|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 3, 2015 15:59:20 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 3, 2015 17:04:00 GMT -6
Just to start the discussion. The USAF has had a long relationship with heavy bombers. It has had that relationship since the end of WWI. Although, it has used them in tactical situations like the Breakout at Avranches in Normandy, Korea and of course, Vietnam, its primary use has always been strategic. It has and still does believe that it can win wars by "bombing them, (opponent) back to the stone age" as Curtis Lemay said of the Japanese. With the rise of Chinese military power, resurgence of the Russians and some pipsqueak countries like North Korea, they now have their eyes on that same goal.
It is apparent to anyone who reads this stuff, that we don't need heavy bombers for jihadi's, just a few smart bombs, drones and maybe a few F-35's and the like to assist the ground troops. The USAF has been looking around for a more sizeable enemy and by heaven, they found them, lurking as I said in the Far East. Hot dog, another enemy to bomb back to the stone age. This is, IMHO, what the new long range bomber stealth has been developed for. Is it really needed? Probably not. But no matter, it will keep Northrop Grumman and Boeing and all subcontractors in business and make a few more generals in the USAF, not to mention keeping the jobs of a few senators and representatives and governors. It will help the economy and all. However, I am reminded of what President Eisenhower said "Beware the military-industrial complex".
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 4, 2015 15:29:39 GMT -6
So, what are the possible specifications for this bird. Well the F135 engine has a maximum thrust of 43,000 lbs. of thrust for CTOL type aircraft. With two, we are looking at an aircraft with about 96,000 lbs. of thrust. The B-2 has 4 x 17,300 lbs. thrust engines for a total of 69,000 lbs. of thrust with a maximum takeoff weight of 336,000 lb. The B-2 has a TTW ratio of .205 and is subsonic whereas the B-1 is supersonic and has a TTW of .38. I would venture to say, that this bomber will be supersonic, but smaller than the B-2 probably about the size of the B-1 with an F-35 tail for stealth. It will probably be a conventional aircraft not a flying wing. My guess is a top speed of around 1200 MPH, range of about 8000 miles unrefueled, 12,000 miles refueled depending on the fuel mileage of the F135; wingspan of around 100 feet, length around 40 feet, height about the same as the B-1; Maximum takeoff weight of around 250000 lbs. It will probably be an unmanned bird for most missions but with a plug-in module for two pilots for nuclear missions. Her mission profile maybe high-low-low or high-low-high.
This bird is obviously not aimed at jihadi's, that mission can be accomplished by drones, and some help from manned fighter-bombers. This bird is aimed at China, North Korea and Russia specifically.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Mar 5, 2015 20:11:19 GMT -6
I think the talk of using the F135 as an engine is more driven by the idea of commonality with the F-35 than aircraft specs. Last I heard the selection wasn't final and from one standpoint it might be a bad idea to give Pratt & Whitney a hammerlock on the engine supply chain. I also think that the plan there is to use an F135 derivative that incorporates commercial turbofan engine features. I'm not seeing supersonic capability as a priority here; the main performance requirements are range and payload.
I would not bet any money that the USAF will be able to deliver these things at the sticker price currently being quoted. Last I checked they have admitted that with R&D factored in they're projecting delivering these things for ~$1 billion per copy, which seems a bit insane.
