Future USAF long-range strike bomber (LRS-B)

[tomahawk6]

it all depends on who is in the White House.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Anyone remember this week of a satellite that exploded ? The PRC I think has the weapons to take out satellites.Lose some satellites and your cruise missiles wont work.They are similarly at risk,but right now they are not as reliant on satellites to vector weapons systems.The major weapons platforms are too expensive to field.Somehow the geniuses in R&D need to figure out a low cost means.The F-35 program is a complete failure.Great idea fairy at work there.

And that is why they have the US Rangers....  to finish the job ;D

 

[Kirkhill]

Anyone remember this week of a satellite that exploded ? The PRC I think has the weapons to take out satellites.Lose some satellites and your cruise missiles wont work.They are similarly at risk,but right now they are not as reliant on satellites to vector weapons systems.The major weapons platforms are too expensive to field.Somehow the geniuses in R&D need to figure out a low cost means.The F-35 program is a complete failure.Great idea fairy at work there.

I can't disagree with most of your assertions but I do take exception to the highlighted comment.

GPS is/can be one tool in the bag of tricks and it may already have served its purpose adequately.  Together with satellite imagery our planet is mapped to an extent never before seen.  We now know exactly where Mt Everest is and how high it is and the same is true for the Eiffel Tower.

While GPS navigation has become the default system I suggest that cheap sensors, memory and processing power have made other automated navigation systems more effective.  In addition to Inertial Navigation, I believe that automated celestial navigation could be revived and refined, as could dead reckoning (a form of INS?) and point to point navigation using terrestrial markers.  Using the full array of sensors, cameras and radars and combining them I don't see why killing GPS would necessarily end unmanned flight.  In fact I believe that any group of platforms could be "wired" as a swarm where most of the swarm navigates in relation to all the other members of the swarm.  As long as one or two members (even fixed nodes) know where they are all the rest can position themselves.

I don't think the enemy will be able to knock out ever transmitting node and the replacements as they come on line, actively jam all frequencies and visually obscure all targets permanently so as to render themselves invulnerable to mass attacks of precisely targeted weapons.

 

[Tibbson]

I can't help but think back on how much all of that technology helped when it came to tracking MH370. 

 

[tomahawk6]

The investigation indicated the GPS was shut off.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

On top of what Kirkhill presented is that computers are far more powerful and can take in more factors in dead reckoning than before, including high altitude winds, earth rotation. This can get the missile much closer to the target even without GPS.

 

[daftandbarmy]

On top of what Kirkhill presented is that computers are far more powerful and can take in more factors in dead reckoning than before, including high altitude winds, earth rotation. This can get the missile much closer to the target even without GPS.

But if we put as much value on the life of a fighter pilot/ bomber crew as we did on an infantryman/tank crew/combat engineer section a manned option would be a steal of a deal, more flexible, and just think of all the medals!  ;D

 

[tomahawk6]

Put the money into reopening production of the B1 and B2.

 

[Loachman]

Inertial Navigation

Drifts unless updated.

automated celestial navigation

Not so good when its cloudy above.

dead reckoning

Still requires updating somehow.

point to point navigation using terrestrial markers

What if it's cloudy below?

Using the full array of sensors, cameras and radars and combining

Active sensors (radar) are detectable.

But, essentially, this is what F35 is designed to do.

I don't see why killing GPS would necessarily end unmanned flight.

It wouldn't, but it would make things a lot more challenging. Civil aviation is becoming a lot more GPS-dependent, and would likely suffer considerably - but that level of warfare would cause at least as much harm in other ways.

As long as one or two members (even fixed nodes) know where they are all the rest can position themselves.

Presuming that they do not argue about who's right.

And I then have to point to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Star_(film) and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSccwmmrS5A again.

I don't think the enemy will be able to knock out ever transmitting node and the replacements as they come on line, actively jam all frequencies and visually obscure all targets permanently so as to render themselves invulnerable to mass attacks of precisely targeted weapons.

When accuracy cannot be guaranteed, there is always Canned Sunshine.

