Het nut van een strategische bommenwerper in de 21ste eeuw?

Gestart door dudge, 08/03/2015 | 13:53 uur

ARM-WAP

Citaat van: jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter) op 24/08/2022 | 19:38 uur
Willen we als Europa (als meer zelfstandige poot binnen de NAVO) meer op onze eigen kunnen staan dan zijn ook deze middelen noodzaak.

Als de VS bereidt is om B-21 te verkopen (binnen AUKUS) dan biedt dit wellicht ook mogelijkheden voor Europa (in ieder geval aan het VK).
De enigen die ik in Europa zo'n toestel zie aanschaffen (dan wel ontwikkelen) zijn VK en FR. De kosten zullen enorm zijn en het VK-defensiebudget kraakt nu al onder de lasten van de instandhouding van hun "nuclear deterrence". De rest van hun krijgsmacht lijdt er enorm onder.
Binnen AUKUS zie ik ook de mogelijkheid voor Vk om B-21 aan te schaffen. Eerder dan zelf een toestel te ontwikkelen.

DU lijkt gewoon geen aspiratie te hebben op militair vlak en "ein Bomber" zal wel een brug te ver zijn in hun Bundestag. De aanschaf van de F-35 heeft me zeer aangenaam verrast.

jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)

Citaat van: Parera op 24/08/2022 | 19:27 uur
Met de H20 van de Chinezen, B-21 bij de Amerikanen en de PAK DA (als die er ooit komt) bij de Russen lopen wij als Europa ook weer behoorlijk achter. Ik zeg niet dat we dit Europa breed moeten aankopen maar bijvoorbeeld Frankrijk, Duitsland, Spanje & Italië zouden geschikte kandidaat luchtmachten zijn voor lange afstands bommenwerpers of tactische bommenwerpers.

Willen we als Europa (als meer zelfstandige poot binnen de NAVO) meer op onze eigen kunnen staan dan zijn ook deze middelen noodzaak.

Als de VS bereidt is om B-21 te verkopen (binnen AUKUS) dan biedt dit wellicht ook mogelijkheden voor Europa (in ieder geval aan het VK).

Parera

Citaat van: jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter) op 24/08/2022 | 19:07 uur
Er wordt al enige tijd gespeculeerd over eventuele AUS B-21's, die gezien de enorme afstanden tot ZO Azië als noodzaak worden gezien, icm de te verwachten SSN's.

De B-21 zou het gat dichten wat is geslagen door het letterlijk begraven van hun F-111's (daarnaast lijkt een nieuwe Chinese strategische bommenwerper. de H-20, aan de vooravond van introductie te staan.

Ander puntje van aandacht: In India wordt blikbaat gesproken over de aanschaf (if ever) van 6 Russische Tupolev Tu-160

Ik denk ook dat de Australiërs het niet gaan houden bij SSN's en B-21's, men heeft veel meer langeafstands materieel nodig. Een snelle en relatief simpele aankoop is F-35B's voor op de LHD's, geen volledige carriers (op dit moment). Naast SSN's verwacht ik op de langere termijn ook boten die meer weghebben van een SSBN dan SSN's maar zonder de intercontinentale capaciteit en ook nucleaire wapens is naar mijn idee voor Australië (op dit moment nog) een stap te ver.

India, dat blijft een bijzonder land. Ze willen maar al te graag westers materieel kopen maar ook regelmatig keren ze terug naar de oude vriend Rusland.

Met de H20 van de Chinezen, B-21 bij de Amerikanen en de PAK DA (als die er ooit komt) bij de Russen lopen wij als Europa ook weer behoorlijk achter. Ik zeg niet dat we dit Europa breed moeten aankopen maar bijvoorbeeld Frankrijk, Duitsland, Spanje & Italië zouden geschikte kandidaat luchtmachten zijn voor lange afstands bommenwerpers of tactische bommenwerpers.

jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)

Citaat van: Parera op 24/08/2022 | 18:31 uur
Zien we hier een nieuwe supermacht opkomen?

