US Next Generation Bomber Studies

[Sundog]

So what they're saying is, they expect to use expensive overly designed bombers to bomb terrorists who can't threaten such aircraft? The USAF talks about using B-1B's, F-15s and F-16s for CAS, we know they don't want the A-10, but the only aircraft it want's in it's inventory, eventually, are just F-22s, F-35s, and LRSBs? Those are going to provide CAS and medium bombing at affordable costs? This is so short sighted it's laughable. I'm not saying we don't need those types of assets for the greatest threats, but for most of the fighting we're doing this is massive overkill and a waste of money with regard to operational costs.


If I were them, I would also be looking at a medium bomber made from a converted airliner; A new bomb toting fuselage, lower to the ground for easy arming and turn around, but using the wings and empennage from something like a 767. That would be the bomber we would use when there aren't any front doors to kick down and there is little, if any, aerial threats.


Either that, or it's time to give CAS and "medium" bombing back to the Army and cut some of the USAF budget to pay for it. Somebody at the Pentagon has lost track of the middle ground, between all out maximum capability war and special forces. It's as though they're pretending that middle ground doesn't exist and drones sure as hell aren't going to fill that gap. Even though it's the type of war they've been fighting for most of the last two decades and the foreseeable future. This isn't a rant against the LRSB it's a rant against the short sighted idea of the LRSB being the only bomber in the fleet.

 

[bring_it_on]

Now it's between 80 and 100.... Getting lower every press release.

By this rate the Bomber fleet will be 20 at 2 billion a pop.

The 80-100 number is not new, its been around for a while

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140613/DEFREG02/306130027/RFP-US-Bomber-Coming-Soon-USAF-s-Top-Buyer-Says

 

[sferrin]

It will be if they buy 20.


By the way, 80-100 is not equal to the total B-1B/B-52 inventory, but provided you get better availability (which you should) it gets close to the current PAA.

But giving up lots of capability. MOP? Gone. Cruise missile carrier? Gone. Large numbers of 2000lb PGMs? Probably gone.

 

[LowObservable]

B-2 remains, carrying MOP. And if you need a CMCA it's not hard to do in the 2030s.

 

[marauder2048]

Either that, or it's time to give CAS and "medium" bombing back to the Army and cut some of the USAF budget to pay for it. Somebody at the Pentagon has lost track of the middle ground, between all out maximum capability war and special forces.

This was exactly AF Chief of Staff (turned Obama advisor) Merrill McPeak's offer to the Army some 20 years ago. The Army wasn't
keen on it then, is not interested in operating A-10s now and unless it can demonstrate to Congress that it can manage the procurement
of a light truck won't be given the budget to procure a CAS asset of any scope for a while.

On a related note, there's been recent, strong arguments for more loitering munitions and with Raytheon looking at a powered
variant of SDB II for the UK SPEAR requirement, a ground launched version would give the Army a big boost for support fires
and provide the Air Force with an extremely useful weapon.

 

[Flyaway]

Bomber decision due in August or September: U.S. Air Force

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Air Force still aims to award a long-awaited contract for a new long-range strike bomber in August, but the decision could slip into September, Air Force Secretary Deborah James said Wednesday, adding it was crucial to "do it right."

Northrop Grumman Corp, maker of the B-2 bomber, is competing against team made up of Boeing Co and Lockheed Martin Corp for a contract that could be worth $50 billion to $80 billion to the winning bid

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0PI2SD20150708?irpc=932

 

[sferrin]

B-2 remains, carrying MOP. And if you need a CMCA it's not hard to do in the 2030s.

If the KC-46 is any indicator, I wouldn't think that's a slam dunk. Converting a 777X to a CMCA would be a lot more involved than slapping a boom on the back and installing more fuel tanks.

 

[bobbymike]

http://warontherocks.com/2015/07/should-the-united-states-buy-the-long-range-strike-bomber-yes/?singlepage=1

 

[LowObservable]

Step 1 - don't ask the people who did the KC-46 to do it...

 

[sferrin]

Step 1 - don't ask the people who did the KC-46 to do it...

