets for ISR and Strike. There is even talk about the Prompt Global Strike mission being part of overall long range strike capability. You may have space assets hand off information to a very stealthy unmanned ISR platform wedded to an SSGN or even a manned strike platform with X-51's or some other hypersonic strike missile that are also also talking to the Army's Hypersonic Strike Missile or the Air Force's Conventional ICBM. The F-22 is being updated to have the capability to hand off targeting information to other assets.

Since at least the mid 90's the US military has been developing joint capabilities combining total situational awareness allowing both identification and targeting, shortening the so called "kill chain". Computers and communications are finally catching up to the warfighters dream of, as one general put it "sitting in a room in Washington with a big computer screen knowing exactly where all your assets are where the enemy is and killing them with a click of a mouse."

Obviously a lot of this is far in the future but it is the direction we are headed.

 

[Matej]

Photo by Todd Sherman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/toddsherman/

 

[donnage99]

Very nice! A supersonic, yet persistent, with stealth against sophisticated defense network, and affordable at the same time ;D?

 

[Stuka]

They need to rethink the acronym.

 

[Sundog]

They need to rethink the acronym.

LOL, I'm pronouncing it, Sucka's! If that's what you're referring to.

 

[bobbymike]

Very nice! A supersonic, yet persistent, with stealth against sophisticated defense network, and affordable at the same time ;D?

Well with everything in Washington totaling "trillions" what's ten or twenty billion?

 

[Stuka]

I guess it's not as bad as FUCAS.

 

[SOC]

I guess it's not as bad as FUCAS.

I feel this weird urge to tell that airplane to get me a beer...

 

[Orionblamblam]

I guess it's not as bad as FUCAS.

Just so you don't get anywhere near ACRV-X. http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=330

 

[flateric]

well, and in Russian it's close to pluralised 'bitch'

 

[Michel Van]

in 1950s Germany Bundesluftwaffe the had temporary therm
"Angriff- und Aufklärung Kampfflugzeug" short AA Kampfflugzeug

AA also used by German toddler, if wanna say in short "momi i have to go to the bathroom fast"...

 

[Austin]

How do they validate the penetration capability of B-2 against enemy ,we know its ubber stealth has secret stuff and all bells and whistles money can buy and is designed to hunt mobile ICBM launchers ( i.e. SS-25/SS-27 )

But do they fly close enough to Russian airspace and check if their Long Range , Surveillance radar can track it and send interceptor to locate it , if one is close to Russian Airspace/International Airspace and still there is no response from opponent , then one is sure that its stealthy and undetected.

Or do they just fly over siberia deep into Russian airspace and see if there is some one for company , do they have such missions.

 

[donnage99]

Photo by Todd Sherman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/toddsherman/

The guy got some very good pix from convention there. there's a version of the reaper family uav for the navy that I have never seen. Is it.....jet engine with curved inlet I see there?

 

[Stargazer]

It's a General Atomics Mariner, it's actually written on the side of the model's fore fuselage and the sign underneath. However this is a new version indeed because the shape of the fuselage is quite different. I'm attaching the "normal" Mariner for comparison.

 

[AeroFranz]

The guy got some very good pix from convention there. there's a version of the reaper family uav for the navy that I have never seen. Is it.....jet engine with curved inlet I see there?

If you refer to the bump on top of the fuselage/wing intersection, I think that might be a 'saddle' fairing for sensors (or fuel?). That has already shown up in the past on Mariner. You can also see a shape ahead of the wing on top, but that is probably another faired antenna.

 

[lantinian]

Or do they just fly over siberia deep into Russian airspace and see if there is some one for company , do they have such missions.

You can never justify the risk for that approack. Rather they buy all the equipment and setup test ranges and train personal in using russan style tactics and so on.

Exposing your aicraft to the enemy sensors is the last thing you do in testing as it you will be providin info this way.

Remember how the F-22 did not show up in LeBouge 2005 becase the US feared the french will pull of the same tactic they used when the B-2 wisited.