I suppose the big question is what future role the heavy bombers will serve and how much per copy (including R&D) we can afford to spend on them. The answer to that question had better come quickly; the best argument for more heavy bombers is the age of the current fleet. The B-52s are all over 50 years old and I don't quite trust the statements that they have another 30 years of service left in them. The B-1 has always been a maintenance headache and we're lucky if we can put 8 B-2s in the air at once. So if we're going to maintain a heavy bomber force, we'll need new ones pretty soon. The question is whether we should continue the trend of having each example cost almost as much as a nuclear attack sub.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 6, 2015 0:33:12 GMT -6
I think the talk of using the F135 as an engine is more driven by the idea of commonality with the F-35 than aircraft specs. Last I heard the selection wasn't final and from one standpoint it might be a bad idea to give Pratt & Whitney a hammerlock on the engine supply chain. I also think that the plan there is to use an F135 derivative that incorporates commercial turbofan engine features. I'm not seeing supersonic capability as a priority here; the main performance requirements are range and payload. I would not bet any money that the USAF will be able to deliver these things at the sticker price currently being quoted. Last I checked they have admitted that with R&D factored in they're projecting delivering these things for ~$1 billion per copy, which seems a bit insane. I suppose the big question is what future role the heavy bombers will serve and how much per copy (including R&D) we can afford to spend on them. The answer to that question had better come quickly; the best argument for more heavy bombers is the age of the current fleet. The B-52s are all over 50 years old and I don't quite trust the statements that they have another 30 years of service left in them. The B-1 has always been a maintenance headache and we're lucky if we can put 8 B-2s in the air at once. So if we're going to maintain a heavy bomber force, we'll need new ones pretty soon. The question is whether we should continue the trend of having each example cost almost as much as a nuclear attack sub. If you are going to develop a new weapon and maintain cost controls, you will have to use proven technology. The F135 is such a technology and so is Pratt and Whitney. You have to start this way. P & W already has a majority of military aircraft engine contracts, its too late to worry about a hammerlock at this stage. This new bomber will have supercruise capability, there is no doubt about that, it is a vital part of its capability. The engines on any military aircraft are its core and many a bird has had a troubled career due to its engines. The F-14A was such a weapon and many were lost due to those poor engines. It will an F135 or a derivative, there is no doubt. As to costs, if the USAF can show the elimination of B-1s and B-52s along with some older bomber bases that will no longer be necessary plus cost savings in maintenance and support personnel, plus pilots and crews with pilotless technology, it might have a chance to get the quantity that it requires to perform its missions with this bird; and trust me, the numbers that they ask for are not the real numbers they need to perform their missions. I've seen that over the past forty years.
The harder sell will be the real geostrategic need for such a weapon. A weapon that harkens back to the Cold War; a war we thought we had won. Most see the terrorists as the new threat, not Russia and China. The Pentagon and the administration, who ever that will be, will have a difficult task attempting to persuade a cost cutting Congress, that it needs a Cold War weapon. That will be the fun, watching the struggle. The bird may go the way of the B-36 and B-47; to have served well, by never having fired a shot in anger.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Mar 6, 2015 15:41:20 GMT -6
The importance of heavy bombers as a pure Cold War weapons system has been in decline for a long while; the B-1Bs had their nuclear weapons capability deactivated in the 1990s. Last I heard the USAF was planning on necking-down its air-deliverable nukes to two modernized versions of the B-61 gravity bomb and a new cruise missile to replace the AGM-86B and C. The latter would be the primary peer-state deterrence option, with the B-61 being used for more discrete strikes in generally permissive environments. One of the two planned B-61 mods will be a lower-powered version with a JDAM guidance kit; the nuclear bunker buster idea again. In general, if you want a deterrent option, land-based ICBMs and the boomer fleet are more sensible options. The only advantages of the bombers are that you can call them back at any point before they drop their payloads and they may be able to achieve surprise; whereas if you launch a ballistic missile the other guy will probably know about it and have time to shoot back.
In my opinion, the best argument for heavy bombers is not the nuclear mission; it's that they can haul a lot of conventional munitions - be those long-range cruise missiles, 30,000-lb bunker busters, or a crapload of small bombs - over a longer distance than a fighter-bomber and hang around longer to deliver them.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 6, 2015 18:19:02 GMT -6
