Rumsfeld declassified notes - 'Stealthy F-111' etc

[jsport]

https://www.c4isrnet.com//unmanned/2018/01/25/how-rumsfeld-viewed-the-most-iconic-aircraft-of-the-war-on-terror/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Brief%2001.29.18&utm_term=Editorial%20-%20Daily%20Brief
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4357755/11-L-0559-First-Release-Bates-1-912.pdf

"In April 2001, former Secretary of the Air Force Don Rice sent Rumsfeld a letter arguing for the restart of the B-2 program, complete with diagrams supposedly showcasing the cost savings of payload delivery by B-2 compared to an equivalent payload weight delivered by cruise missiles. In that letter, Rice suggests that “a long-range, dwell capability for electronic combat-manned or unmanned-would be valuable in many circumstances,” foreshadowing the long-endurance drones of the 2010s, and possibly even anticipating the optionally manned nature of the still-in-development B-21 bomber. Rice also suggested that the Air Force abandon the Joint Strike Fighter program and a proposed “stealthy F-111” program, and suggested instead that the Pentagon invest in “a technologically serious and fiscally prudent R&D program on a future unmanned long-range, stealthy attack aircraft you can pursue for the more distant future,” to fly alongside the B-2s from a restarted bomber program."

FA-XX should be along the design of “stealthy F-111”.

 

[Airplane]

stealth f-111 means revival of supersonic bomber

No. It means a medium weight stealth bomber. Says nothing about speed. Has an Ardvaark ever gone supersonic on a bombing mission? No. The Bone and the Hustler were the only 2 truly supersonic bombers fielded... Oh and Vigilante.

 

[sferrin]

stealth f-111 means revival of supersonic bomber

No. It means a medium weight stealth bomber. Says nothing about speed. Has an Ardvaark ever gone supersonic on a bombing mission? No. The Bone and the Hustler were the only 2 truly supersonic bombers fielded... Oh and Vigilante.

The B77 was designed for laydown at up to 1000 mph. An F-111 with a pair of nuclear weapons in its internal bay could certainly go high supersonic speed. How many Vigilantes went supersonic on bombing missions?

 

[marauder2048]

Wasn't SRAM launch typically supersonic as well?

Between A-12, J-UCAS, UCLASS, FB-22 and F-15SE I was hoping
for an F-111 replacement; that gap between the F-35 and B-2/B-21 needs to be filled.

 

[dan_inbox]

How many Vigilantes went supersonic on bombing missions?

As many as Vigilantes which performed live nuclear bombing missions?

 

[sferrin]

How many Vigilantes went supersonic on bombing missions?

As many as Vigilantes which performed live nuclear bombing missions?

So none as well.

 

[Airplane]

My friend broke Mach 1 flying a B-52. The B-52 ain't a supersonic bomber! Bone, Hustler, Vigilante with its internal weapon are it. Not a F-111. Not a F-15E. Not a F-4.

 

[sferrin]

My friend broke Mach 1 flying a B-52. The B-52 ain't a supersonic bomber! Bone, Hustler, Vigilante with its internal weapon are it. Not a F-111. Not a F-15E. Not a F-4.

Sorry to burst your bubble (well, not really) but here's what the GAO has to say about the F-111:

"The F-111A/C/D/E/F are versions of the F-111 which evolved from the concurrent development and production of this two engine, two-man crew, all-weather tactical aircraft.. These fighter bombers can deliver nuclear and conventional weapons at subsonic or supersonic speeds."

https://www.gao.gov/assets/80/78812.pdf

Also, your "friend" didn't break Mach 1 in a B-52. (Flying 700 mph with a 100 mph tailwind is not breaking Mach 1.)

 

[TomS]

Given the timing of this memo, the "stealthy F-111" referenced here surely has to be the FB-22.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

My friend broke Mach 1 flying a B-52. The B-52 ain't a supersonic bomber! Bone, Hustler, Vigilante with its internal weapon are it. Not a F-111. Not a F-15E. Not a F-4.

