So I was looking up stuff about the B-21 bomber and I found myself agreeing with the design and purpose of the machine. An updated B-2 with better range, payload and avionics ordered in large numbers would be great for the US Air Force bomber fleet. The B-21 is meant to replace all the planes in the bomber fleet, not just the B-2. However, I really think the Air Force is missing out on a capability by not designing a heavy, supersonic bomber that directly replaces the B-1 and the B-52.
I think the B-21 should still be ordered and built as planned; performing the deep penetration, SEAD and interdiction, etc, missions a stealth bomber should do. But I think there are certain roles that the B-21 would be weak for and I think it foolhardy to leave that hole open.
The idea I propose is essentially a super-sized F-22 (much like how the B-1 is a lot like a giant F-111), or rather, an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer with wings. A stealth, nuclear-weapon capable heavy bomber capable of Mach 2+ flight. Design elements include planform alignment design, tailless if design permits, S-duct air intakes, robust stealth coatings, trapezoidal wings, lifting body, and quad F-119 or F-135 engines (the engines used by the F-22 and F-35 & B-21 respectively)
Capabilities include supercruise (accelerate to Mach 1+ without afterburner), relatively easy to maintain stealth, large bomb capacity while having a shorter wingspan than any current bomber, and advanced targeting avionics to guide those weapons.
It's main mission is to deliver large numbers of guided, heavy ordinance from long range. Its speed allows the aircraft to quickly enter a battle space, build speed to allow for "throwing" of launched ordinance to increase their speed and POK, and then quickly exit the battle space.
>>30173853
>Cont.
There are three major future missions that a bomber platform like this would be most suited for that a B-21 might not be best when it debuts and the older platforms begin to retire:
>Saturation attack on enemy surface navies
- Future potential adversaries have weaker naval air forces and are pivoted towards using surface vessels or submarines to strike carrier battle groups before they can launch missiles or aircraft to combat them.
- US doctrine is to combat these enemy vessels with saturation missile strikes, but even the massive combined ordinance of a CBG may not be enough to break through the equally massive enemy air defenses.
- A quick response from a large bomber to launch stand-off missiles can put the tide of the battle in the US Navy's favor, either by attacking enemy vessels from additional axis or absorbing enough enemy countermeasures for Naval anti-ship weapons to get through.
- The B-21 can possibly fill this role as well, but a supersonic bomber can respond to the conditions of the battle much quicker, launch weapons that will get to their targets faster, and then GTFO when weapons are depleted.
>Saturation attack on enemy air forces
- Future potential adversaries may finally be able to produce stealth aircraft in large numbers or attempt to counter US stealth air forces with large squadrons of conventional fighters.
- Inventory of US stealth fighters is expected to be limited even with mass production of F-35s. Even with full payloads of air-to-air BVR missiles, significant risk is placed on the fighters and limits what missions the fighters can do after they get past enemy fighter screens.
>>30173872
>Cont.
- This role is that of the proposed B-1R, but that project appears to have died. This bomber built to replace the B-1 can conduct this mission in a more capable package.
- Bomber loaded with long range air-to-air missiles enters battle space and saturates enemy fighters with weapons. Onboard avionics lock on to hundreds of targets and engages all at once, or launches in the general direction of the fleet and bomber flees which tactical fighters use data links to guide 80,000+ pounds of missiles to their targets.
>Deliver heavy air-to-air or air-to-space payloads at targets at high altitudes or low Earth orbits.
- Future potential adversaries will invest in satellites for their own uses. Bomber can have persistent presence at high attitudes to engage multiple targets or make multiple attacks if necessary.
- B-21 is not expected to be designed to fly over 50,000 feet nor required to launch air-to-air weapons. Tactical fighters can operate at high attitudes and perform anti-sat mission but with more limited armament and fuel. Companion supersonic bomber can deliver heavy ordinance at higher altitudes.
- Bomber can also be used to shoot down large, fast targets such as ICBMs, space debris, or even alien space craft during entry into atmosphere.
I wanted to know what /k/ thought about any of this. Speed is life in the Air Force and I really think the supersonic bomber/missile truck mission has a place even in a future full of hypersonic missiles and stealth fighters. A previous thread on a future naval battle simulated on CMANO really opened my eyes to the fact that future war needs MOAR guided missiles, and the US Air Force is falling short. I can’t see the B-21 contributing to that kind of battle without putting it in unnecessary risk.
>InB4 Listerine, glider-fag or any other fag
I’m not those guys nor am I dead set on this idea. I just wanna know what I’m missing or if there is something being planned that offsets this problem.
>>30173886
>InB4 Future Bomber 2037 Project.
I dunno too much about that project, and it could very well be the kind of plane I’m outlining here. But if that were the case, a supersonic stealth heavy bomber sounds like an easier and more desperately needed project than the B-21, so why is the B-21 coming first?
