Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Afghan Update
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Around the Globe
Av Week Extra
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Body Armor Blues
Bomb Squad
Brownshoes in Action
Bubbleheads, etc.
Cammo Green
Catch the "Buzz"
Chem-Bio
Civilian Apps
Cloak and Dagger
Commandos
Comms
Contingency Ops
Cops and Robbers
Cyber-warfare
Data Diving
Defense Tech Poll
Dissent Tech
Door Kickers
Drones
DT Administrivia
Eat DT's Dust
Extra! Extra!
Eye on China
Fast Movers
FCS Watch
Fire for Effect
FOS Files
Friday Funnies
Gadgets and Gear
Going Green
Grand Ole Osprey
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
In the Weeds with Eric
Info War
Iraq Diary
Jarhead Jazz
JSF Watch
Just War Theories
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
M4 Monopoly
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Most Wanted
MRAP Edge
Net-Centric
Nukes
Old Skool
Our Shrinking Planet
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Politricks
Polmar's Perspective
Popular Mechanics
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Robots
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Snipertech
Space
Special Ops
Star Wars
Strategery
Stray Trons
Tactical Development
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
The Defense Biz
The Peoples' Site
The Sunday Paper
The Tanker Tango
The View from Av Week
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
Trimble on the Case
Video Lounge
War Update
Ward'z Wonderz
You can run...

See all Archives
Newsletters

Edited by Christian Lowe | Contact

Next-Gen Bomber to Carry Nukes

next-gen-bomber.jpg

The U.S. Air Force's next-generation bomber will be used to launch nuclear payloads - a requirement that will affect the design and cost of the program, says the service's top civilian leader.

[Image from Air Force Association Magazine]

The extra cost of adding nuclear weapons delivery to the aircraft's missions could also complicate efforts to gain financial support by Pentagon leadership and Congress as they deal with a budget dominated by current operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. One defense analyst suggests the nuclear requirement can add as much as 50% to a program's price because nuclear delivery systems require a high level of redundancy in communications, command and control, and hardening against various electromagnetic pulses.

The next-generation bomber is expected to be fielded in 2018. To meet that deadline, the Air Force plans to begin a competition for a final design in Fiscal 2009. Although the B-2 remains a highly stealthy aircraft, war planners worry that the proliferation of advanced, integrated air defense systems will limit its ability to penetrate into potentially troublesome regions, such as China or Iran. The new system will incorporate stealth technologies refined after designing the F-22 and F-35, making it the stealthiest aircraft ever fielded, says Maj. Gen. David Clary, vice chief of Air Combat Command.

Candidate technologies must be mature to be considered for use on the aircraft, and - although requirements are far from refined -- senior Air Force leaders say they are placing a high priority on the system's low-observable attributes.

Going nuclear also indicates that a pilot will be on board for at least the first variant of the future system, USAF Secretary Michael Wynne acknowledges. Though the Air Force has had success adding a strike capability to its Predator unmanned aerial systems, policy makers appear hesitant to trust delivery of weapons of mass destruction to a pilotless aircraft. Wynne made his comments during a Nov. 28 speech at a conference here hosted by Credit Suisse and Aviation Week.

This squelches the hopes of unmanned vehicle advocates, who had expected the bomber to be remotely piloted at the outset. But this doesn't rule out an unmanned variant of the bomber, according to Wynne.

He says the entire bomber fleet will likely include the hardening necessary for the nuclear mission. A later variant that would be remotely piloted could handle a separate mission. This option is attractive to Air Force planners because it offers the ability to cycle through multiple pilots at remote bases, extending mission endurance two- or threefold.

One of the missions envisioned for the future bomber is to loiter without detection behind enemy lines and pick off targets or collect intelligence as needed. This, however, would require endurance and a high degree of stealth at all angles.

Read more on the next bomber from our Aviation Week friends at Military.com.

-- Christian

Comments

Just shoot some people in the head and put an end to it.

Stalinism works for some things.

Posted by: Graham Strouse at December 8, 2007 04:58 AM


cthelmax - its still stealth on radar.
plus you could go mach 6, then once your close to the country/target, slow down to mach .9, and either take pictures, drop bombs, loiter for further instructions, watch a target, ect.

we DO have the tech for a mach 6 bomber.

I wish the AF would disclose some more information on PDE's....I'm sure they have that engine in an operational aircraft by know.

But I guess once you reveal it...then all the hostile countries will start to figure a way to defeat its advantages.

Posted by: murc at December 8, 2007 03:40 AM


We're really suffering from diminishing returns with the increasingly large investments in stealth technology that rapidly becomes unstealthy due to the accelerating rate of technological progress.

Time for some fresh ideas? Here's a few:

* Bring back Project Thor -- orbital kinetic weapons. Bonus: non-nuclear bunker-busting capability.
* Sub-orbital, fast-launch unmanned delivery platform. Recallable post-deployment.
* Back to basics: Fast and cheap nuclear drones. Just wrap a nuke in ramjet and make allot of them. But probably a bit too "Soviet" for modern U.S. military tastes.