 

[SOC]

How do they validate the penetration capability of B-2 against enemy ,we know its ubber stealth has secret stuff and all bells and whistles money can buy and is designed to hunt mobile ICBM launchers ( i.e. SS-25/SS-27 )

But do they fly close enough to Russian airspace and check if their Long Range , Surveillance radar can track it and send interceptor to locate it , if one is close to Russian Airspace/International Airspace and still there is no response from opponent , then one is sure that its stealthy and undetected.

Or do they just fly over siberia deep into Russian airspace and see if there is some one for company , do they have such missions.

Easy, ELINT. Recording the radar signals, waveforms, etc from a threat system allows you to determine its power, wavelength, and other characteristics. Then you can either 1) build your own test emitter, or 2) model the effects in the computer. Alternatively you can buy/borrow/purloin radar systems from friendly people with access, like Greece, Germany, the Ukraine, etc.

 

[bobbymike]

From Ares Defense Technology Blog today:


Disappearing Technology Geeks
Posted by David A. Fulghum at 3/18/2010 12:22 PM CDT
A number of Northrop Grumman’s top innovators are being mysteriously replaced without any clues about where they are going. Are they being fired, retired? Don’t you believe it. They are being cloistered to win the next combat aviation prize.

They are the major players in a strategy to capture the next great military aviation program – a very stealthy platform that combines bomber and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions. But you’ll find them only if you look very closely. At Northrop Grumman, Bob Mitchell – a former British fighter pilot who headed Global Hawk development as boss of Ryan Aeronautical – has retired after leading the black-project activities in the company’s Aerospace Systems segment. Then, a March 17 press release announced the appointment of Janis Palimjans – who headed the company’s now-abandoned tanker program – as vice-president for the Navy Unmanned Combat Air System program. But the release did not say one word about his predecessor, Scott Winship, who had led the company’s UCAS effort for several years, keeping the project alive as the original joint-service project fell apart and helping convince the Navy to not only fund but expand the program, with an inflight refueling demo and plans for an armed follow-on. The answer, according to insiders, is that Winship has moved into the black world to take over some or all of Mitchell’s responsibilities. Another stalwart of the Global Hawk program, Carl Johnson, moves from the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance effort (a Global Hawk variant) to advanced air programs. So it appears that Northrop Grumman is moving many of its most experienced, operationally grounded, and most successful advanced technology geeks to create critical mass for both its existing black programs – including, according to multiple sources, a next-generation bomber demonstrator as well as UAVs - and a parallel, semi-white effort to capture the future bomber/ISR prize.

 

[bobbymike]

From Insidedefense.com:

LONG-RANGE STRIKE WORKING GROUP TO BRIEF DOD ON INITIAL FINDINGS BY MAY
A senior-level working group tasked with exploring options for long-range strike plan to brief their initial findings to Pentagon officials by May, with plans to have the review complete in time to influence the fiscal year 2012 budget, DOD and Air Force officials said this week.
=====================================================================================================

Hopefully not a secret study it will be interesting to see what the different options are.

 

[quellish]

How do they validate the penetration capability of B-2 against enemy ,we know its ubber stealth has secret stuff and all bells and whistles money can buy and is designed to hunt mobile ICBM launchers ( i.e. SS-25/SS-27 )

But do they fly close enough to Russian airspace and check if their Long Range , Surveillance radar can track it and send interceptor to locate it , if one is close to Russian Airspace/International Airspace and still there is no response from opponent , then one is sure that its stealthy and undetected.

Or do they just fly over siberia deep into Russian airspace and see if there is some one for company , do they have such missions.

Easy, ELINT. Recording the radar signals, waveforms, etc from a threat system allows you to determine its power, wavelength, and other characteristics. Then you can either 1) build your own test emitter, or 2) model the effects in the computer. Alternatively you can buy/borrow/purloin radar systems from friendly people with access, like Greece, Germany, the Ukraine, etc.