>>30173896
The Air Force is running a hell of a lot of acquisition projects at the same time and so money is scarce. This can be traced to the cold war draw down and the pussy footing of three successive administrations not taking defense as seriously as they should have so that we are now faced with having to replace a lot of platforms at the same time, while still trying to do it on the lower post cold war budget. Off the top of my head we have the following:
T-X
KC-46
F-35
B-21
Hypersonic strike weapon
Ground based strategic deterrant
Thats a lot, even for the USAF with it's absolutely massive budget, because most of those are supposed to come online hopefully within the next 10-15 years. On top of that, we're looking at conceptual and early design studies such as:
6th gen fighters
U-2 replacement
KC-Y
2037 bomber
>>30173896
>and it could very well be the kind of plane I’m outlining here. But if that were the case, a supersonic stealth heavy bomber sounds like an easier and more desperately needed project than the B-21, so why is the B-21 coming first?
Simple, the airframe hour/maintenance cost/availability triangle isn't as dire for the BOne as it is for the Batarang.
>>30174078
Damn, I thought the last three Presidential Admins were busy with military acquisitions (F-22, Super Hornet, MQ-9). So we weren't going fast enough?
One of the things that I thought would make me look stupid was the fact that perhaps the Air Force was working on a Hypersonic bomber that would make this Supersonic Stealth Bomber obsolete on paper already. There is some evidence that they are working on Hypersonic planes (Aurora being one) but I didn't know how far along they were nor did I understand how practical something like that would really be.
>>30174360
He's an industry shill
Our current gen is better than anyone elses. And we have a shitton more of it than anyone else.
Sure, you can build/buy newer, better, and more expensive. But to confront what?
Best airforce is our airforce. Second best is our navy. Third is probably our marines. So unless we're planning on having the airforce-navy game be standoff munitions instead of football, you can take your time restocking the next-gen stuff.
>>30174390
I don't know why, but this post made me lose my shit. Have a video that represents my understanding of the US mil indust complex.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQrdKtPJxI0
>>30174390
To say that I am an industry shill is to miss the point of my post entirely; because of the number of projects going on at the same time the B-21 is simply a stopgap for the 2037. It's being done on the cheap with mature technology. To try and go bleeding edge would probably cause even more budget issues than the Air Force is already facing
>>30173896
You directly explained the 2037 bomber project.
The b-21, while fuckawesome and better than every fucking bomber in the world 4 times over, is a purly stopgap interm bomber till the 2037 bomber rolls around.
>>30174360
We have less than 200 F22.
You think this is acquisition gone right?
Bush 1-Clinton "Peace Dividend" IE divert military spending to dem programs/tax cuts
Bush 2-Obama "We totally aren't fighting like 4 wars right now, ignore what the Army's doing, Congress. Plebs please do your best to pretend we aren't spending trillions on things that aren't dem programs. Also take some tax cuts."
We have flown the wings off of our fast mover fleet, and blown all our acquisition dollars on dem programs/foreign adventurism.
The Air Force is a mess right now, and to a lesser extent, so is the Navy.
>>30174443
I would not call the airforce and navy a mess, just underfunded.
Both are "righting the ship" with the F-35 and the Burke Flight III, respectively (of course, also a broad generalization and not an all inclusive list, before any autsits get their pantys in a twist.)
>>30174443
Note that just because our forces are in shambles, it doesn't mean that we couldn't crush any other airforce or navy in the world, and maybe not realize we were doing it, but near peer conflict capability wise, we've been resting on our laurels and using up what we've got in the barn.
>>30173853
>However, I really think the Air Force is missing out on a capability by not designing a heavy, supersonic bomber that directly replaces the B-1 and the B-52.
You're wrong.
>>30174419
Again, the question is what mission do all these acquisition projects serve that isn't served with existing resources?
Sure, you can create a budget shortfall in the military by trying to literally replace every aircraft you own simultaneously, and at the same time fund research into the aircraft that will replace all the aircraft you just made, too. It doesn't mean you need to do it, it just means you can burn through a shitton of money and still say you need more.
>>30174456
They aren't really underfunded, we've just forced them to spend their dollars blowing up goat fucking light infantry for the last 15 years instead of on maintaining their qualitative advantage over theoretical near peer competitors.
10 years ago we were 20 years ahead of the competition, now, probably less than 15.
>>30174467
>there is no near peer
>>30174482
Because the planes we have are literally falling apart from overuse.
>>30174482
>Again, the question is what mission do all these acquisition projects serve that isn't served with existing resources?
You dont make future tech to counter current threats. If you are, you are doing it wrong. You make future tech to counter future threats.
>>30174488
Oh, we are still a good 15 years ahead of the other guys, tech wise, especially in our airforce and our navy too.