The need for nuclear capable heavy bombers has diminished since the end of the Cold War for various reasons, much of it due to the increasing capability of ICBM's and cruise missiles. However, having another tool in the toolbox is always a good policy, so the LRBS should have a nuclear capability, if only for political purposes. I agree that heavy bombers can carry a much more sizeable load of weapons, no matter what kind they are. They have a longer loiter time and can interdict the movement of logistics to the front much better. We really need to get a better definition of the requirements and specifications for the project to get a better sense of its real purpose.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Mar 19, 2015 17:42:11 GMT -6
Tangentially related to the original topic, but I thought this was worth some discussion: foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/heavy-iron-arrives-in-crimea-as-tu-22m3-backfires-deplo-1692094964Personally, I think this particular demonstration smacks more of saber-rattling than actual operational feasibility, at least in the maritime strike context. The Backfire is a formidable ASuW platform, yes, but these days the Russian Air Force only has about 80-90 at its disposal. Since this is also a merged force (Long-Range Naval Aviation surrendered their Backfires to the Air Force several years ago; unknown whether the entire fleet is ASuW-capable or whether they've kept up the Navy crews' training in that mission), they have to be careful about how they spread their assets around. And the Black Sea is really not the place where Russia needs the Backfire's ASuW capabilities. First, under the Montreux Convention the number, type, and tonnage of warships from nations outside the Black Sea is restricted; you will not see CSGs, ESGs, large convoys, or heavy SAGs from NATO operating in the Black Sea. Second, Russia's other A2/AD options in this region are equally formidable and also hard to counter - Kilo-class subs, surface combatants including one Slava-class cruiser, shore-based missile batteries in Crimea, and smaller, less valuable maritime strike platforms like the Su-24 Fencer. Third, attempting to strike targets outside the Black Sea - say, in the Eastern Med - would mean having to fight through NATO-controlled airspace. As a maritime strike platform, the Backfire is really best put to use over the North Atlantic and North Pacific, where with tanker support it might be able to skirt land-based aviation and only have to deal with carrier aircraft and AAW warships. More to the point, that's where the Russians would have the most to fear from NATO naval forces. On the other hand, all this talk of the Backfires being used for maritime strike could be just talking heads forgetting this aircraft is an effective land-attack bomber as well, which would be more useful in that theater.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 19, 2015 20:58:34 GMT -6
The Russian "Snap" drills are the same type of missions that we conducted in the late '60's and 70' when I was in NORAD. There were SNOWTIME missions with B-52's, non-announced operational readiness inspections and other missions that we conducted every year. These are nothing new but just unfamiliar to most since the demise of the Soviet Union. These are Cold War drills.
NATO Commander USAF Gen. Philip Breedlove has called the Crimea "a great platform for power projection into this area".
The Russian's have placed TU-M22 Backfires in the Crimea and Iskander ballistic Missiles in Crimea. They placed the same platforms in Kaliningrad which is just north of Poland. The latter might be in response to NATO buildup in the Baltic area. A geostrategic chess game. We'll have to see how this plays out over the coming months.
UPDATE: www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/13/nato-chief-in-warning-over-russian-wargames - Putin and his cronies are expansionist of the first order, they want the old Soviet Union restored. These snap exercises could be the venue for that expansion. NATO will have to be on its guard, so will Poland, Germany and the Eastern European nations. The former Soviet Union states will have to be very alert and careful, not to give Putin to pull a "snap" exercise on their states.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Mar 20, 2015 18:01:03 GMT -6
Yes, but deploying Backfires to Crimea seems more of a threat display than an actual threat. They're gross overkill for the Black Sea; it's just 320 nm from Sevastopol across the water to the Bosporus. One could argue that they could fire on anything in the area without having to travel very far from the Crimean coast, but the Russians have Su-24s, Bastion coastal defense batteries, and a well-armed fleet in the area. Adding strategic assets to that picture would be a waste. The cruiser Moskva by itself carries more long-range AShMs than five fully-loaded Backfires. Furthermore, NATO is not going to send a large offensive naval force into the Black Sea; it's the kind of bad tactical setup where the best move is not to go in there. We've only ever done it as a peacetime show of force with a couple of warships. Ground convoys can get troops and equipment to the former Eastern Bloc NATO members and air power can be deployed from those states or Turkey; no place for amphibs or carrier aviation in a hot conflict there.
If the Backfires want to try and make life difficult for NATO forces in the Med, good luck with getting past defended airspace to get there. Overall, their only really useful role in the region would be strategic bombing of NATO assets ashore, especially airbases. Otherwise, it's more of a political statement - "we're keeping Crimea, **** off."