Er wordt al enige tijd gespeculeerd over eventuele AUS B-21's, die gezien de enorme afstanden tot ZO Azië als noodzaak worden gezien, icm de te verwachten SSN's.

De B-21 zou het gat dichten wat is geslagen door het letterlijk begraven van hun F-111's (daarnaast lijkt een nieuwe Chinese strategische bommenwerper. de H-20, aan de vooravond van introductie te staan.

Ander puntje van aandacht: In India wordt blikbaat gesproken over de aanschaf (if ever) van 6 Russische Tupolev Tu-160

Parera

Citaat van: jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter) op 24/08/2022 | 17:15 uur
US, Australia discuss possibility of B-21 bomber deal, 'posing serious threats to China' - Global Times

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202208/1273753.shtml#.YwY-NTpcY7g.twitter

Zien we hier een nieuwe supermacht opkomen?

jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)

US, Australia discuss possibility of B-21 bomber deal, 'posing serious threats to China' - Global Times

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202208/1273753.shtml#.YwY-NTpcY7g.twitter

Ace1

US Air Force one step closer to turning cargo planes into makeshift bombers

AIR WARFARE

Next month, the Air Force will see if it can launch a live cruise missile from a pallet that was air dropped by a cargo plane.

WASHINGTON: Next month the Air Force will conduct a capstone exercise for a program aiming to turn cargo planes into aerial bomb trucks, when a standard-looking pallet will be airdropped out of an MC-130J and launch a live cruise missile as it parachutes down through the air.

The demonstration will wrap up the first phase of the Air Force's Rapid Dragon program, the service's effort validating its "palletized munitions" concept, Dean Evans, the service's Rapid Dragon program manager, told Breaking Defense today.

In the early stages of a war with a sophisticated adversary like China, the Air Force believes the number of airstrikes being traded will make it difficult for airlift platforms to move people and equipment into threat zones. Further, the service has hypothesized that it may need even more strike capacity than it currently has with its fleet of fighters and bombers.

"The ability to cost-effectively deliver long-range standoff weapons en masse from non-traditional platforms expands warfighting flexibility and introduces new deterrence options," Evans said.

Or as Lt. Gen Clint Hinote, the Air Force's futurist, put it last year: "What we see is that no matter how big our bomber force is, the capacity that the joint force needs is always more and more."

That's where palletized munitions for airlift assets like cargo planes come in. The thinking is that the service can create a "smart pallet" that looks like the standard pallets used to roll equipment on and off aircraft like the C-130 or C-17, but can feed targeting and launch command information to the guided munitions contained inside of it.

After that pallet is airdropped from a cargo plane and begins its fall to the ground, the pallet would then launch multiple munitions, each intended for different targets and timed to safely separate from each other.

Most recently, the program conducted a successful flight demonstration Nov. 3 at White Sands Missile Range, N.M., where an MC-130J airdropped a pallet containing a long range cruise missile separation test vehicle — basically a cruise missile without an engine or warhead.

According to an Air Force Research Laboratory news release, the MC-130J crew received targeting data from a beyond-line-of-sight node and then transferred that information from the aircraft's onboard Battle Management System to the cruise missile test vehicle. The event was the first time that upload of data occurred with an unarmed cruise missile instead of an emulator, AFRL said.

Then, the MC-130J dropped a four-cell Rapid Dragon palletized system from its cargo bay. As the pallet was parachuting down, it sequentially launched the cruise missile test vehicle and three "mass simulants," which replicate the weight and shape of a cruise missile. The cruise missile test vehicle deployed its wings and tail seconds after release, began pulling up and then glided toward its target.

A demonstration planned for December will use a live cruise missile instead of an unarmed test vehicle and will conclude the first, developmental stage of the program, Evans said.

"The plan is to mature the capability from a developmental prototype to an operational prototype in the next phase," which will begin next month immediately following a successful demonstration, Evans said. "We will be integrating additional weapons/effects in the next phase of Rapid Dragon" and will test the pallet deployment system's ability to safely launch multiple weapons, he said.