And Step 2 is. . .? Having LM or NG build a cruise missile carrier from scratch? Yeah, that'll happen.

 

[LowObservable]

I didn't say you had to have a different company. The P-8 seems to be going OK.

 

[sferrin]

I didn't say you had to have a different company. The P-8 seems to be going OK.

Fair enough.

 

[bring_it_on]

Decision expected August 11, 10:00 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBKdAtUFeoQ

Complete presentation

https://youtu.be/5V3s94cKCRY

 

[Steve Pace]

The B-2 (ATB) took forever to come to fruition - about 2B a pop. NG made a fortune and is making Boo Coo more $ on modernizations. Whomever wins the LRSB program best bring a reasonable price tag to the table. -SP

 

[fredymac]

Northrop average profit margin: 5-8% (before 35% corporate income tax)

Google average profit margin: 25%

I wonder how much a Ford F-150 would cost if they only made 20 of them?

 

[Sundog]

Northrop average profit margin: 5-8% (before 35% corporate income tax)

Google average profit margin: 25%

I wonder how much a Ford F-150 would cost if they only made 20 of them?

Is that their corporate tax rate after all of the their deductions? I suspect not.


Though the fact that they ended up only building a few does dramatically skew their cost.

 

[sferrin]

Northrop average profit margin: 5-8% (before 35% corporate income tax)

Google average profit margin: 25%

I wonder how much a Ford F-150 would cost if they only made 20 of them?

Shhhh, you're going to blow some flux capacitors with talk like that.

 

[sferrin]

Northrop average profit margin: 5-8% (before 35% corporate income tax)

Google average profit margin: 25%

I wonder how much a Ford F-150 would cost if they only made 20 of them?

Is that their corporate tax rate after all of the their deductions? I suspect not.

You think Google doesn't get them too?

 

[marauder2048]

B-2 remains, carrying MOP. And if you need a CMCA it's not hard to do in the 2030s.

If the KC-46 is any indicator, I wouldn't think that's a slam dunk. Converting a 777X to a CMCA would be a lot more involved than slapping a boom on the back and installing more fuel tanks.

Given how unmistakable the takeoff, climb and cruise profile of commercial narrowbodies and widebodies is to OTH radars, the advisability
of putting a bunch of very expensive cruise missiles on such a platform (in an age of long range interceptors with VLR AWACS killing AAMs or IRBM-class SAMs) is essentially nil.

 

[Ian33]

A while back I found an online journal written by a defence type that explained in great detail just how OTH RADAR can easily in a lead up to war be defeated. He then went into great details of how it was hidden inside the 'chemtrail' palava. The German Government refused to remove it for a while, then relented - but only after much protestations from.the Americans.

Very amusing that it's hidden inside such a confabulation.

 

[AeroFranz]

B-2 remains, carrying MOP. And if you need a CMCA it's not hard to do in the 2030s.

If the KC-46 is any indicator, I wouldn't think that's a slam dunk. Converting a 777X to a CMCA would be a lot more involved than slapping a boom on the back and installing more fuel tanks.

Given how unmistakable the takeoff, climb and cruise profile of commercial narrowbodies and widebodies is to OTH radars, the advisability
of putting a bunch of very expensive cruise missiles on such a platform (in an age of long range interceptors with VLR AWACS killing AAMs or IRBM-class SAMs) is essentially nil.

I don't think it's particularly hard to design a cruise missile with more range than a defensive SAM system. Take the S-400. What's the quoted range, ~400 km? that's 216 nmi. A CALCM does that today and some. The problem might be making sure it's not shot down on the way there, but that's not the problem of the standoff platform.
You are mentioning other long-range defensive systems that could theoretically reach that far. But the IRBM-AAM is science-fiction at this point. Regarding the long-range interceptors, a high value asset like a cruise missile carrier would have the same protection as an AWACS, and one thousand nautical miles (minus AAM range) is a long way from home for an interceptor to fly both ways. My .02.

