New Bomber Wanted

[JALU3]

Submit your plans now . . . and lets see who gets the big government contract.

With under 300 active long range bombers . . . the ability to project force over long distances . . . coupled with an ever decreasing effective radius of CVBG Air Wings. . . reality is starting to hit home.

It looks like the 30-40 year procurement cycle is starting to catch up to those in the "Beltway".

[Jimbuna]

B52...40-50 years old
They'll do well to get anywhere near that out of the nwxt generation the rate technology is advancing these days :hmm:

[CCIP]

Well of course there's a lack of bombers. Both the B-1 and the B-2 programs were seriously cut short. If either of those was produced to full capacity, that wouldn't be an issue now.

Anyway, by now of course it would entirely make sense to start designing a new machine. Curious what that bird would be like :hmm:

[Tchocky]

Let's go back to Zeppelins and open-cockpit biplanes.
No fancy lasers or perspex, just classic black-and-white derring-do....

[Packerton]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Let's go back to Zeppelins and open-cockpit biplanes.
No fancy lasers or perspex, just classic black-and-white derring-do....

Back when their was actuel Skill involved in combat and it wasent just Click beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep and then you press the big red Fire missile button.

[tycho102]

Originally Posted by CCIP

Anyway, by now of course it would entirely make sense to start designing a new machine. Curious what that bird would be like :hmm:

We will never go back to carpet bombing, so what's the point?

What is the payload on a B-1a, B-1b, and B-2? I know the B-2 has to be balanced against it's operational range -- if you need the thing to fly it's full 24,000km, then it can only load something like 10,000lbs. I'm pretty sure it has a maximum take-off load near 30,000lbs. B-52's can carry, what, like 60,000 pounds? The C-5 can hold something like 120,000lbs.

We'd use a C-5 full of MOABS before we started carpet bombing. We'll use guided-napalm before we carpet bomb.



I call BS. This is like the B-36, all over again.

[SUBMAN1]

I opt for a nuke powered heavy strike bomber that can stay airborne indefinitely, or at least a hydrogen powered one since we won't have the gas to drop the bombs on the enemy by the time it enters service anyway.

-S

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by tycho102

We will never go back to carpet bombing, so what's the point?

What is the payload on a B-1a, B-1b, and B-2? I know the B-2 has to be balanced against it's operational range -- if you need the thing to fly it's full 24,000km, then it can only load something like 10,000lbs. I'm pretty sure it has a maximum take-off load near 30,000lbs. B-52's can carry, what, like 60,000 pounds? The C-5 can hold something like 120,000lbs.

We'd use a C-5 full of MOABS before we started carpet bombing. We'll use guided-napalm before we carpet bomb.



I call BS. This is like the B-36, all over again.

Never say never. Free fall munitions are still part of the weapons packages that these bombers carry. In any battlefield where you have eliminated a bulk of enemy air defense assets, B-52/B-1/B-2 free fall bombing supported by electronic warfare support would be a brutal option for quickly and efficiently eradicating enemy front line units or other targets of high value behind the lines. But I would agree that B-52's carrying cruise missiles and other stand-off weapons would be a better option in an area where enemy IADS is strong. Probably only at the start of any conflict. But USAF command staff still sees bombing with free fall munitions as an option. Trust me.

All of these bombers carry JDAM's, huge amounts of free fall Mk-84 and Mk-83, a wide range of cluster munitions, sea mines, ALCM's (AGM-86, SRAM)(nuclear tipped and conventional), Harpoons (B-52 only), SDB (B-1 and B-2), and free fall nuclear gravity bombs (B-61, B-83 / B-52 and B-2 only). B-1 is no longer a nuclear intercontinental strategic bomber like the other two after the Nuclear Posture Review. However the B-1 could easily be changed back into that role if need be. As far as the B-52's age, you would be surprised how modern it is inside that aircraft. It's not the same airplane that flew in the 1960's. The current B-52H is very relevant as a 21st century bomber. It is and will continue to be modernized throughout it's lifetime.

I think this new bomber they're planning for 2018 will fit nicely into this family of bombers. Each of the current USAF bombers each have their role and they do it well. B-1 is a nuclear capable supersonic low-level penetration bomber. B-2 is a very low-observable high altitude bomber designed to penetrate deeply into enemy territory to eliminate high value enemy asssets (or outright strategic nuclear destruction), and B-52 is the high powered, high capacity bomber that is available as a bomber, or cruise missile platform. The B-52 is the one that will bring the bulk of munitions to the enemy in any sustained conflict. The B-1 and B-2 will destroy the important stuff like command and control, enemy IADS, political, and heavily defended logistics. I think this new bomber will incorporate alot of stuff from all three of these bombers.

[JALU3]

No one bomber can replace all the current Bombers, and all their rolls. So I think they should be looking to procure a base airframe, which can be modified to carry out one of the three mission profiles you describe. Say a difference between the wing types, and the engine types used on the base airframe to determin which mission profile it will fill.
However, I don't imagine large B-52 like bombers unless they go with the "bomb truck" idea which has been bounced around. And if they go with that idea, they would be sitting ducks for any air engagement.
The FB-22 Idea that some have proposed is to small . . .