USAF to Retire B-1, B-2 in Early 2030s as B-21 Comes On-Line

[bring_it_on]

#1 can be performed by the B-52. That bomber isn't going away and, with upgrades, will serve still for decades. It is too early to envision how #1 will evolve in the post 2050/60 time-frame.

#2 can be performed by both the B-52 and the B-21.

#3 can be performed by B-21 and future bombers or strike aircraft.

This of course envisions that the bomber force continues to be used the same way as the past as threats and bomber capabilities evolve over time and given different capabilities adversaries bring to bear. One can envision scenarios where the bomber force becomes a key element of the EW capability and the maritime strike capability is further expanded with new sensors, and weapons. More insight into the B-21 mission systems and capabilities,over time, will likely paint a more clearer picture on how the bomber missions evolve.

 

[jsport]

There are broadly three roles for a modern USAF bomber
- dropping large quantities of ordinance on targets with no air defences (either after they have been neutralised or because they are not therr in the first place)
- acting as a platform for long range missiles
- penetrating to a target that requires a precision strike.
It is only the last category which requires something like the B2 or B21. The other roles need a modern version of the B52, with economical turbofans, colossal payload and rugged easy maintainability.

A Russian based distributed multi-sensor IADS will require. potentially months, this is well documanted in the open press and on this forum, therefore bomb trucks like the 52 and a new arsenal plane will need to equipped active defenses mini-missiles DEW etc and specific roles gone. One must engage for mths as many MTIs and fixed DMPIs w/ no DEAD assumed.

 

[TomcatViP]

Where there will be Russian high end distributed IADS, there will be F-35s, autonomous SEAD platforms and Growler. In theatre target access is a multi-prone equation. It's too easy to oppose one single 20hr flight by a twin manned 1/2 billion dollars aircraft versus a multi-billion dollars, month long, poltically heavy to setup and thousands men deployment.*

Agility gain evens better where lies initiative.

*For example, how many Syria do you think Putin's Russia can sustain?

 

[jsport]

Where there will be Russian high end distributed IADS, there will be F-35s, autonomous SEAD platforms and Growler. In theatre target access is a multi-prone equation. It's too easy to oppose one single 20hr flight by a twin manned 1/2 billion dollars aircraft versus a multi-billion dollars, month long, poltically heavy to setup and thousands men deployment.*

Agility gain evens better where lies initiative.

*For example, how many Syria do you think Putin's Russia can sustain?

Simultanous operations including bombers will be required against TCTs and DEAD may not ever be achieved before cessation of hostilities, so bombers will fly in contested airspace and thus require point defenses.

 

[TomcatViP]

Yes but IMO Air forces understand that Air dominance is now time sensitive. Bombers self protection suites are last ressort means of defense just like were tail turreted Vulcan canons.
Mission Planing, supporting assets and Stealth would be the principal means of defense in 99.99% of the time.

 

[sferrin]

Yes but IMO Air forces understand that Air dominance is now time sensitive. Bombers self protection suites are last ressort means of defense just like were tail turreted Vulcan canons.
Mission Planing, supporting assets and Stealth would be the principal means of defense in 99.99% of the time.

Today that could be a Phalanx / C-RAM protecting it. Makes you wonder why they don't bring it back.

 

[In_A_Dream]

Today that could be a Phalanx / C-RAM protecting it. Makes you wonder why they don't bring it back.

A C-5 sized bomber with multiple C-RAM stations for point defense would be pretty awesome, let's do it.

 

[shin_getter]

Effective energy based point defense weapons with corresponding sensors, plus kinetic defense-munitions probably merit its own air frame as it won't be cheap and has many more functions than protecting bombers.

Instead of such a system systems being "wasted" flying over the ocean and friendly territory as part of bomber ops, such systems can be maintained at forward combat points by in-flight refueling, shifting from air superiority and suppression of enemy air defense as needed. After all, a formation of powerful DEW aircraft flown into a group of enemy fighters or strike package could do quite a bit of damage, while all air assets from drones and helicopter up to AWACS could use point defense cover, no need to stick them onto bombers that lacks mobility or initiative and with operating cycle tied to limited surface attack munitions.