 

[marauder2048]

B-2 remains, carrying MOP. And if you need a CMCA it's not hard to do in the 2030s.

If the KC-46 is any indicator, I wouldn't think that's a slam dunk. Converting a 777X to a CMCA would be a lot more involved than slapping a boom on the back and installing more fuel tanks.

Given how unmistakable the takeoff, climb and cruise profile of commercial narrowbodies and widebodies is to OTH radars, the advisability
of putting a bunch of very expensive cruise missiles on such a platform (in an age of long range interceptors with VLR AWACS killing AAMs or IRBM-class SAMs) is essentially nil.

I don't think it's particularly hard to design a cruise missile with more range than a defensive SAM system. Take the S-400. What's the quoted range, ~400 km? that's 216 nmi. A CALCM does that today and some. The problem might be making sure it's not shot down on the way there, but that's not the problem of the standoff platform.
You are mentioning other long-range defensive systems that could theoretically reach that far. But the IRBM-AAM is science-fiction at this point. Regarding the long-range interceptors, a high value asset like a cruise missile carrier would have the same protection as an AWACS, and one thousand nautical miles (minus AAM range) is a long way from home for an interceptor to fly both ways. My .02.

With land-based assets, The Russians are limited in SAM range (assuming a ballistic trajectory) by the INF treaty.
The Chinese are not. And while we might be reluctant to launch non-nuclear long range ballistic missiles, they won't be.

"But the IRBM-AAM is science-fiction at this point."

I specified an IRBM-SAM which is hardly science fiction; SWERVE/BIM/LORAINE demonstrated all of the requisite technologies in the late 80's. The latter was to be cued by ROTHR (and a long range, high endurance UAV) against the long-range "Kent" cruise missile carrying Soviet bombers.
It's really not so different from the kill-chain (and terminally guided MaRV tech) that enables an IRBM ASBM.

"one thousand nautical miles (minus AAM range) is a long way from home for an interceptor to fly both ways. My .02."

Well, Colonel-Comrade Wu, we'll have submarines on station to pick you up. Surely you see the great advantage to China in exchanging your
$100 million interceptor for their $500 million 777X cruise missile carrier.

 

[marauder2048]

A while back I found an online journal written by a defence type that explained in great detail just how OTH RADAR can easily in a lead up to war be defeated. He then went into great details of how it was hidden inside the 'chemtrail' palava. The German Government refused to remove it for a while, then relented - but only after much protestations from.the Americans.

Very amusing that it's hidden inside such a confabulation.

That's interesting. Do you have a title or a pointer to the article? I'm sure we'd all like to read it. I know that the ionosphere can only reliably accommodate up to ~ 100 KHz in HF bandwidth but I suspect some of these higher frequency ground based radars are intended to induce additional
electron flux to permit more consistent OTH performance.

 

[bobbymike]

B-2 remains, carrying MOP. And if you need a CMCA it's not hard to do in the 2030s.

If the KC-46 is any indicator, I wouldn't think that's a slam dunk. Converting a 777X to a CMCA would be a lot more involved than slapping a boom on the back and installing more fuel tanks.

Given how unmistakable the takeoff, climb and cruise profile of commercial narrowbodies and widebodies is to OTH radars, the advisability
of putting a bunch of very expensive cruise missiles on such a platform (in an age of long range interceptors with VLR AWACS killing AAMs or IRBM-class SAMs) is essentially nil.

I don't think it's particularly hard to design a cruise missile with more range than a defensive SAM system. Take the S-400. What's the quoted range, ~400 km? that's 216 nmi. A CALCM does that today and some. The problem might be making sure it's not shot down on the way there, but that's not the problem of the standoff platform.
You are mentioning other long-range defensive systems that could theoretically reach that far. But the IRBM-AAM is science-fiction at this point. Regarding the long-range interceptors, a high value asset like a cruise missile carrier would have the same protection as an AWACS, and one thousand nautical miles (minus AAM range) is a long way from home for an interceptor to fly both ways. My .02.

