US accelerates long range bomber...helps space access?

[skyone]

In an effort to free up mulla to buy more F-22, the USAF is cancelling J-UCAS, in other words, x-45 & x-47. F-117 will face an early retirement in 2007-2008, half of the B-52 fleet will be retired, all B1B & U2 as well. Cuts in the tanker fleet and airlift likely. And to the point now, the air force will field its newest bomber not in 2040, but 2015! Global strike capability, range, loiter time and payload is emphasized...<br />http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002079.html

 

[john_316]

That ain't gonna happen!!!<br /><br />That is totally BS..<br /><br />The 2006 Defense bugect calls for 22 more F-22 fighters and 44-48 F/A-18's and no procurement for new bombers, or a F-117 retirement. The F-117 isn't an expensive fighter to operate anyways.<br /><br />The UCAV just got a boost in funding as well as BMD and the ABL (Airborne Laser). So where ever these figures came from are misleading and false. Anyone can do a google search and look at the 2005-2006 defense budgets and see where the money is going.<br /><br />Thats like say were building 24 new SR-71X craft to do suborbital flights of upto 80 miles up and 2000 mile range before refueling. <br /><br />**yawn**<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[skyone]

ah. I think YOU have to do a google search. Yes, its hard to imagine...but the cuts seems so!<br /><br /><br />http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/01/us-plans-to-retire-b52s-c21s-f117-u2-for-more-f22s/index.php<br /><br />http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,84991,00.html<br /><br />http://www.postchronicle.com/news/security/article_2123295.shtml

 

[mlorrey]

I suspect that they are going to adopt the FB-22 concept: <br />http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/fb-22.htm<br /><br />Which would be able to deliver 30 GPS guided 250 lb bombs in internal bomb bays, with a range of over 1600 miles unrefuelled, with a stealthed supercruise platform that retains much of the F-22's maneuverability. It would use the F135 engine used on the F-35 JSF, rather than the F119.<br /><br />This would essentially retire the B1-B, and, with drop tanks and air refuelling, could allow the retirement of the B-52 until the B-3 comes online in 2019.<br /><br />Development costs are estimated at $5-8 billion, which is a deal, because of so much commonality with the F-22 program.<br /><br />I suspect one reason why they are pushing this program acceleration is illustrated by the recent bombing in Pakistan (as well as the failed B1-B mission to bomb Saddam during the Iraq War). One problem with current systems is that they take too long to get in theater. By the time an informant or forward air observer can confirm a valid target, they need air assets ready to deliver ordinance then, not an hour or two or three later. Al Qaeda knows that it takes us hours to get our assets into place for a strike, which is why they move around all the time. Being able to get ordinance on target much sooner after target confirmation will ensure that such missions actually get their target, rather than just a lot of buildings and civilians who may have little or nothing to do with the target.

 

[john_316]

The B-52 is on status to serve until 2040. Besides the B-1 Lancer they are the only US Bombers to deliver the Air Launched Cruise Missile (with nuke capibility) and the B-52 bomber is the only bomber that can do heavy saturation bombing. No other bomber or bomber type in our inventory can do as much.<br /><br />The B-3 program is not funded. (There is no B-3 on the horizon yet)<br /><br />The F-22B or F/B-22 program is an addition to the F-22 program with extensive internal stores re-arrangment for the F-22 but again hasn't recieved full funding.<br /><br />They are not building any more B-2's or B1-B unless there were war losses which has not happened yet. But there is no B-3 bomber as speculated in the any of the last 6+ years defense budgets.<br /><br />There is no early retirement of the F-117 Nighthawk either. Since when do we retire stealth fighters? <br /><br />The Air Force is admidts its change and restructuring but it is false to assume the B-52 and B-1 are going away anytime soon.<br /><br />As regards to assetts in area of operations and bombing specific targets with bombers or fighters.<br /><br />Most of the bombing done by the B-1 and B-52 were and are saturation bombing not strategic bombing. The use of the F-18, F-15 and F-16 do most of the low level bombing when in theatre. They are within 500 miles of the Afgan-Pakistani border and in Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.<br /><br />If the assests are near you ala (F-15/F-16/F-18) why would a moron fly 6000 miles to drop 30 GPS bombs when you have aircraft in the vicinity which can do the job well enough and more.<br /><br />Stategic bombing for terrorist can also be done with the B-2 and Tomahawk Cruise Missiles if need be.<br /><br />The F-22 also cant carry the range of bombs and missles of either the B-1B or B-52. So there is no way the FB-22 will replace the B-1 because it can't fulfill the same roll.<br /><br />Besides we would have kept the FB-111 in service if we needed a light bomber that could have carried half the