So it is the NGAD thread time?

 

[bobbymike]

Show of force during coronavirus: All 3 types of USAF bombers fly long-range missions to Europe

The Air Force sought to show it can deliver firepower around the world, even through mitigation efforts designed to limit the spread of coronavirus.

www.airforcetimes.com

 

[Grey Havoc]

Effective energy based point defense weapons with corresponding sensors, plus kinetic defense-munitions probably merit its own air frame as it won't be cheap and has many more functions than protecting bombers.

There might be something to that.

 

[jsport]

Northrop Grumman Has Patented A Kinetic Missile Defense System For Stealth Aircraft

The concept could provide a close-in "missile defense bubble" around future combat aircraft like the B-21 Raider.

www.thedrive.com

Boeing's Been Granted A Patent For Turning The B-1B Into A Gunship Bristling With Cannons

The patent includes various concepts that would allow multiple cannon configurations to be uploaded into the B-1's weapons bays.

www.thedrive.com

 

[Foo Fighter]

What a waste of a B1-B.

 

[TomcatViP]

With that gun, it's probably the only proper ride to hunt down Dino's in the next Jurassic Park (ultimate).

 

[Mark S.]

No money for the arsenal plane per Roper:

New Arsenal Plane Still ‘Very Nascent,’ Roper Says | Air & Space Forces Magazine

Roper said a “clean sheet” Arsenal Plane for AFGSC could be done with the Digital Century Series approach, but the budget likely won’t allow it soon.

www.airforcemag.com

 

[Josh_TN]

If an arsenal plane is truly desired, it seems to me the best way to handle it would be to have an alternate ordnance handling system for AAMs on the B-21 rather than dedicate a new airframe. You'd have something that was dual capable and could hide until its fire power was needed, and the bomb bay would be able to fit weapons of almost any size.

 

[jsport]

No money for the arsenal plane per Roper:

New Arsenal Plane Still ‘Very Nascent,’ Roper Says | Air & Space Forces Magazine

Roper said a “clean sheet” Arsenal Plane for AFGSC could be done with the Digital Century Series approach, but the budget likely won’t allow it soon.

www.airforcemag.com

One must threaten that a critical need will not be funded in order to get it funded.

 

[Grey Havoc]

One must threaten that a critical need will not be funded in order to get it funded.

Doesn't always work though.

 

[bobbymike]

Weekly Debrief: Clarity Eludes USAF Bomber Plan As ‘Arsenal Plane’ Re-enters Discussion | Aviation Week Network

One number associated with the F-35 program has never changed, and it happens to involve the U.S. Air Force.

aviationweek.com

 

[jsport]

Weekly Debrief: Clarity Eludes USAF Bomber Plan As ‘Arsenal Plane’ Re-enters Discussion | Aviation Week Network

One number associated with the F-35 program has never changed, and it happens to involve the U.S. Air Force.

aviationweek.com

posted again for grins

 

[markfward]

What a waste of a B1-B.

It's just an exemplar, not the definitive use of the patent's claims. They could have used just about any airplane — real or imagined — with weapon bay(s) and still met the requirements of patent law.

 

[Grey Havoc]

House slides money into B-21 bomber procurement account

What does a movement of funds from development to advanced procurement mean for the secretive B-21 Raider?

www.defensenews.com

 

[bobbymike]

The Air Force Needs a New Non-Stealthy Bomber

There are important things the B-1 and B-52 do that the B-21 won’t.

www.defenseone.com

 

[jsport]

The Air Force Needs a New Non-Stealthy Bomber

There are important things the B-1 and B-52 do that the B-21 won’t.

www.defenseone.com

Starting the acquisition process for a next-generation B-52, or the Next-Generation Strategic Bomber (this is the author’s term, not an official Air Force phrase) is the solution. It may seem early to start considering a replacement when the B-52 should fly until 2050, but acquisition programs can take decades. More importantly, starting now would allow leaders to accelerate the program and cover any bomber gaps should the B-52 fail before 2050, or if Congress declines to buy the planned number of B-21s (as happened with the B-2 or F-22).