 

[a_majoor]

I would be hard pressed to imagine a scenario where everything went "black" at once, but any future weapons system (manned or automated) will need to have multiple navigation systems to cover eventualities when one thing or another is non serviceable for any reason. With the ever declining costs of computational power, your iPhone or Android device could serve as a non militarized example; they have receivers for Wi Fi and cell signals, tiny internal accelerometers that *could* be used to hook up to some form of inertial navigation system, and even on board cameras (take a digital picture and compare it to the library of pictures of the target area or approach path).

As for "Canned Sunshine", it is interesting that the Russians have placed such a huge emphasis on thermobaric and flame weapons. Certainly hammering positions from the air with thermobaric warheads will be about as close to "canned sunshine" sithout triggering some very important thresholds...

 

[MarkOttawa]

Two pieces (usual copyright disclaimer):

1) Bloomberg, April 22:

Almost Nobody Believes the U.S. Air Force Can Build an Affordable Bomber

The last time the U.S. Air Force developed a stealth bomber, the planes cost $2.2 billion each and couldn’t sit out in the rain.

The B-2 bomber, whose sensitive coating helps make it hard to detect on enemy radar, must be sheltered from the elements in climate-controlled hangars at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri. None of the 20 planes is based overseas, where it could respond faster in a crisis.

Now, with little public scrutiny or debate, the Air Force is developing a next-generation bomber that it promises to build with advanced technology at a fraction of the B-2’s cost. Few outside the Pentagon take the advertised sticker price of $550 million per plane, or $55 billion for a planned fleet of 100, at face value.

“There’ll be a tendency to load this thing with every toy that can be developed because it’s the only game in town,” said Tom Christie, who watched the B-2’s costs increase in the 1980’s as a Pentagon acquisition executive and later served as director of operational testing for all weapons until he retired in 2005. “It’s worse now than it ever was.”

As the Air Force prepares to award a contract within months to build the new bomber, there’s also debate about whether it’s even needed in an era of unmanned aircraft and unconventional warfare against irregular forces.

The plane, which may not be ready for combat until the 2030s, may already be outmoded in an era of relatively inexpensive cruise missiles and drones that can be built with 3-D printers, said T.X. Hammes, a research fellow at the U.S. National Defense University…

Defense officials say their latest of repeated efforts at acquisition reform will be effective, protecting taxpayers from the vast cost overruns on the B-2 and Lockheed Martin Corp.’s current work on the F-35 fighter…

The contest to build the new bomber pits Northrop Grumman Corp., which has an incumbent’s advantage as the builder of the B-2, against a joint bid by Lockheed and Boeing Co., which bring the expertise and clout of the biggest and second-biggest U.S. government contractors.

Winning the competition is critical for Northrop, which doesn’t have a prime contract on a defense aerospace program to rival Lockheed’s F-35 fighter or Boeing’s KC-46A Pegasus tanker, said Douglas Rothacker, an analyst with Bloomberg Intelligence. Without it, Northrop would have to rely more heavily on its unmanned systems and radar businesses, he said…

Senator John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a longtime critic of runaway spending on weapons systems, said he needs to hear more about the new bomber.

“The Air Force has got to make the case, even if we have to have classified hearings,” the Arizona Republican said in an interview on Tuesday. “I’m not sold on it yet, but I’m not rejecting it. I want them to make their case.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-22/air-force-promise-of-affordable-u-s-bomber-finds-few-believers

2) Bill Sweetman at AvWeek:

Opinion: Open Up The New Bomber Program—Just A Bit
U.S. Air Force doubles down on bomber secrecy

The world of nuclear warfare is uncertain, complex and dangerous and U.S. forces need to be modernized. But the U.S. nuclear posture is evolving without a soundly budgeted plan, with goals that have not been publicly debated, and behind a veil of secrecy.

U.S. Air Force assistant chief of staff for strategic deterrence Maj. Gen. Garrett Harencak was pro-discussion—in theory—when he addressed a Capitol Hill meeting in mid-May. “I want to be sure we have that debate,” he said. But what he had to say provided little meat for a substantial discussion.