Places like...
http://wikimapia.org/1745629/Site-4-Tonopah-Test-Range
http://wikimapia.org/3705213/Tolicha-Peak-Electronic-Combat-Range
http://www.jt3.com/ch_range.asp

There are some super cool neato things in the desert. And of course, you can model a lot of this stuff in a good computer. Having a DYCOMS array and AIRSAR helps too

 

[SOC]

That's just a target range, TPECR is covered here: http://geimint.blogspot.com/2007/08/us-restricted-and-classified-test-sites.html

Regarding the bomber/long-range strike/whatever studies being done, Boeing is proposing a maneuvering RV:

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/boeing-proposes-missile-with-global-reach/19405693

 

[Abraham Gubler]

You can never justify the risk for that approack. Rather they buy all the equipment and setup test ranges and train personal in using russan style tactics and so on.

Exposing your aicraft to the enemy sensors is the last thing you do in testing as it you will be providin info this way.

Remember how the F-22 did not show up in LeBouge 2005 becase the US feared the french will pull of the same tactic they used when the B-2 wisited.

There's a big difference between flying into a country after lodging a flight plan and being routed over their radar stations compared to testing their borders, unannounced in the middle of the night. Besides its highly unlikely that the Le Bourget B-2A was at full operational standard and LO condition.

Despite the risky nature of such unauthorised penetrations you can be assured they happen whenever there is confidence that the platform won’t be detected. Of course USAF and others wouldn’t test the stealthiness of the platform by seeing how far they could fly into Russia. But if they were confident they could penetrate the sensors then they most likely would for the training, operational and intelligence benefit. The same as all of the submarine territorial water penetrations. However there wouldn’t be strong demand for such penetrations due to the accessibility of space based reconnaissance.

 

[quellish]

That's just a target range, TPECR is covered here: http://geimint.blogspot.com/2007/08/us-restricted-and-classified-test-sites.html

Regarding the bomber/long-range strike/whatever studies being done, Boeing is proposing a maneuvering RV:

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/boeing-proposes-missile-with-global-reach/19405693

Oops, my bad! Here is TPECR:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=37%C2%B018%2758.48%22N+116%C2%B046%2750.93%22W&oe=utf-8&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=%2B37%C2%B0+18%27+58.48%22,+-116%C2%B0+46%27+50.93%22&gl=us&ei=xgujS8WhK4H8tQPc4IXjAw&ved=0CAcQ8gEwAA&ll=37.315568,-116.781921&spn=0.060617,0.124283&t=h&z=13

The Tonopah ECR has the more neato stuff right now though.

 

[SOC]

No way! TPECR has an S-300PS emplacement, great for keeping away those pesky civillian pilots ;D

 

[quellish]

No way! TPECR has an S-300PS emplacement, great for keeping away those pesky civillian pilots ;D

Way. Samsung makes more than just consumer electronics.

 

[lantinian]

One can only wonder what Apple will be making besides mobile computers, now that the US Army has officially visited them to discuss future products Apple can develop for their use. iMissile or iBullet anyone ? ;D

 

[Stargazer]

Well if the iMissiles are electric blue or pink, at least the bad guys will be in for a good laugh on their last breath!!!

 

[SOC]

Pink iMissiles... ;D OK, yeah, I had a good laugh at that one!

 

[sferrin]

One can only wonder what Apple will be making besides mobile computers, now that the US Army has officially visited them to discuss future products Apple can develop for their use. iMissile or iBullet anyone ? ;D

How 'bout a shop vac, "iSuck".

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

let me guess... their interface will be so revolutionary that they'll replace the joystick and every control with a circular touch pad

 

[Creative]

let me guess... their interface will be so revolutionary that they'll replace the joystick and every control with a circular touch pad

Touch? Nah. You'll be able to control it with your mind! iThink

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images/articleimages/pdf/cananoctober04.pdf

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

http://www.navy.mi.th/nrdo/jane/dev_w/Future8p15June2005.pdf

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Kinda cut n' dry. But do have a look at PAGE 9.
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2007psa_winter/cappuccio.pdf

 

[bobbymike]

Some neat looking systems on page 9, now build them already. Tired of looking at powerpoint presentations The hard target defeat system in the upper left corner looks like a rocket boosted rod penetrator. I saw somewhere a similar system is being developed by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.