The NGSB, to be affordable and flexible, would be a non-stealth, modular aircraft designed to accept defensive and offensive upgrades rapidly. Unlike the B-52, it should be able to land at any large airfield easily. To be nuclear-certified, the NGSB should be manned but require only two aircrew members, like a B-2 or an F-15E.
The crew compartment, like a B-52, could have room for up to 10 people, to allow for extra pilots, maintenance, security, and intelligence personnel. These airmen would make the NGSB expeditionary and able to operate in unpredictable environments.
In theory, the NGSB could reduce risks and improve performance by being unmanned, but unless a paradigm shift in U.S. thinking occurred, such a bomber would not be allowed to carry nuclear weapons. If the point of having nuclear weapons is to—if necessary—win a nuclear war, it seems irresponsible to self-eliminate the portion of the bomber force capable of carrying standoff nuclear weapons and being a highly visible symbol of deterrence (just as the B-52 is today). Considering the costs and vulnerabilities associated with unmanned operations and support systems, it might not be worth the loss of nuclear capability.
The NGSB should have the ability to carry weapons both externally and internally, in at least two bomb bays. The radar cross-section, which is how easily an aircraft is visible on an enemy’s radar, should be like that of a B-1. This cross-section would not be an expensive stealth capability, but it would, for technical reasons, make several defensive options viable.
In 2050—or earlier, if necessary—the combination of 100 to 200 B-21s and a cheap NGSB option would make the existence of over 225 bombers feasible. Worst case, an NGSB would give leaders options should financial realities intervene.

a distant standoff 747 w/a EMRG/or EMTCG would be a more survivable bomber option (mentioned in aircraft mounted guns thread) and in general a NGSB is better than one shot wonder missiles.

Hypersonics vs hypersonics is looking to be a progressily more expensive competition.

IMHO the Hypersonics, Patriot, THAAD, and even the Standard family of systems including SM-6 ER and the now the return of Standard land attack are examples of why a single modular missile family based on mission requirements is in order. The cost of these conflicting and confusing programs is a killer.

 

[FighterJock]

The Air Force Needs a New Non-Stealthy Bomber

There are important things the B-1 and B-52 do that the B-21 won’t.

www.defenseone.com

So would that new non-stealthy bomber have supersonic cruise capability like the B-1? Or be subsonic like the B-52?

 

[sferrin]

The Air Force Needs a New Non-Stealthy Bomber

There are important things the B-1 and B-52 do that the B-21 won’t.

www.defenseone.com

So would that new non-stealthy bomber have supersonic cruise capability like the B-1? Or be subsonic like the B-52?

"Rule #1 - Will not, repeat NOT be based on an airliner!"

A modern B-1B, with some tweaks would probably be ideal.

 

[Grey Havoc]

It would have to be supersonic at the bare minimum.

A modern B-1B, with some tweaks would probably be ideal.

It would make for a good stopgap, though something based on the B-1A would be even better.

 

[sferrin]

It would have to be supersonic at the bare minimum.

A modern B-1B, with some tweaks would probably be ideal.

It would make for a good stopgap, though something based on the B-1A would be even better.

Supercruise with non VG inlets (see F-22/23), 3-stream engines, at least 2 LARGE hardpoints externally. (Which isn't to say you can't have more, like the existing B-1B, but I'd like two of them to be good for 20,000lb weapons.) Engines, sensors, avionics, from NGAD. Undecided on swing-wings. If you can get equal versatility without them then great. Personally I don't see, "old fashioned" as a compelling reason for ignoring them.

 

[Josh_TN]

There's no way the US embarks on an additional bomber program, and quite frankly no compelling need.

 

[sferrin]

There's no way the US embarks on an additional bomber program, and quite frankly no compelling need.

Aside from the fact that the B-52 and B-1B won't last forever. (Not that I think a second bomber has much of a chance, but to say there is no compelling need is to ignore reality.)

 

[Josh_TN]

Ok, no compelling need for the next two decades.