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 20, 2015 18:53:39 GMT -6
Yes, but deploying Backfires to Crimea seems more of a threat display than an actual threat. They're gross overkill for the Black Sea; it's just 320 nm from Sevastopol across the water to the Bosporus. One could argue that they could fire on anything in the area without having to travel very far from the Crimean coast, but the Russians have Su-24s, Bastion coastal defense batteries, and a well-armed fleet in the area. Adding strategic assets to that picture would be a waste. The cruiser Moskva by itself carries more long-range AShMs than five fully-loaded Backfires. Furthermore, NATO is not going to send a large offensive naval force into the Black Sea; it's the kind of bad tactical setup where the best move is not to go in there. We've only ever done it as a peacetime show of force with a couple of warships. Ground convoys can get troops and equipment to the former Eastern Bloc NATO members and air power can be deployed from those states or Turkey; no place for amphibs or carrier aviation in a hot conflict there. If the Backfires want to try and make life difficult for NATO forces in the Med, good luck with getting past defended airspace to get there. Overall, their only really useful role in the region would be strategic bombing of NATO assets ashore, especially airbases. Otherwise, it's more of a political statement - "we're keeping Crimea, **** off." The SNAP exercises are training exercises to determine the problems in any possible deployment. It's the way you find out whether your logistics and training is working and where the problems are and yes, they can be used as a political statement and frequently are. NATO will take notice and like any good chess game, block the move without losing position somewhere else on the board. They are used to demonstrate capability.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Sept 2, 2015 17:45:10 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 2, 2015 23:00:44 GMT -6
I bet I know what they want them for; the nuclear facilities in Iran. Well, let them have the bombers but with this warning: if you start something, you get to finish it. As to the new bomber; well, fine. Now what do we it need it for?
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Sept 3, 2015 18:09:07 GMT -6
The first I would respond to on several points, with the first being relevant to the "what do we need it for" question:
1) We currently have an inventory of 76 B-52Hs in service, with another 12 available for reactivation at Davis-Montham. The last of those aircraft came off the assembly line in 1962. We have 62 B-1Bs in active service, with about 30 or so decommissioned or in storage. Given the B-1's reputation as a "hangar queen," the airframes in storage have probably been cannibalized to some extent. If I were the USAF brass, I would have a mind to keep some of the B-1s in storage on hand just in case the B-52s don't look like they'll get in 80-year service lives. Then we have 20 B-2s, of which maybe 8 are mission-capable at the same time. The B-2s and B-52s are nuclear strike assets; they and the B-1 are also heavily in demand for conventional strike missions, particularly in light of the current focus on being able to fight a war in the western Pacific where friendly airbases are few and far between (and the ones we do have are vulnerable to missile strikes). The most optimistic assessments for the LRS-B have it entering service in the "mid-2020s;" 2030 is probably a more realistic IOC target and who knows how long it will take to crank out enough to put the B-52s and B-1s to bed.
Short form - we currently have a need for bombers, and we probably want all the ones we have. If I were in the Pentagon, I'd tell Senator Cotton and the Israelis I'm not donating any of my bombers, period.
2) While the B-1 was taken off nuclear duty in the mid-1990s, you can bet it would be entirely possible to re-convert them to nuclear weapons platforms. Israel already has nukes on fighter-bombers, sub-launched cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles, but granting them a nuclear-capable heavy bomber fleet would arguably make the neighbors very nervous and set a bad precedent. If I were the Iranians, that would be a damn good argument for having my own nuclear deterrent.
3) As stated before, the B-1 is a notorious hangar queen. The IAF has never operated a combat aircraft of that size and complexity; I can't imagine their budget and maintenance guys are enthusiastic about the cost and difficulty required to keep a worthwhile force of those birds ready to fight - especially with the F-35 coming into IAF service in the next few years.
4) Don't we give them enough **** already? Attacking Israel via overt military means hasn't worked well for anyone over there since 1947, and most of those butt-kickings were dished out BEFORE they had a couple hundred nukes and what is possibly the world's most mature ballistic missile defense system. The Iranians or anyone else in the region aren't particularly stupid or insane; flipping off a nuke at Israel has a fairly high chance of failure and the payback is going to come with compound interest. They don't need heavy bombers to get that message across.