The Nov. 3 demonstration was performed by an operational Air Force Special Operations Command aircrew, AFRL stated. Other participants included Naval Surface Warfare Center-Dahlgren; Standoff Munitions Application Center; Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control; Systima Technologies; and Safran Electronics & Defense, Parachutes USA.

Last year, Lockheed Martin received a $25 million contract for further work on the Rapid Dragon program. At the time, Scott Calloway, Lockheed's program director, told reporters its roll on/roll off smart pallet could be configured to carry up to 32 AGM-158B JASSM-ER (Joint-Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range) missiles on a C-17.

https://breakingdefense.com/2021/11/us-air-force-one-step-closer-to-turning-cargo-planes-into-makeshift-bombers/?fbclid=IwAR31QPlaPU5nL9q_uyp0FDib1uHV0tSz0kNBND-s1BIhhDqZHwOBpPfZIQU

Harald

Boeing plans to start testing external hypersonic missile pylon for B-1 next year

Two Boeing officials attended the quarterly meeting of the Military Affairs Committee of the Abilene Chamber of Commerce on Sept. 28 and spoke about giving the B-1 bomber the capability to launch hypersonic missiles.



Robert Gass and Dan Ruder spoke to about 75 people at the Abilene Country Club.

Ruder, who is the B-1 advanced programs manager, disclosed that his company hopes to start development testing of the "load adaptive modular" pylon that will allow "two missiles to be attached to the bomber at the six (external) points"

Gass added that the plan is to have the B-1 carry both the boost-glide rocket and air-breathing variants of hypersonic missiles.

..../....

https://eu.reporternews.com/story/news/local/big-country/2021/09/28/former-dyess-afb-commander-discusses-hypersonic-weaponry-luncheon/5892470001/

Sparkplug

A fighter without a gun . . . is like an airplane without a wing.

-- Brigadier General Robin Olds, USAF.

Ace1


Ace1

Meet the Saab 36: Sweden's Secret Nuclear Bomber Program

Here's why it never made it past the drawing board.

After the Second World War, Sweden initiated a clandestine nuclear program — and had plans for a supersonic nuclear bomber.

Atoms for Peace

After World War II, the Soviet specter lay heavily across Europe. Like other post-war countries, Sweden wanted to protect itself from a Soviet invasion — and decided to manufacture nuclear weapons to ensure its security.

Initially, Sweden tried to get nuclear weapons expertise from outside the country. The United States, as the world's first nuclear power and a guarantor of European security, was a logical partner.

In the early days of the Cold War, the United States pursued a strategy of promoting nuclear power for energy production — President Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace" concept. Nuclear material and nuclear know-how would only be transferred to foreign governments on the condition that the nuclear research and development would only be for peaceful purposes, precluding weapon's research. Sweden declined.

Buying nuclear weapons directly from the United States was also an unattractive option for Sweden most likely impossible.

Luckily for the Swedes, Uranium-containing shale is abundant in Sweden.

Bombs Away

By the mid-1960s, Sweden has enough fissile material to build a bomb in six months. It just needed a platform to deliver nuclear payload — the Saab 36.

The Saab 36 was a twin-engine supersonic bomber. It would have had delta wings, and fly in the Mach 2+ range. Flight ceiling was to be 18,000 meters or 60,000 feet.

Targets of value to Sweden were in the Baltic — the Baltic countries of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania are just across the Baltic Sea, and Poland and East Germany are also practically next door to Sweden. (Though the Cold War is over, the Baltic is still an area of concern for Sweden.)

The Saab 36 had to deal with a few design restrictions which would affect its payload.

Designers at Saab were concerned that the weapons externally attached to the fuselage or wings would create drag, degrading the jet's performance. The high Mach 2+ speed would also have generated a large amount of heat that could damage weapons — or worse cause them to "cook-off" or accidentally explode.