 

[marauder2048]

The Air Force Needs a New Non-Stealthy Bomber

There are important things the B-1 and B-52 do that the B-21 won’t.

www.defenseone.com

So would that new non-stealthy bomber have supersonic cruise capability like the B-1? Or be subsonic like the B-52?

"Rule #1 - Will not, repeat NOT be based on an airliner!"

A modern B-1B, with some tweaks would probably be ideal.

OTOH, if ever there were a good time to acquire some lightly used commercial widebody aircraft...
...before the air freight companies gobble them all up.

 

[TomS]

The Air Force Needs a New Non-Stealthy Bomber

There are important things the B-1 and B-52 do that the B-21 won’t.

www.defenseone.com

It's funny that one of their main rationales is that the B-21 will be too stealthy and its signatures will need to be protected when flying "non-stealthy" missions. Well, just mount a couple of corner reflectors on it; problem solved.

 

[batigol]

IMHO the palletized system out of a C-17 would be viable.

 

[bobbymike]

How about a large BWB with the ability to launch about 50 LRSOs or CPS systems

 

[DrRansom]

How about a large BWB with the ability to launch about 50 LRSOs or CPS systems

A BWB design from the USAF would be a perfect chance to use military funding to retire risk for that airframe, which could then be applied to civilian markets.

As for supersonic bombers, I'd rather see them push a three way strategy:
1. B-21
2. BWB non-stealthy B-52 replacement
3. F-111 (or slightly larger) supercruise replacement, with heavy multi-role into EW and local UCAV control, probably a NGAD spin-off.

A big bomber with supercruise, while potentially very useful, is just going to be too hard of an ask.

One question is how far back will non-stealthy aircraft have to operate from the theater? If that gets too big (1000nm +), then everything will have to get some form of self-defense capability (supersonic sprint to launch or more stealth).

 

[sferrin]

The Air Force Needs a New Non-Stealthy Bomber

There are important things the B-1 and B-52 do that the B-21 won’t.

www.defenseone.com

It's funny that one of their main rationales is that the B-21 will be too stealthy and its signatures will need to be protected when flying "non-stealthy" missions. Well, just mount a couple of corner reflectors on it; problem solved.

Maybe they could even make them retractable.

 

[sferrin]

Ok, no compelling need for the next two decades.

Uhm, about that. Do you think there will be anybody left who knows how to build bombers in two decades? Oh, you want to give NG another bomber, okay.

 

[sferrin]

The Air Force Needs a New Non-Stealthy Bomber

There are important things the B-1 and B-52 do that the B-21 won’t.

www.defenseone.com

So would that new non-stealthy bomber have supersonic cruise capability like the B-1? Or be subsonic like the B-52?

"Rule #1 - Will not, repeat NOT be based on an airliner!"

A modern B-1B, with some tweaks would probably be ideal.

OTOH, if ever there were a good time to acquire some lightly used commercial widebody aircraft...
...before the air freight companies gobble them all up.

And make them into tankers.

 

[sferrin]

How about a large BWB with the ability to launch about 50 LRSOs or CPS systems

A BWB design from the USAF would be a perfect chance to use military funding to retire risk for that airframe, which could then be applied to civilian markets.

As for supersonic bombers, I'd rather see them push a three way strategy:
1. B-21
2. BWB non-stealthy B-52 replacement
3. F-111 (or slightly larger) supercruise replacement, with heavy multi-role into EW and local UCAV control, probably a NGAD spin-off.

A big bomber with supercruise, while potentially very useful, is just going to be too hard of an ask.

One question is how far back will non-stealthy aircraft have to operate from the theater? If that gets too big (1000nm +), then everything will have to get some form of self-defense capability (supersonic sprint to launch or more stealth).

LM's HWB



Bomber, cargo, tanker. Win, win, win.

 

[Josh_TN]

Ok, no compelling need for the next two decades.

Uhm, about that. Do you think there will be anybody left who knows how to build bombers in two decades? Oh, you want to give NG another bomber, okay.

no one has made a bomber in two decades. Somehow we survived.