The USAF is narrowing down its focus on a new bomber, according to speakers at a panel discussion on Tuesday, set up by the Air Force Association's Eaker Institute. The top-line numbers: it looks like a manned medium bomber, possibly carrying a laser or a high-powered microwave weapon to zap incoming missiles.
The bomber would carry between 14,000 and 20,000 pounds of weapons, according to Maj. Gen. Mark Matthews, director of plans and programs at Air Combat Command headquarters, headquarters, Air Combat Command, Langley Air Force Base, with a combat radius of 2,000 miles. It would be subsonic and manned – other USAF leaders have suggested that it could be optionally piloted, with the crew staying at home for ultra-long missions – and would use advanced engines and stealth technology.
The implications of all this are important. First, the aircraft is on the small side for a bomber and splits the difference between the bomber and a fighter. It goes about one-third as far as a B-52 or B-2 and carries about one-third to one-half as much ordnance – but it is also two to three times better in those respects than an F-15 or JSF. A bomb load smaller than a traditional bomber's makes sense – OK, a B-2 can carry 80 independently targeted 500 lb JDAMs, but precisely what are you going to use that load on?
However, some experts talking to Ares suggest that the range is on the short side – and at this stage it could certainly be extended without making the airplane much bigger or more expensive. Longer range provides more endurance over the target (or off the target's borders) and means less tanker support.
Is a manned aircraft essential or are we seeing the combat pilots' union at work? An unmanned bomber would be a big leap – bigger and more expensive by far than any other UAV – but by 2018 the technology should certainly be there to make it no less safe than any other jet, and it will operate in a networked environment anyway – crew or no crew, it won't go on a mission without getting targeting data from outside. Biggest pro-crew argument: the ability to complete the mission if, at the last minute, the network is compromised by jamming or if it is not safe to transmit.
Subsonic speed is disappointing to advocates of Mach 2-class systems at Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, who have argued that a supersonic jet is more survivable and faster to respond. And it's not necessarily that the technology for a supersonic aircraft cannot be ready on time: what is more difficult is combining supersonic speed with subsonic persistence. The Skunk Works' exotic designs unveiled in early 2006 might have looked a little rich in today's budget.
If it's subsonic, why does it need advanced engines? Two likely answers and a third long-shot candidate. First: One of the goals of the Pentagon's Advent engine research program is to produce an engine that is fuel-efficient and yet can be operated with the serpentine inlets and exhausts demanded by stealth. The B-2 has a fighter engine – far from optimized for long range – buried in a heavy and complex inlet and exhaust system (see picture). Second: Another goal of Advent – aimed at producing engines that adapt to different flight regimes – is to make engines tolerant of large power offtakes, such as the megawatt-class generators that would drive the defensive missile toaster.
The Skunk Works' Polecat demonstration program could be an indicator of the third, long-shot reason for new engines: operating the bomber at 65,000-70,000 feet, like a U-2. That eliminates contrails, makes the visual-stealth problem easier – it's dark up there – and moves the jet several miles above the altitude at which fighters can patrol. The risk of a chance encounter with a stooging-around Su-30 is a major reason that B-2s don't operate in daylight.
Advanced stealth? No airplanes with tails need apply. As a big, slow airplane designed to persist in hostile airspace, the new bomber will have to be very stealthy. Expect visual stealth technology – primarily, various ways of illuminating the jet so that it is never a silhouette against a backlit sky - to be applied vigorously.
Every US bomber until the B-1 had defensive weapons. In a sense, the laser-based infra-red missile defenses now carried by large military aircraft are directed energy weapons, and the USAF clearly thinks that either microwave or laser systems, powerful enough to throw either a radar or infra-red AAM off target, will have progressed enough by 2018 to be fitted on a large jet – if not yet on a fighter. (Remember that this is not a land- or ship-defense problem – the bomber is going at 600 mph and if the missile's guidance or navigation can be disabled it will not score a hit.)
And if all else fails, they can go back to shooting down missiles with tiny flying saucers. (No kidding.)
[Ed. note: See also Michael Fabey's article on this story at AviationWeek.com]
--Bill Sweetman
According to the Article at AviationWeek.com
http://www.aviationnow.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/NEXT050207.xml&headline=Next%20decade''s%20AF%20bomber%20to%20be%20subsonic,%20manned
This appears to be a interim solution and I may be reading a whole lot into the Air Force's decistion of what they are going to produce, but this may just be a pretty good solution.
This may allow the US to" penetrate enemy territory and persist and survive there long enough to deliver an effective payload" and not spend too much money to do it and still pave the way for a more capable bomber in the future.
Posted by: Peter | May 03, 2007 at 07:59 AM
Peter: weak point of your argument: 'not spend too much money' ;-)
Posted by: Sean Meade | May 03, 2007 at 09:32 AM