 

[mlorrey]

You are behind the times, John. 277 F-22's have been built. Furthermore, Northrup has proposed building 40 more B-2 bombers for $545 million apiece, half the price of the original 20 planes.<br /><br />The FB-22 would also be the stealthiest plane in the inventory, capable of going where no other stealth aircraft can go, and not just at night. Capable of carrying 2 AIM-120 missiles, with 1.8 mach supercruise, a low wing loading and a 6 g airframe tolerance, the FB-22 could defend itself and agressively evade and escape threats that have detected it.<br /><br />The terrorists know about the B-52 and tomahawks, they know how long these subsonic vehicles require to get on-site, which is why they already move around as frequently as they do. They are also taking measures to detect Predator attack drones. Having a regional bomber with supercruise and stealth means being able to get inside their decision cycle once again to the point that they cannot continue to operate: they will have to move so frequently that they will simply die from exhaustion and lack of sleep.<br /><br />The B-52 is being repurposed for stand-off radar jamming missions, to expand the envelope of stealth aircraft in hostile air defense environments.<br /><br />The F-117 is a 25 year old airframe. They were built at the same time as many of the F-15's which are now being moved to the guard or retired to the boneyard were. Newer radar technologies are being developed by the opposition (particularly Russia and China) which can detect faceted aircraft of that stealth generation.<br /><br />B-3 was planned to start prototype testing in 2019 with full operational capability (production run complete) in 2034. If it is being accelerated, it is likely because people are noticing that as we reduce our number of overseas bases, we are ridiculously only developing short range fighters that put considerable strain on our refuelling fleet to meet medium range mission requirements.

 

[darkenfast]

Mlorrey, where do you get your information from? The Air Force has about 56 F-22A's as of last month, 12 of which are with the first operational squadron. Production will continue at a slow rate for the next few years, and is currently planned to total about 180 aircraft.

 

[mlorrey]

The Air Force Times article on the FB-22 said 277 were built as of 2005. I know the USAF has 56 planes in *operational squadrons*, but that isn't the same thing, now, is it?

 

[darkenfast]

I didn't see the AF Times article, but there's a mistake here somewhere. Let's try again: of the 56 aircraft, 12 are in the first operational squadron. The rest are being used for training of pilots and evaluation. It's a very long process to get an extremely complicated weapons system such as the Raptor to operational status. I believe the number "277" was floated as a "how many we'd like to buy", a quantity which has been which has been steadily decreasing under budget pressure.<br />

 

[mlorrey]

