bobdina
07-10-2010, 01:33 PM
By Bruce Rolfsen - Staff writer
Posted : Saturday Jul 10, 2010 9:29:44 EDT
The aircraft that replaces today’s bombers will be less expensive, more versatile and rely on a network of support that the stand-alone B-2s, B-52s and B-1s can get along without, the Air Force’s deputy chief of staff for operations and requirements said.
Air Force officials are steering the decade-long debate over the next-generation bomber away from the idea of upgrading the B-2 Spirit and more toward a network of aircraft working together to provide bombing, reconnaissance and electronic warfare.
“The next-generation bomber is a term that is dead in the Department of Defense and dead in the Air Force,” Lt. Gen. Philip Breedlove said at a June 24 briefing.
A long-range strike “family” would draw upon the stealthiness of the F-22 or the F-35 tactical fighters to help destroy a target. It also could use Air Force and Navy intercontinental ballistic missiles — such as the Minuteman and Trident — or equipped conventional warheads and long-range missiles launched from airplanes, Breedlove said.
The long-range strike aircraft must also be ready to fly conventional attack missions like those flown by the B-1B Lancer and B-52H Stratofortress over Iraq and Afghanistan.
“This aircraft will not be about a single mission to take out a single target,” Breedlove said.
Budget concerns drive much of the discussions.
During the Cold War, when money was less of an issue, the idea was to create a single model of plane able to penetrate enemy airspace, protect itself, perform its reconnaissance, finalize targeting, strike the target and fly to safety.
“Those systems tend to be big and tend to be expensive,” Breedlove said.
The price tag for the B-2 was about $1.2 billion each in 1998 dollars, according to the Air Force
Spending a billion-plus for a single plane no longer seems feasible.
“The real debate going on in the department now is ... how much can our nation afford?” Breedlove said. “How much of our nation’s wealth are we willing to put against those targets which our opponents are making very, very, very expensive to strike?”
Those targets include deeply buried bunkers and complexes far inside sophisticated anti-aircraft defense.
The cost savings for a long-range strike network would come from using capabilities already paid for in other aircraft, instead of building them into a new plane.
Building a smaller aircraft would also keep costs down, but that will depend on the size of the weapons the plane will carry, Breedlove said.
Only the B-2 bomber can carry today’s largest guided bomb — the 21-foot-long, 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator. Two of the bombs fit on the B-2.
Breedlove said he hopes the Air Force will, 15 years from now, have a smaller deep-penetration bomb, a warhead that won’t have to be flown by a four-engine jet.
Breedlove said he envisions a manned aircraft, not one flown by remote control as suggested.
“My personal opinion is that, if we’re going to build a platform that carries a nuclear weapon, we’re going to have a man inside the platform,” the career fighter pilot said.
The main problem is fielding a reliable satellite communications system for the unmanned plane that could not be hacked.
“I don’t think our nation can afford that constellation of satellite,” Breedlove said.
Plans for a long-range strike aircraft are continually debated within the Air Force. A decade ago, a bomber “white paper” called for fielding a new bomber around 2024, about the time B-1Bs and B-2s would begin wearing out.
Air Force leaders considered a hypersonic plane that skirted the edge of space before arriving above its target, but that idea lost traction when the Air Force decided it needed a new bomber by 2018. Air Force officials agreed that to meet such a tight schedule the bomber would have to use existing technology.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates nixed the bomber plan in 2009 as part of a larger review of weapons projects. But concerns about being able to attack hard-to-reach targets prompted new discussions of long-range strike and development money in the proposed 2011 budget.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2010/07/airforce_long_range_071010w/
Posted : Saturday Jul 10, 2010 9:29:44 EDT
The aircraft that replaces today’s bombers will be less expensive, more versatile and rely on a network of support that the stand-alone B-2s, B-52s and B-1s can get along without, the Air Force’s deputy chief of staff for operations and requirements said.
Air Force officials are steering the decade-long debate over the next-generation bomber away from the idea of upgrading the B-2 Spirit and more toward a network of aircraft working together to provide bombing, reconnaissance and electronic warfare.
“The next-generation bomber is a term that is dead in the Department of Defense and dead in the Air Force,” Lt. Gen. Philip Breedlove said at a June 24 briefing.
A long-range strike “family” would draw upon the stealthiness of the F-22 or the F-35 tactical fighters to help destroy a target. It also could use Air Force and Navy intercontinental ballistic missiles — such as the Minuteman and Trident — or equipped conventional warheads and long-range missiles launched from airplanes, Breedlove said.
The long-range strike aircraft must also be ready to fly conventional attack missions like those flown by the B-1B Lancer and B-52H Stratofortress over Iraq and Afghanistan.
“This aircraft will not be about a single mission to take out a single target,” Breedlove said.
Budget concerns drive much of the discussions.
During the Cold War, when money was less of an issue, the idea was to create a single model of plane able to penetrate enemy airspace, protect itself, perform its reconnaissance, finalize targeting, strike the target and fly to safety.
“Those systems tend to be big and tend to be expensive,” Breedlove said.
The price tag for the B-2 was about $1.2 billion each in 1998 dollars, according to the Air Force
Spending a billion-plus for a single plane no longer seems feasible.
“The real debate going on in the department now is ... how much can our nation afford?” Breedlove said. “How much of our nation’s wealth are we willing to put against those targets which our opponents are making very, very, very expensive to strike?”
Those targets include deeply buried bunkers and complexes far inside sophisticated anti-aircraft defense.
The cost savings for a long-range strike network would come from using capabilities already paid for in other aircraft, instead of building them into a new plane.
Building a smaller aircraft would also keep costs down, but that will depend on the size of the weapons the plane will carry, Breedlove said.
Only the B-2 bomber can carry today’s largest guided bomb — the 21-foot-long, 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator. Two of the bombs fit on the B-2.
Breedlove said he hopes the Air Force will, 15 years from now, have a smaller deep-penetration bomb, a warhead that won’t have to be flown by a four-engine jet.
Breedlove said he envisions a manned aircraft, not one flown by remote control as suggested.
“My personal opinion is that, if we’re going to build a platform that carries a nuclear weapon, we’re going to have a man inside the platform,” the career fighter pilot said.
The main problem is fielding a reliable satellite communications system for the unmanned plane that could not be hacked.
“I don’t think our nation can afford that constellation of satellite,” Breedlove said.
Plans for a long-range strike aircraft are continually debated within the Air Force. A decade ago, a bomber “white paper” called for fielding a new bomber around 2024, about the time B-1Bs and B-2s would begin wearing out.
Air Force leaders considered a hypersonic plane that skirted the edge of space before arriving above its target, but that idea lost traction when the Air Force decided it needed a new bomber by 2018. Air Force officials agreed that to meet such a tight schedule the bomber would have to use existing technology.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates nixed the bomber plan in 2009 as part of a larger review of weapons projects. But concerns about being able to attack hard-to-reach targets prompted new discussions of long-range strike and development money in the proposed 2011 budget.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2010/07/airforce_long_range_071010w/