F-22 was introduced in 2005. J-20 is expected to be introduced (with an interm engine) in 2018. Pak-fa in 2017 with interm engies as well.
Keep in mind that both country's have a much looser definition of in service than the US's stringent standards.
lurking for interest
>>30174482
The T-38 doesn't adequately train pilots for 5th gen, so much so that they go to F-16s and then F-35s or F-22s
The F-35 does the F-16 and the A-10s job better than either platform can do it and with much higher survivability
The KC-46 is cause the KC-135 is, judging by your 16 year old attitude to defense spending, older than either of your grandparents and last 707 derivative, not even the 376-80 on which the 135 is built, rolled off the production line in the early 90s.
B-21 as above
Hypersonic Strike weapon is because the ALCM is now vulnerable to modern IADS
Ground based strategic deterrant is because tue Minuteman III will lose parity with near future ICBMs such as RS-28 (though it was never meant to be comparable with that one).
>>30174654
Sure, they're all nice to have.
If we had unlimited dollars.
Or an enemy that was worth it.
Sequester in place, NIH budgets dropping in inflation adjusted dollars, and when asked what priorities to spend money on the military response will always be 'fucking everything, and if you don't give it to us you hate the troops and/or are a communist'.
I understand why they'd want everything on their list.
The issue is priorities.
There's no fucking mission for them on the horizon.
>>30174654
OP here. Agreed on all fronts. I did research on the T-X because of you and I am appalled that they let things go that bad. My money on that contract is on the T-50 from Lockeed Martin, FYI. I hate nepotism but it's already been designed and there is bound to be some compatibility between it and it's more expensive cousins.
>>30174482
It's not just about earning new capabilities. It's about maintaining the one's we've got. Considering most people's attitudes towards their cars/personal vehicles in the US, it's no wonder that a lot of people don't see the value in taking care of and planning the retirement of their machines. You can't expect these vehicles to keep working like they did when they were new decades ago. Machines lose value as they age and wear down and it costs more and more to fix them. At some point, it's cheaper and better to upgrade to something new than to put your beater from high school on life support.
Anyway, any comments on the missions that a stealth supersonic bomber might undertake? Saturating a naval fleet or air wing are obvious advantages though I can see such scenarios being just acts of fiction. I honestly think we need a large aircraft to deliver guided warheads to invading alien space ships too; ICBMs and missiles from naval assets might not be enough.
I keep thinking the B-1 can be adapted for these same roles for the time being, but all the add-ons and upgrades that need to be done first seem daunting as well.
>>30174827
>There's no fucking mission for them on the horizon.
That's definitely not true. Might have been true in the 90s, or maybe even 10 years ago, but not today.
>>30174893
What? what mission?
To fend off the 12 pak-FA's that are going to get built?
Or the chinese stealth F111 with its coal fired engine?
Or to wipe out a russian fleet that can barely make it out of port?
Seriously, we're running out of enemies. Bombing sandpeople isn't very high tech.
>>30174903
>What? what mission?
Like it or not, Russia and China are seen as looming threats. And while we could probably take them with current weapons, A2/AD strategies mean that stealthy airplanes are more and more necessary. Not to mention that because we neglected to mention our current weapons 20 years ago, we are stuck racing to replace them now before they stop working. Take a look at the Legacy Hornet readiness rates.
>>30174488
eh
Nothing stopped the airforce from producing cheaper planes, and using artillery to do 90% of what the airforce does today
>>30174955
Russia and china are seen as looming threats by those that want to siphon tax dollars to military contractors.
How many post-soviet fighter does Russia have?
How many post-J10's from China?
>>30174988
>Russia and china are seen as looming threats by those that want to siphon tax dollars to military contractors.
Sure thing. I bet if you asked Latvians, Lithuanians, or Philippines they'd say the same thing.
However, while the Russians went the same way the US did after the Cold War, they can actually focus their effort right next door. The US, while it is great at logistics, has to deal with crossing an ocean. As it stands, Russia could overwhelm the Baltics in under a week, probably. They'd be difficult to dislodge without a significant number of stealth aircraft, if only to reduce the effectiveness of the IADS. Not impossible, but costly. And we can see the same thing if we look at China. The lack of aircraft with proper legs combined with a proper IADS preventing tankers from closing to support the effort puts the US at a significant disadvantage. Not an impossible one, but a costly one. Further, China may rise catch up much farther than expected. Not likely, but possible. Do you want to pay that cost in investment ahead of time, which is needed now anyways or else we lose a shitton of capabilities, or would you prefer to pay it in blood? Your choice.
>How many post-J10's from China?
Let me counter by asking how many American planes at the moment have the range to be relevant. This is why the LRSB is so important. It has the range, and it has the stealth to survive the IADS.
>>30175062
Latvians, lithuanians...