Harencak thinks the Long-Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B)—a month or two from contract award—is essential. “We could read you all into the program,” he told his audience, “or ask which of you wants to be the one who walks into the Oval Office and says, ‘Sir or Madam, we cannot neutralize this threat to America because we made a bad decision.’”

Talking about “a bad decision” begs a lot of questions. The array of systems that make up the Triad offers many options that will amount to better or worse decisions.

What is the right balance of penetrating bombers and cruise missiles? Is there a case for a less costly cruise-missile carrier aircraft [see: "Why Boeing's Design For A 747 Full Of Cruise Missiles Makes Total Sense" http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-boeings-design-for-a-747-full-of-cruise-missiles-ma-1605150371 ], complementing bombers that could also perform maritime strike? How would such an airplane’s capability be improved by a defensive laser weapon, almost certainly available in the 2020s?..
http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-open-new-bomber-program-just-bit

Mark
Ottawa

 

[CougarKing]

An aircraft that will cost more than the B2.

Diplomat

Will the US Air Force’s Top-Secret Bomber Cost $3 Billion Per Plane?
Uncertainty continues to linger over the real costs of the Pentagon’s new bomber.

As I reported four days ago, the costs of the top-secret Long-Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B)–likely to be designated B-3–have gone up due to a calculation error, according to the U.S. Air Force (See: “US Air Force’s Top-Secret Bomber More Expensive Than Thought”). In 2014, the Department of Defense’s ten-year budget estimate for fiscal years 2015-2025 for the bomber program was $33.1 billion. This year’s estimate for fiscal years 2016-2026 jumped up to $58.4 billion.

The U.S. Air Force, however, stated that both numbers are wrong and that the actual ten-year costs (the first installment in the 30-year program) are $41.7 billion for each period. “The 10-year cost estimate provided by the Air Force for LRS-B in Table 4 of the FY2015 and FY2016 Section 1043 Report was incorrect. The correct 10-year cost entry for both the FY2015 and FY2016 reports is $41.7B. Again, the program costs have remained stable,” Air Force spokesman An Stefanek told Breaking Defense.

“The mistake was a regrettable error, but it has been corrected, so it is not going to affect us internally,” U.S. Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James emphasized during a press conference at the Pentagon Monday afternoon, Defense News reports. “A couple of our people got the figures wrong and the process of coordination was not fully carried out,” she added. “Coordination of course means other people are providing a check and balance and looking at the numbers, so that typically is how something like this would get caught.”

(...SNIPPED)

 

[MarkOttawa]

More:

Contract for new U.S. long-range bomber due soon: Air Force secretary
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/25/us-usa-airforce-bomber-idUSKCN0QU05720150825

US Air Force: Cost Error Won't Impact Bomber Planning
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2015/08/24/us-air-force-cost-error-wont-impact-bomber-planning-deborah-lee-james/32290057/

Air Force Blames Mistaken Bomber Costs on ‘Human Error’
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/08/27/air-force-blames-mistaken-bomber-costs-on-human-error/

Plus Bill Sweetman at AvWeek:

Opinion: Sizing Up The U.S. Air Force’s Next Bomber
LRS-B could fly under arms-treaty radar
http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-sizing-us-air-force-s-next-bomber

Mark
Ottawa

 

[tomahawk6]

The B-3 in trouble as well as the KC-46A.Big ticket items always attract alot of scrutiny.Neither program will be terminated,just managed better.

http://247wallst.com/aerospace-defense/2015/09/01/senators-demand-budget-review-for-b-3-warn-on-kc-46a/

 

[CougarKing]

Perpetual delays:

Defense News

US Air Force’s New Top-Secret Bomber Faces Further Delays
The US Air Force is once more postponing the award of a contract to build the new Long-Range Strike Bomber.
By Franz-Stefan Gady
September 30, 2015

This Tuesday, during a hearing of the U.S. House of Representatives Armed Services Committee’s Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, the U.S. Air Force announced that it will delay awarding a contract to develop the top-secret Long-Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B) military.com reports.

