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.
...
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)
Do they seriously intend to have this out by 2018?
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.
> 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.
“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
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.
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?
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
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.
hmmmmm.
I to would have thought it to be unmanned.…but yeah, when you
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.
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.
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.
Just shoot some people in the head and put an end to it.
Stalinism works for some things.
“…all the hostile countries will start to figure a way to defeat its advantages.“
There is something that even american soldiers must understand: Since around 1930, the USA have develloped themselves into the most hostile country ever. Its not the american people, its the USA. No country has actively attacked more other countries, none has a higer killcount, none has assassined more innocent people.
So, cowboys: nobody else wants you to be able to “go into China or Iran”. If you go on like you do, you will loose all sympathy, and the peoples of the world will defeat you.