I believe they were talking originally in the high 300's. Anyways, the AFT article says the AF Chief of Staff and Secty were both talking about buying 150 FB-22's as well.<br /><br />According to the terms of the F-22 contract, (according to Globalsecurity.org's up to date info), there should have been 94 F-22's delivered by the end of last year. <br /><br />You are correct that the first squadron is operational, the second should be in operation some time between last September and this coming June, and the third will be operational next fall, but they are not 12 plane squadrons. In all my time in the USAF, I never heard of a 12 plane squadron that wasn't coming back from a war and suffered heavy losses. The F-22 squadrons have 26 total aircraft, and are allowing for two hangar queens per squadron at any given time. <br /><br />So these numbers jive pretty closely with 94 delivered by the end of this past year, the fourth squadron is probably still at half strength right now and getting training going. <br /><br />While SecDef Rummy was trying to get the F-22 fleet cut down to 190 aircraft, to the strenuous objections of the USAF (looks like he was trying to short change them like he short changed our guys in Iraq). Right now the official SecDef story is production is at 90 planes a year now, and when production reaches 239, a decision on enlarging the fleet will be made by whoever Rummy's successor is. Air Force officials continue to say that 381 aircraft is the proper useful size of the fleet, will give one F-22 squadron to each AEF. As a matter of perspective, there are 918 F-15's in the USAF inventory. Models A thru D will need to be replaced by F-22s, while the E model will be replaced by the F-35 JSF.<br /><br />Given how many people have complained about the lack of fighter interceptor response on 9/11, there is a whole lot of complaining about keeping the interceptor force fully manned. Until 9/11, the last active duty fighter interceptor squadron was the 318th FIS

 

[n_kitson]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>277 F-22's have been built<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Total life time operational demand for the F-22 is 183 units.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Right now the official SecDef story is production is at 90 planes a year now<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Official figure is 20 per year for 2008 to 2010. Source: US Department of Defense<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>B-3 was planned to start prototype testing in 2019 with full operational capability (production run complete) in 2034.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />There is no B-3 program. Please, please do not resucitate this myth again in Space.com.

 

[mlorrey]

Since when are you the official space.com censor? I got my info from globalsecurity.org and the Federation of American Scientists websites.<br /><br />This site's charts of official DoD bomber service life attrition rates: <br />http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/b-3.htm<br />Demonstrates that in 2037, existing bombers will all start nosediving in numbers. Only an absolute idiot would fail to expect that a new generation of bomber (logically to be designated the B-3, considering the newest bomber is the B-2) would need to be brought online by that point in time. If the DoD decides to accelerate retirement of existing bombers, then this deadline date moves closer to the present. Given also that a) the DoD is cancelling its UCAV programs and b) the US has been steadily losing overseas bases for the last decade, only an idiot would fail to conclude that the nations defense needs point to an increasing dependence upon long range and medium range strike/bomber aircraft capable of delivering precision guided munitions.<br /><br />Also, for anyone who has read Zbigniew Brzhinski's book "The Grand Chess Game" and/or similar books like "The Pentagon's New Map", one clearly realizes that the key to global security in the 21st century is control of the eurasian landmass, particularly central asia (at least, that is how those in power see things). This region is beyond the range of US Navy carrier based aircraft engage in combat operations. For this reason, USAF medium and long range bombers with quick response times to clandestine target designation teams will be highly necessary.<br /><br />This quick response and long range requirements mandate either one of two possible features in a long range bomber: <br /><br />a) long loiter times over the battle field: UCAVs like Predator and Global Hawk provide significant loiter time, as do more conventional aircraft like the AC-130 Spectre. Unstealthed aircraft that

 

[najab]

The point that N_Kitson was making is that there has never been a B-3 <b>program</b>, just studies that indicated a need for one.

 

[nyarlathotep]

>>"The point that N_Kitson was making is that there has never been a B-3 program, just studies that indicated a need for one."<br /><br />Well, there's no <b>unclassified</b> B-3 program, but that doesn't necessarily mean there isnt one.

 

[n_kitson]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Don't threaten me about 'spreading myths'<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />A request is not a threat.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I got my info from globalsecurity.org and the Federation of American Scientists websites. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Seems to me your sources are offering a nicely thought out discussion on a potential strategic timeline. That is radically different from your posts which presented the information as a confirmed program with cast-in-stone dates.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>my record clearly shows that I don't make such statements without significant evidentiary support. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Obviously, it does not. Errors on the F-22 numbers. Misrepresenting a strategic option as fact. Probably both unintentional errors on your part, but errors still.