Also, your "friend" didn't break Mach 1 in a B-52. (Flying 700 mph with a 100 mph tailwind is not breaking Mach 1.)

yep - Mach is a relative airspeed, not ground airspeed, so sadly he didn't break Mach 1.

 

[DrRansom]

Wasn't SRAM launch typically supersonic as well?

Between A-12, J-UCAS, UCLASS, FB-22 and F-15SE I was hoping
for an F-111 replacement; that gap between the F-35 and B-2/B-21 needs to be filled.

Someone else agrees with me

There is a pretty large gap between the F-35 and the B-21 which requires a tactical bomber sized airplane. Several missions would be vastly simplified if the USAF had access to a high-endurance two-piloted aircraft with a CPFH something lower than a strategic bomber. A F-111 replacement would be the obvious candidate for a new EW capability, it would be an obvious candidate for first generation UCAV support, as the two pilots can multitask much better than one pilot. That cooperative UCAV ability would make the two-pilot plane a stand-out for Wild Weasel missions.

The tactical bomber reduces demand on the tanking fleet and ends the somewhat ludicrous mission of using a strategic bomber for CAS. Surely, the aerospace industry can create an airplane with long endurance and a CPFH lower than a B-1B. Also bigger aircraft allows for more / bigger missiles, such as a hypersonic boost-glide.

Sure, some of the roles can be fit onto the F-35, but making any of those missions work with the F-35 would require much greater development work. You'd basically have to totally automate EW or UCAVs for them to be controllable from a single-pilot aircraft. It would be so much easier to get the controls fit for a co-pilot to use.

 

[marauder2048]

So was Rice's letter really independent of NG's May 15th, 2001 letter to Rumsfeld with the unsolicited conventional B-2 offer?

 

[Airplane]

My friend broke Mach 1 flying a B-52. The B-52 ain't a supersonic bomber! Bone, Hustler, Vigilante with its internal weapon are it. Not a F-111. Not a F-15E. Not a F-4.

Sorry to burst your bubble (well, not really) but here's what the GAO has to say about the F-111:

"The F-111A/C/D/E/F are versions of the F-111 which evolved from the concurrent development and production of this two engine, two-man crew, all-weather tactical aircraft.. These fighter bombers can deliver nuclear and conventional weapons at subsonic or supersonic speeds."



https://www.gao.gov/assets/80/78812.pdf

Also, your "friend" didn't break Mach 1 in a B-52. (Flying 700 mph with a 100 mph tailwind is not breaking Mach 1.)

Sorry Charlie. I know a thing a two about piloting aircraft and I know my friend broke mach 1 flying the Buff. Not some contrived math trick with vectors or what some radar site said the groundspeed track was. The Buff can also fly a lot higher than Wikipedia says. Experience trumps people who want to argue with math that something can't be done. Today's B-52 would likely not be able to without killing the crew. 1967 then yes.

Fine I will concede on the 111 but now everything from the phantom to the thud to the eagle is a supersonic bomber. You gotta draw the line someplace.

 

[Triton]

Was the "stealthy F-111 program" the reason why Northrop Grumman pitched the F/B-23 RTA (Rapid Theater Attack) based on the YB-23? Then the F/B-23 model shows up at AFA 2005 or 2006.

https://youtu.be/SRsV28Xbbck

 

[marauder2048]

I don't see where Rice was referring to a "stealthy F-111 program"; he preemptively brings up
(in order to argue against) some alternatives to his proposed B-2C: longer range JSF,
cruise missiles and a regional bomber ("stealthy F-111-class aircraft").

Having said that, he was involved with A/FX, the 1999 and possibly 2001 bomber roadmap/long
range strike studies for the Air Force so his estimates on EMD/unit costs for a regional bomber
are probably more than just educated guesses.

 

[MihoshiK]

My friend broke Mach 1 flying a B-52. The B-52 ain't a supersonic bomber! Bone, Hustler, Vigilante with its internal weapon are it. Not a F-111. Not a F-15E. Not a F-4.

The B-52 is a lot of things, but supersonic ain't one of em. In a dive you might be able to get one to break the speed of sound, but it will also do it only once, and for a very short time.