On what we need the new bombers for, the USAF still has a requirement to deliver heavy ordnance payloads that fighter-bombers can't deliver, and do it with a much-reduced draw on tanker resources. Going by the comment that the LRS-B designs are shooting for 80% of the range and payload of the B-2, you're talking about delivering 30-40,000 lbs of weapons over a range of about 5,000 nm. That amounts to 8-10 F-35As requiring maybe 9 tank-ups along the way (have fun flying a 10,000-mile round trip in a fighter cockpit, with combat in the middle of it), and unlike the F-35s the LRS-B wouldn't be limited to dropping weapons of Mk-84 class or smaller.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 4, 2015 10:22:15 GMT -6
Bomber missions are generally area targets. They have extensive square footage that would have required many smaller tactical aircraft to destroy. Large logistical areas are prime bomber targets. Facilities such as ordnance dumps, vehicle maintenance and storage etc. Another good target is the concentration of vehicles and personnel that might be moving toward the front or retreating. Another good target is infrastructure type targets such as electrical plants that are not in heavily populated areas, bridges, etc. These are the kinds of targets that bombers are best at attacking. It stands to reason that after unloading large amounts of ordnance on these kinds of targets, that the total percentage of ordnance dropped by bombers will be higher than the other tactical aircraft. Their advantage is that they can launch from the US, fly to their targets from varied directions, drop ordnance and head home generally without being detected. One problem with bomber missions is that we generally can't assess how many of the bombs actually hit the assigned target. Even with JDAMs and other self-guiding ordnance, it is difficult to do a thorough BDA. The last extensive bomber campaign against well defended targets was Linebacker II, 1972-1973*. In Desert Storm the B-52 flew 1624 missions and dropped 72,000 weapons for 25,700 tons of munitions on area targets. I don't agree with conclusions that the B-52 raids caused Iraqi troops to abandon their positions thereby validating the need for the heavy bombers. If you send these aircraft against the Chinese or Russian defenses, losses will mount quickly. They did in Vietnam until they changed the parameters of the missions to high altitude with associated EW aircraft. Keep in mind that the USAF has been a strategic bombing force for most of its life. It adopted and used close air support in WWII and Korea, reluctantly. It has always maintained that the war was ended in Vietnam after Linebacker II pulverized North Vietnam. Eliminate strategic bombing, and there is essentially no reason for the USAF, just move the tactical air forces to either the Marines or the Army. That's the feeling of the USAF commanders. Heavy bombers are a must have to justify their jobs, been that way as long as I can remember, certainly since I was in the USAF. Famous line in SAC was: Our Father, who art in Omaha, Curt be thy name. No disrespect to religions. The references are to the home of SAC at Omaha and Curtis Lemay, first CinC of SAC.
As to the question of hanger queens, if the admiral or general says, get them flying, you will be surprised how fast the necessary parts will show up and almost all those hanger queens will get off the ground, one way or another. It isn't important unless you are trying to convince Congress to give you a new bomber.
As to the B-1, it was always a controversial bomber. It was always a good target for the look down, shoot down missiles coming into service at the time of its deployment. The B-52's could and still can easily accomplish her missions with few modifications. The B-1 was always a great economic boon for jobs and dollars spend updating and maintaining it. I have always believed that swing wing bombers, are too heavy and complicated for combat. Only the simple works in combat. My belief is that a new bomber should be built and that the B-1 should be retired as soon as possible. Don't send them to the Israeli's, they don't need them and probably should not expend needed funds on a white elephant like this aircraft.
I believe that the B-52's should be retired as soon as possible, to release funds for research and for upgrades to the B-1 until the new bomber is ready. We should also explore new possibilities with unmanned drones large and more sophisticated to provide that large ordnance capability that can be launched from the US, flown at high altitude, possibly into the stratosphere then dive down and release their weapons. This makes much more sense than manned bombers. I would keep the B-1 only because it is the newest and the best at flying low in nap of the earth target approaches, something that is very dangerous for the B-52. Also, they are faster, more maneuverable and have smaller crews to risk. This last point is important. It's easy for the lawmakers and analysts to make claims, but they don't have to fly those mission like the crews do. Let's try to find a way to perform the missions with a minimal of human sacrifice.
Addendum: Total B-52 bombing raids in Linebacker II over an eleven day period were: 729 sorties against 34 targets. They expended 15,000 tons of ordnance against 1600 military structures, 500 rail interdictions, 372 pieces of rolling stock, three million gallons of petroleum products, ten airfields and ramps along with 80% of the electrical power generation capability of North Vietnam. Along with these targets, were miscellaneous missile launchers, stockpiles etc. Losses amounted to fifteen downed aircraft. The air campaign against Iraq lasted from 17 January 1991 to 23 February 1991. Basically, Linebacker II dropped half as much ordnance, in about one third less days. Had it lasted another 20 days, it would have accumulated about 2100 sorties or more, along with 45000 tons of ordnance. This was against a very heavily defended Hanoi region.
NOTE: Just found this article. www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2015/03/09/the-air-forces-b-3-bomber-isnt-as-secret-as-it-seems/
In the article they reference a think tank and I am researching documents on long range bombers etc.
|
|