Bombs would have to be stored internally in an enclosed weapons bay, farther away from potentially dangerous high temperatures. Internal space would be at a premium, and there would only be space for a single 800 kilogram, or 1,800 pound, free-falling nuclear bomb, reducing the efficacy of the bomber, and limiting its use to a tactical weapon delivery system rather than a strategic deterrent.

The Saab 36 got off the drawing board just as a simple wind tunnel mockup and the design was not finalized. Images online appear to show two different designs, one with a chin-mounted engine intake, and another with two jet engines integrated in the delta wing.

Postscript

Though the bomber never entered serial production, work on the Saab 36 contributed in part to the development of the Saab 37, a strike fighter that was one of the first successful jets that incorporated the delta wing design

The Swedish Parliament, the Riksdag, would renounce nuclear weapons in 1968, and Sweden would abandon its nuclear ambitions in the early 1970s, shipping fissile material abroad. The Saab 36 would never fly.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/meet-saab-36-swedens-secret-nuclear-bomber-program-146062


Sparkplug

A fighter without a gun . . . is like an airplane without a wing.

-- Brigadier General Robin Olds, USAF.

Harald

Two B-52H bombers regenerated to active service undergoing simultaneous maintenance at Oklahoma City Air Logistics Complex


The B-52H bomber nick named "Wise Guy," sits in post dock nearing completion of its regeneration back to active service, Nov. 19, 2020. The bomber sat in the desert for 10 years at the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group's National-Level Airpower Reservoir located at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona and is the second B-52H aircraft to be brought back to active service. The first aircraft was nick named "Ghost Rider" and was regenerated in 2015. Both bombers are here at the same time and will return to the 5th Bomb Wing at Minot AFB, North Dakota.


The only two B-52H "Stratofortress" bombers to be resurrected from the Arizona desert have been undergoing programmed depot maintenance at the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Complex.

Ghost Rider, the first of the bombers to be brought back to life, returned to service in 2015 after being mothballed for seven years at the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group's National-Level Airpower Reservoir located at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona. Wise Guy spent 10 years in the desert before being resurrected late last year.

Ghost Rider, tail number 61-007, is currently undergoing routine PDM. This is an intensive process where the team inspects, repairs, modifies and restores the aircraft to ensure serviceability and prolongs its service life. According to Dan Frey, 565th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron Production Flight chief, each B-52 in the fleet undergoes PDM every four years.

On Dec. 30, 2020, Wise Guy, tail number 60-034, finished the process of regeneration that formally began in 2018 with an in-depth structural analysis and logistics support review completed by the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center's B-52 System Program Office to bring the aircraft back to active service. When Wise Guy rejoins the fleet, it will join Ghost Rider at the 5th Bomb Wing at Minot AFB, North Dakota, and will bring the number of B-52 bombers mandated by Congress to full strength at 76 aircraft.

Though they are both the same type of aircraft, there were many challenges to overcome with each aircraft as it travelled through the regeneration process.

John Raihl, 565th AMXS aircraft section chief, said the biggest challenge with Ghost Rider was establishing a plan to ensure all required inspections, maintenance, and modifications were accomplished on schedule and within budget. The plan was implemented in coordination with the B-52 System Program Office, Logistics and Engineering, as well as the 76th Aircraft Maintenance Group's 76th Expeditionary Depot Maintenance Flight.

"Using scripting tools, the enterprise team drafted a script that achieved this in addition to maximizing concurrent work across different maintenance disciplines," said Raihl.

Wise Guy presented the enterprise team with a different challenge: two major electrical wiring projects.

"Rewire I and II projects were the biggest challenges due to the scope of the project, as well as the limited experience we had with those specific wire bundles," Jennifer Smith, 565th AMXS avionics/electric section chief, said.

Main landing gear structural defects also presented unique challenges for Wise Guy during the initial regeneration phase, as well as during the PDM cycle.