'I'll take 'what is nato for 1000, Alex'.
For china, can't we just pop up with an Ohio full of cruise missiles?
Yes. If you want to have instant US air power everywhere in the world simultaneously and have us be the only agent that engages every act of force by another nation, ignore the alliances we've built, and ignore all the bases we have access to or are using at this moment, then we may have some problems fighting 2 nations, both at best regional powers, one of which hasn't upgraded jack or squat since its Union disintigrated and another that can't make an engine that doesn't double as a smokescreen.
>>30174456
Bro, it's the government. We could triple the budget and the Air Force would fire up 5 more projects with the blessing of senator so and so then cry about a budget shortfall.
We have current airframes with no parts or with too many flight hours on them. Guess where the money went first? Pet projects for the re election of (insert senator).
Money isn't the solution when what plagues the Air Force is politics.
>>30175119
>'I'll take 'what is nato for 1000, Alex'.
They're already in NATO, other than the Philippines, and that scenario provided for it. I'd also like to note that NATO relies on the US for certain capabilities, SEAD foremost among them. They aren't mystical forces, but instead those gutted even worse than Russia has been.
>For china, can't we just pop up with an Ohio full of cruise missiles?
That would certainly help, but it isn't a solution. Further, the SSGNs are going to be retiring shortly. They were only made to put new life in retiring SSBNs.
>Yes. If you want to have instant...
I was assuming those existed. Russian IADS is no joke. It would take time to dismantle. Even Iraq's took time to dismantle, and they had far worse gear and far worse training. NATO doesn't have the forces in place, or those who could reasonably get in place quickly, to stop a Russian invasion of the Baltics. They might be able to stonewall them in Poland, but that's about it. Further, let me ask you, where the hell is the US going to fly off of to fight with China? Take a look at the distances involved. Take a look at the combat radii of various planes. Then consider the vast number of SSMs aimed at everything closer than Guam (which is quite thankfully just outside of ra
>both at best regional powers
They're world powers, but not superpowers at the moment. Russia used to be one, but is no longer. China is not one at the moment, but might be one several decades down the line. In any case, that's completely ignoring the situation as it is today.
And Russia has certainly upgraded things, and is in the process of doing so now. Don't dismiss your foe out of hand. The US is more powerful than Russia and China overall, but countering their local advantages would be both time consuming and extremely costly without new gear. Once again, cash up front, or blood later?
>>30175165
>Money isn't the solution when what plagues the Air Force is politics.
The Air Force, and the military as a whole, needs more money to fill current commitments, let alone future ones. We're going to fall below desired levels in many aspects unless funding is increased, and those requirements were set in a world which seemed much more peaceful than our current one. Read the reports to Congress.
>>30175188
>more money
Here you go, don't spend it all in one weapons system.
>>30175177
We have more 5th gen fighters now than anyone else will have in 20 years, and we have our F35's coming online...we've invested the cash up front.
The issue is, the airforce could spend infinite money. Literally. And I mean 'literally' literally. They don't want to have to choose, they just want it all.
If they want money, they should have to justify it like anyone else does. Define the threat, define the mission, show the tech shortfall...
It just isn't there now. And it wont' be for a long time.
Current funding is fine, they just need to choose priorities.
>>30175188
You very well may need more money but we'll never know how much you really NEED until the defense budget stops getting treated like the US Senate reelection fund.
The struggles you're describing are symptoms.
>>30175204
>If they want money, they should have to justify it like anyone else does. Define the threat, define the mission, show the tech shortfall...
And they have. You seen our bomber force? How about our tankers? Our aging fighter force? Don't forget that our nuclear triad is woefully out of date, so we're going to have to mess around with the silos. Fact of the matter is, it all NEEDS to happen, or else the US faces significant capability gaps. This of course completely neglects the lack of dedicated electronic attack aircraft in the USAF.
>>30175229
Sure thing, broski.
>>30175261
>this of course completely neglects the lack of dedicated electronic attack aircraft in the USAF.
Well we have super hornets, stealth cruisers, and multiple stealth next gen joint strike air superiority task force gundam in and out of development on the way!
Maybe if Claire McCaskill or Roy Blunt get in reelection danger Lockheed can get money and get right on that.
>>30175310
No facts, only memes. Typical. You didn't even get any USAF systems, only USN ones.
>>30175320
>sure thing broski
>Brilliant fact based rebuttal.
Kys
>>30175367
Mate, you're telling me that the USAF has the money it needs for all the programs it needs to run, and that the only reason why is because Congress squanders the money somehow, despite not giving any specifics whatsoever. This is blatantly untrue. While yes, Congress has been known to squander money, even if they didn't the USAF would be short on money. It has less budget than it has had for a while and has more procurement programs that NEED to be done. That means not enough money. This pattern is repeated across the military in every single branch of service.
