US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

The Air Force's B-3 Bomber Isn't As Secret As It Seems


Last week Air Force officials appeared on Capitol Hill to discuss the weapons programs they want to fund in 2016. As usual, details about one of the biggest programs, the Long-Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B), were few and far between. The Air Force wants to keep potential adversaries guessing about the bomber’s capabilities, so all it has said is that it plans to buy 80-100 strike aircraft at a cost of $550 million each with initial fielding in 2025. The only new information last week was that the contract to develop the bomber will be awarded to one of two competing teams this summer, and that it will not be a fixed-price contract owing to the difficulty of projecting costs for cutting-edge technology.

Despite all the secrecy, though, it’s pretty easy to figure out some of the basic features of the new bomber, based on what the Air Force has said about why it is needed. For instance, everybody knows it will be stealthy, incorporating an array of “low observable” technologies that will prevent adversaries from tracking or targeting it with their air defenses. Beyond that, the fact the Air Force has made cost a requirement that will drive the plane’s design dictates that some nice-to-have features won’t be affordable. Thus, if you read through the open-source literature about what technology is likely to be available within the Air Force’s specified timeline, the outlines of this supposedly secret program come into view pretty clearly. Here are some details you can take to the bank.

Click to expand...

Article said:

1. It will have an unrefueled range of over 5,000 nautical miles. The new bomber must be able to reach targets located deep in the interior of Russia and China and can be covered by a bomber with a combat radius — a one-way range — of 2,000-2,500 nautical miles (nautical miles are 15% longer than statute miles). It has has to be able to fly back to where it came from, or to some alternate site. It has to be able to fly around heavy threat concentrations rather than flying in a straight line to its intended targets. If it is refueled in the air, that has to occur outside the range of hostile radars. Factor in all those requirements, and you’re talking about a minimum unrefueled range of over 5,000 nm.

2. It will carry less payload than previous bombers. The cost of a bomber rises roughly in proportion to the size of its payload, so the imposition of a firm unit cost ceiling will tend to drive designs toward payloads much smaller than the 40,000 pounds on the very pricey B-2, the only stealthy long-range bomber currently in operation. But even at half the payload of the B-2, the LRS-B could still destroy dozens of different targets in a single flight (“sortie”) due to the advent of lightweight smart bombs.

3. It will cost more than $550 million per plane. The Air Force’s stated goal of paying no more than $550 million per bomber is expressed in fiscal 2010 dollars. Even if there is no real cost growth, the price-tag in then-year (inflated) dollars will be more like $700 million.

4. It won’t contain breakthrough technologies. The B-2 bomber developed by a Northrop-Boeing team during the Cold War was a revolutionary aircraft designed to hunt down Russian mobile missile launchers in the midst of a nuclear war. Its stealthy skin requires 18 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight, and is often wrapped in heavy-duty cellophane for protection. The Air Force isn’t going that route on the B-3. Everything from its low-observable technology to its landing gear to its on-board software will likely be adapted from other programs in order to hold down costs and spped of acquisition.

5. It won’t be supersonic. Although there are some warfighting scenarios in which being able to exceed the speed of sound might be useful, aircraft traveling at that speed generate heat and acoustic signatures that compromise stealth...and their fuel and engines cost a lot more. Since the aircraft isn’t likely to outrun an enemy fighter or missile, it is more important to remain undetected once in hostile airspace.

6. It won’t be unmanned. The Air Force’s fiscal 2016 budget summary describes the Long-Range Strike Bomber as “nuclear capable” and “optionally manned,” but don’t count on it. It's hard to see what value there would be in penetrating hostile air space without human pilots on board to make snap decisions about targeting options or the need to take evasive action.

7. It will look different from the B-2 bomber. Many experts have speculated that the new bomber will be a “flying wing” design similar to the existing B-2, because the fuselage and rear stabilizers on conventional aircraft generate radar returns that defeat the goal of eluding detection. The B-2 was conceived mainly to operate at night, and the Air Force wants its next bomber to be more operationally flexible. Even though the new bomber will probably lack a fuselage, it is not likely to be mistaken for a B-2.