Travis Reese, AFLCMC lead regeneration engineer, said, "Repairs necessary to prepare Wise Guy for first flight presented risk to the overall project. Additionally, these temporary repairs had to be removed and permanently addressed, adding scope and complexity for the technicians in the 565th AMXS structural repair section."

Additionally, the 76th Commodities Maintenance Group partners had to manufacture all of the wire harnesses from original drawings. This process alone took more than four months prior to the aircraft arriving at Tinker Air Force Base, Smith said.

Lessons learned from regenerating Ghost Rider enabled the enterprise team to apply what they learned when working on Wise Guy.

"By utilizing enterprise team meetings ahead of the aircraft's arrival, we were able to expand Ghost Rider's process script into a precise script," said Mike Bassham, 565th AMXS sheet metal section chief. The script process enabled the team to measure milestones for all major jobs for the purpose of keeping the aircraft on schedule and determining where they needed to apply additional resources to tackle constraints, he added.

Jeff Base, 565th AMXS director, explained that hundreds of people across the OC-ALC are involved in regenerating and, or overhauling aircraft requiring a total Team Tinker effort.

"AFLCMC provides engineering and logistics support, the 76th EDMX traveled to the 309th AMARG to prepare aircraft for flight after years in storage, the 76th CMXG overhauls and manufactures parts, the 76th Propulsion Maintenance Group overhauls engines and manufactures parts," Base said.

David Strawderman, AFLCMC's B-52 System Program Office regeneration project manager, echoed Base's comments, adding the motivation and dedication of everyone involved ensured both regeneration programs were successful.

"For Wise Guy, over 100 personnel from nine organizations supported critical maintenance tasks to deliver the aircraft from AMARG to Tinker – in less than four months," he said. "The abilities are truly remarkable and a testament to the resolve of the B-52 enterprise." 

In addition to the production side, Base said the OC-ALC, 76th AMXG Business Offices and the 76th Maintenance Support Group ensure the team has the resources, while the 76th Software Maintenance Group provides the required software. The 565th AMXS has over 600 people, Base said, and each person will either touch the aircraft or support it at some point during the PDM cycle.

Jason Puder, 565th AMXS deputy director, summed up the importance of regenerating aircraft to provide combat air power to America's warfighters.

"The success of regenerating these two aircraft has proven the Air Force's ability to generate war power.  Hidden in the details are countless hours of planning, engineering, logistics, and maintenance that began the moment the aircraft entered long-term storage at Davis-Monthan AFB until the culmination of each aircraft departing Tinker AFB fully airworthy again years later," said Puder.

"The PDM effort was just one of many obstacles overcome, which, ideally, are unnoticed by the frontline Airmen charged with maintaining and flying these aircraft going forward," Puder added.


Ace1

The A-12 Avenger Shows Why The Navy Needs A Long-Range Strike Aircraft

The Navy's carrier air wings would have greatly benefited from an A-12-like capability had the program survived.

Here's What You Need To Remember: Though it was not immediately apparent at the time, with the cancellation of the A-12 program and the retirement of the A-6E, the U.S. Navy gave up its long-range strike capability in favor of an air wing that focused on sortie generation. While that was not a problem in the immediate aftermath of the end of the Cold War, with Russia resurgent and the emergence of China as a great power challenger, it is a serious issue for the viability of the carrier fleet.

During the closing stages of the Cold War, the United States Navy was developing a new long-range stealth bomber that could strike at even the most heavily defended targets from the deck of an aircraft carrier. But the ill-fated program was cancelled; leaving a gap in naval aviation capability that has not been filled to this day. 

Called the McDonnell Douglas/General Dynamics A-12 Avenger II—a product of the Advanced Tactical Aircraft (ATA) program—the new bomber would have replaced the long-serving Grumman A-6E Intruder. However, as the Soviet threat evaporated, then Defense Secretary Dick Cheney cancelled the A-12 program on January 7, 1991, due to massive cost and schedule overruns as well as severe technical problems. But while the stealthy A-12 had its problems, the bomber's demise led the Navy to today's problem: A carrier air wing that does not have the range or penetrating strike capability to defeat advanced anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities.   