Posted by: Rod From God at December 7, 2007 08:36 AM


A mach 6 stealth aircraft is impossible, as the SR-71 demonstrated. You can be radar stealthed, sure, but you show up like a meteorite on IR. Thats why the F-117 and B2 are subsonic.

Posted by: cthelmax at December 7, 2007 05:32 AM


hmmmmm.

I to would have thought it to be unmanned....but yeah, when you’re talking nukes....I want someone on board. A pilot should be able to endure the amount of time it takes to hit their target....cause I would assume this will go around mach 6.

We have the tech to build a mach 6 stealth bomber, no problem. hell, maybe even the tech for a mach 12....but that would make a high cost bomber go through the roof.

I understand the Air Force's want/need for this bomber...but at the same time..."DC2 Jennings" has a good point, the B-52's are very old, and nothing in the arsenal can fill its (still important) role.

anywho.

I think they should change th operational date to later...I guess it all depends on what they are going for....if your going to make a FB-22 or FB-23, then 2018 is fine, but if your going to make a mach 6 stealth bomber using scramjets or PDE's to power it...then 2025 would be more realistic.

Posted by: murc at December 6, 2007 09:47 PM


I'd like to see the Army or Marines request something like an AT-AT that costs a bomb but can do all sorts of wondrous things, like take out Chinese Power Generators. I'd honestly get piss happy if that happened. If the Air Force can ask for the sun, I don't see why the Army or Marines can't. Worth a try, at least.

Posted by: Cervantes LeRoi at December 6, 2007 04:04 PM


How about we try to find a replacement for the conventional B-52s that are nearing 100 years old. I think the Wright brothers helped design the original one.

We have the B-2 for strategic and non-strategic stealth strike missions.

We do not have a replacement for a long loiter low cost bomber. Of course that would require less of the defense budget pie too.

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at December 6, 2007 03:14 PM


Can we give the pilots X-Ray vision as part of their HUD?

This is the Air Force hustling for a mission.

I like these services who always talk about what their 'mission' is and then cry when it is budget time they cannot fund their pet projects because there is no immediate need for their self imposed mission requirements.

I am thinking here of recent marine requests to move their troops to Afganistan. SO they can repeat their successes in Tora Bora? Oh yeah, the marines refused to participate in that battle because they did not have secure logistical support etc. etc. etc.

I won't even bring up the Marine special(ed) operations forces. What is THEIR mission again?

Posted by: Joe at December 6, 2007 02:36 PM


Somehow, this feels like a B-2 program, but even more absurd, and useless. Nuclear, Conventional, Manned, Unmanned, 'Stealthy'?

This project has about as much chance of becoming a reality as sending a human to Mars.

The only reason to use a manned, stealth nuclear armed bomber is to drop precision low yield nuclear bunker busters. ICBM/SLBM/CM/UCAV can't do that unique mission. Every other mission can be done with the tools we already have.

Posted by: BT at December 6, 2007 01:58 PM


"Do they seriously intend to have this out by 2018?" No that was a misspell; they really meant 2028 after all the program delays and cost overruns!!! lol

Posted by: Max at December 6, 2007 01:17 PM


> The U.S. Air Force's next-generation bomber will
> be used to launch nuclear payloads.

Gee Ya think. All sarcasm aside, I thought that the nuclear mission was given.

As for fielding them by 2018, there are a couple of thoughts.
1. Its better to plan on 2018 and wait 5 more years due to design and devlopment problems, than plan on 2023 and wait 5 more years for design devlopment problems.
2. There are already 2-3 "black" aircraft that fit most of the planed requirments. Its not like people havent been working on this problem for 15 years.
3. A cynic might think its a some budget power play.

Posted by: NTV at December 6, 2007 10:00 AM


I'm just wondering when the AF is going to find structural flaws in the B-2 that make this new wonder bomber a necessity, even after it goes over budget and beyond schedule.

Posted by: Jeff at December 6, 2007 09:41 AM


Do they seriously intend to have this out by 2018?

Posted by: Patron Vectras at December 6, 2007 09:25 AM


reduce speed to less than 250mph.
altitude to <10,000'
make the "bomber" VTOL.
Give it the ability to land on water or any unprepared field.
eliminate all fuel needs.
give it unlimited range.
Increase "loiter" time to UNLIMITED time in theater.
eliminate smooth skin streamlining, in order to make the surface of the aircraft absorb as many/much electomagnetic wavelengths as possible.
bury the propulsion units hundreds of feet inside the aircraft.
eliminate all infra-red and acoustic signatures.
give it a crew of 12, rotation duty on board
give the "bomber" the ability to carry 100 tons of weaponry, be it bombs, missiles, UCAVs', offensive or defense.
give the "bomber", the additional ability to carry and offload troops, say...oh, a company strengh perhaps.

nice!

do-able. Now. One year to field such a craft.

Carbon fiber...entirely RIGID SHELLED HULL, solar/fuel cell powered, electric motor props, 450' long x 270'wide x 90'deep...AIRSHIP.

(think of it as a Boomer...that can fly)

(blimps, zeppelins need not apply)

Posted by: campbell at December 6, 2007 08:58 AM


Post a comment




Remember Me?


Please enter the code as seen in the image below to post your comment.