In his testimony, Lieutenant-General Arnold Bunch, military deputy for the office of the assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition said that “[t]his is a case, sir, where we need to go slow to go fast. We’ve got a fair, deliberate, disciplined and impartial process anytime that we do a competition. And we’ve been transparent and working with industry trying to get this thoroughly done and documented so we can make that decision. It’s coming soon. That’s about as good as I can give you.”

The hawkish chairman of the House Armed Services Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee Randy Forbes, however, was clearly not impressed with the general’s opaque answer: “Do we have any idea whether that’s going to be two months, 10 years? When what do we think?” To which Bunch replied that a decision will be made “within the next couple of months.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[Kirkhill]

Are they better off putting the money into LRS-B (Long Range Strike - Bomber) or into PGS (Prompt Global Strike)?

PGS = ICBM with conventional explosive warheads and innovative carriers (MIRV-MOABs, Hypersonic Cruise Missiles carrying Small Diameter Bombs......)

Why waste a pilot and tie up a squadron when all you have to do is push a button and 30 minutes later your solution is down range?

 

[MrWhyt]

PGS = ICBM with conventional explosive warheads

in reading about this concept over the years the main problem that they haven't overcome is that a conventionally armed ICBM launch is indistinguishable from a nuclear armed ICBM launch until it gets to where it's going. This sort of thing cause concern with the other nations that have ICBMS and can detect such a launch.

 

[Kirkhill]

in reading about this concept over the years the main problem that they haven't overcome is that a conventionally armed ICBM launch is indistinguishable from a nuclear armed ICBM launch until it gets to where it's going. This sort of thing cause concern with the other nations that have ICBMS and can detect such a launch.

I think we are approaching a tipping point where the tactical advantages of having nuclear weapons are out-weighed by that very concern you voiced.

The Americans can do a lot with precision weapons that was impossible in 1950.  In 1950 a 250 lb payload delivered from space made no sense at all.  Now a 250 lb glide bomb sailing through a window, along with a few dozen of its sisters, after being released from a booster rocket 50 miles up, is not only practical but in all probability effective. 

The Chinese have already started bridging the gap by using longer range ballistic missiles to launch anti-carrier munitions with precision.

The Russians, technically incompetent as they are, are not capable of replacing what they had as their fleet of missiles ages, and instead are adamant that they will use what launch capability they have to put nukes in the air (on a first strike basis if necessary - such as an invasion of Donbas) and keep their fingers crossed that some of them will detonate on target - and that they don't have too many detonate on launch.

The nuke, as an effective weapon of war, I believe, has outlived its usefulness.  The only people it appeals to now are the nihilists of the world.

 

[MarkOttawa]

But consider Russian ALCMs and SLCMs, nuclear or otherwise:

NORAD and Russian Cruise Nukes: “de-escalation”?
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/01/22/mark-collins-norad-and-russian-cruise-nukes-de-escalation/

NORAD commander: U.S. admiral raises alarm over Russian military threat
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/12/politics/us-russia-military-threat-alarm-norad/

US Worrying Seriously About Russian Cruise Missiles
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/06/19/mark-collins-us-worrying-seriously-about-russian-cruise-missiles/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

And they are right to be worried.

Putin is becoming more aggressive and unpredictable, in my opinion.  And his weapons stockpile is also becoming less predictable. 

His industry is incapable of keeping the Brezhnev era aircraft engines they have in stock operating or manufacturing replacements.  Those air breathing engine technologies are what make his cruise missiles fly.  Together with the lack of modern nuclear warheads, (and yes I do think that is a bad thing - old explosives, I am given to understand, get touchy) he is in danger of his stock-pile of weapons self-divesting before he has a chance to replace them.  He may lose them before he can use them....or not.

On the state of Russian technologies.....

A Swedish Report
www.foi.se/ReportFiles/foir_3734.pdf

I am looking for a Russian report but I will have to wait until I get back home to locate it.

They are not in good shape.