While the Lockheed Martin F-35C Joint Strike Fighter will finally bring X-band stealth technology onboard the carrier and the forthcoming MQ-25 Stingray unmanned aerial refueling tanker will help to extend the range of the existing air wing, those aircraft do not make up for the lack of a heavy hitting long-range bomber platform that can strike deep into the heart of enemy territory. Even with the F-35C and MQ-25, the Navy's carrier air wings would not be able to strike at Chinese targets in the Western Pacific without putting the carrier at considerable risk. Beijing is able to threaten U.S. Navy carriers with anti-ship ballistic missiles such the DF-21D and the DF-26— the later of which has a range of roughly 2000 nautical miles—by forcing those vessels to operate further out at sea.

The Navy had envisioned the need for a carrier-based penetrating strike aircraft with extended ranges during the 1980s given rapidly advancing Soviet capabilities. Indeed, as former Center for a New American Security scholar Jerry Hendrix, a retired naval aviator, noted, the initial requirements for the A-12 called for an aircraft with a 1,700 nautical mile combat radius and an internal payload of 6,000lbs with a radar cross section comparable to the Northrop B-2 Spirit strategic bomber.

Had the A-12 program panned out, the Navy would still have a potent long-range carrier-based penetrating strike capability that would have been superior to anything currently envisioned. However, technical problems and requirements changes—all of which negatively impacted strike capability—whittled the A-12's unrefueled combat radius down to 1,000 nautical miles and eventually down to 785 nautical miles. Eventually, as technical problems and program snafus mounted—largely due to "criminal" program management—Cheney was forced to cancel the entire program.

Though it was not immediately apparent at the time, with the cancellation of the A-12 program and the retirement of the A-6E, the U.S. Navy gave up its long-range strike capability in favor of an air wing that focused on sortie generation. While that was not a problem in the immediate aftermath of the end of the Cold War, with Russia resurgent and the emergence of China as a great power challenger, it is a serious issue for the viability of the carrier fleet. The Navy's carrier air wings would have greatly benefited from an A-12-like capability had the program survived.

Analysts have proposed solutions such as a long-range stealthy unmanned strike aircraft as a solution to the Navy's long-range penetrating strike gap, however, there are problems with that solution. Current Pentagon policy prohibits autonomous weapons from making the decision to take a human life on its own volition, which means that human operators have to be in the loop even when the aircraft is deep inside enemy territory. However, adversaries such as Russia and China will attack the vulnerable data-links that control such an unmanned aircraft through electronic attacks, cyber-warfare or a combination of methods. Drones have been hacked before—by insurgents, no less—thus positive control cannot be guaranteed.

Human pilots, however, cannot be hacked and can make on-the-spot judgments to engage or change targets etc. without the need to home phone—so to speak. Thus, a modern incarnation of a manned carrier-based long-range penetrating strike aircraft might be a solution to the Navy's range problem. Modern materials, sensor and propulsion technology—particularly advanced adaptive-cycle engines that are currently in development—would solve most of the technical challenges that stymied the A-12 program.

Given that advanced adaptive cycle engines which are currently in development promise to reduce fuel burn by more than 35 percent, a new carrier-based bomber should be able to meet a 1100 nautical mile combat radius requirement even given the size constraints of carrier aircraft. Thus, the Navy should consider the development of a next-generation carrier-based long-range penetrating strike aircraft. Like the original ATA, which was also slated to replace the Boeing F-15E, a modern incarnation of such a warplane could also replace the Strike Eagle while supplementing the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and F-35C on the carrier flight deck. It will not be cheap, but given that President Donald Trump has signaled his intent to invest heavily in the nation's defense, it is an option that the Navy should consider.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/12-avenger-shows-why-navy-needs-long-range-strike-aircraft-163571

Sparkplug

A fighter without a gun . . . is like an airplane without a wing.

-- Brigadier General Robin Olds, USAF.