8. It will rely more on off-board capabilities. The B-3 bomber will be the first information-age bomber the Air Force has developed. The Air Force has described it as part of a family of systems, and some parts of that family such as orbital reconnaissance assets will be crucial in enabling the bomber to do its job. In other words, it will need to stay connected despite its low-observable design.

9. There will be more than a hundred. The Air Force says it wants 80-100 Long-Range Strike Bombers, but by the time that number of planes is produced, it will be contemplating retirement of all the bombers currently in its fleet. So, come 2040 the chances are the Air Force will just keep buying it and recapitalize the whole fleet. At that point, even the newer B-2 will be nearly half a century old.

10. It will be built by Boeing. Two industry teams are vying to build the B-3 bomber: one led by Northrop Grumman the other led by Boeing. These teams are not evenly matched. Boeing and Lockheed delivered over 300 military aircraft last year, including some of the stealthiest fighters in the world; Northrop Grumman delivered nine aircraft, none of them stealthy. Between the two of them, Boeing and Lockheed have been prime contractors on 95% of the Air Force’s fighters and bombers over the last 30 years, at a time when Northrop Grumman was publicly declaring its intention to cease being a prime contractor on military aircraft.

Click to expand...

thunderchief said:

Subsonic bombers are becoming a bit obsolete IMHO , and this goes for both B-3 and PAK DA

...if you want just missile carrier with standoff weapons , something faster like Tu-160 would be better. Of course, old lumbering bombers like B-52 are good enough for less sophisticated opponents .

Click to expand...

Naval Today said:

The US Navy will position its newest aircraft carrier, USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), in Hampton Roads, Naval Station Norfolk, according to Virginia Congressional delegation.

This will provide an additional aircraft carrier to the region until 2018 when the USS Lincoln returns to its home port. In addition the Navy has decided to reverse an earlier decision and will maintain Little Creek as a deep water amphibious port and homeport four amphibious ships at Little Creek through 2020. The delegation worked with the Navy to fund critical infrastructure upgrades for Little Creek, including a $30 million electrical grid upgrade in 2012.

Sen. Tim Kaine, whose advocacy in the Senate Armed Services committee was key to maintaining the Navy’s 11 operational aircraft carrier fleet, said:

“Combined with our successful effort last year to restore funding for the refueling and overhaul of the USS George Washington, the Navy’s decision to homeport the USS Gerald Ford in Norfolk is welcome news for Hampton Roads.

This news comes as the result of years of efforts to invest in these facilities.

Click to expand...

​

The following is the 2015 revision of A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower, the cooperative strategy between the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard, released on March 13, 2015.

Click to expand...

Develop and evolve our electromagnetic maneuver warfare, space, and cyber concepts of operation to achieve desired effects through blended kinetic and non-kinetic means. The electromagnetic-cyber environment is now so fundamental to military operations and so critical to our national interests that we must treat it as a warfighting domain on par with sea, air, land, and space.

Click to expand...

PENTAGON — The

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

has added sections addressing the complexity of the intersection of cyber and electronic warfare and hangs a loose number on the number of ships the U.S. Navy needs to execute its roles in the world.

Click to expand...

“We’ve created a new essential function in this strategy called All Domain Access. This is essentially a function that will organize, train and equip our forces to maintain appropriate freedom of action in every domain — sea, air land, space, cyberspace and across the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum,” McQuilkin said.

Click to expand...

Additionally, the document mentions a concept dubbed electromagnetic maneuver warfare (EMV) which points to emerging offensive cyber capabilities.

EMV “blends fleet operations in space, cyberspace, and the electromagnetic spectrum with advanced non-kinetic capabilities to create warfighting advantages,” read the document.

Click to expand...

Jeff Head said:

Here's a couple of more recent pictures of her outfitting next to the decommissioned USS Enterprise which is being dismantled. In with the new...out with the old..

​

View attachment 12105

​

View attachment 12106

​

Click to expand...

Silvestre said:

One big carrier by US Navy. Many sailors. Maybe 7000-8500 how are biggest in world. Bigger that's Queen Elizabeth for brittish sociality.

Click to expand...