With land-based assets, The Russians are limited in SAM range (assuming a ballistic trajectory) by the INF treaty.
The Chinese are not. And while we might be reluctant to launch non-nuclear long range ballistic missiles, they won't be.

"But the IRBM-AAM is science-fiction at this point."

I specified an IRBM-SAM which is hardly science fiction; SWERVE/BIM/LORAINE demonstrated all of the requisite technologies in the late 80's. The latter was to be cued by ROTHR (and a long range, high endurance UAV) against the long-range "Kent" cruise missile carrying Soviet bombers.
It's really not so different from the kill-chain (and terminally guided MaRV tech) that enables an IRBM ASBM.

"one thousand nautical miles (minus AAM range) is a long way from home for an interceptor to fly both ways. My .02."

Well, Colonel-Comrade Wu, we'll have submarines on station to pick you up. Surely you see the great advantage to China in exchanging your
$100 million interceptor for their $500 million 777X cruise missile carrier.

It is my strong (and speculative) personal opinion next generation aircraft, especially the NGB will be, of course, VLO AND have defensive DEW.

If they are built to be able to bomb the most highly defended targets on earth at $550 million a copy in 2010 dollars so over $1 billion each by the time they are built you really cannot afford to lose too many IF any.

 

[AeroFranz]

With land-based assets, The Russians are limited in SAM range (assuming a ballistic trajectory) by the INF treaty.
The Chinese are not. And while we might be reluctant to launch non-nuclear long range ballistic missiles, they won't be.

"But the IRBM-AAM is science-fiction at this point."

I specified an IRBM-SAM which is hardly science fiction; SWERVE/BIM/LORAINE demonstrated all of the requisite technologies in the late 80's. The latter was to be cued by ROTHR (and a long range, high endurance UAV) against the long-range "Kent" cruise missile carrying Soviet bombers.
It's really not so different from the kill-chain (and terminally guided MaRV tech) that enables an IRBM ASBM.

"one thousand nautical miles (minus AAM range) is a long way from home for an interceptor to fly both ways. My .02."

Well, Colonel-Comrade Wu, we'll have submarines on station to pick you up. Surely you see the great advantage to China in exchanging your
$100 million interceptor for their $500 million 777X cruise missile carrier.

Sorry; of course i meant IRBM-SAM. I hadn't heard of the systems you described and I will definitely look those up. I am totally unaware of the problems associated with their employment. I can only assume that it's mostly guidance related.
I think that comrade Wu would pour the entire contents of his coffee mug in the avionics bay during his preflight, if he was given that mission. "Ooops. That's ok, i'll sit this one out, guys. Tell me how it went. Or not."

 

[sferrin]

B-2 remains, carrying MOP. And if you need a CMCA it's not hard to do in the 2030s.

If the KC-46 is any indicator, I wouldn't think that's a slam dunk. Converting a 777X to a CMCA would be a lot more involved than slapping a boom on the back and installing more fuel tanks.

Given how unmistakable the takeoff, climb and cruise profile of commercial narrowbodies and widebodies is to OTH radars, the advisability
of putting a bunch of very expensive cruise missiles on such a platform (in an age of long range interceptors with VLR AWACS killing AAMs or IRBM-class SAMs) is essentially nil.

I don't think it's particularly hard to design a cruise missile with more range than a defensive SAM system. Take the S-400. What's the quoted range, ~400 km? that's 216 nmi. A CALCM does that today and some. The problem might be making sure it's not shot down on the way there, but that's not the problem of the standoff platform.
You are mentioning other long-range defensive systems that could theoretically reach that far. But the IRBM-AAM is science-fiction at this point. Regarding the long-range interceptors, a high value asset like a cruise missile carrier would have the same protection as an AWACS, and one thousand nautical miles (minus AAM range) is a long way from home for an interceptor to fly both ways. My .02.

With land-based assets, The Russians are limited in SAM range (assuming a ballistic trajectory) by the INF treaty.
The Chinese are not. And while we might be reluctant to launch non-nuclear long range ballistic missiles, they won't be.

"But the IRBM-AAM is science-fiction at this point."

I specified an IRBM-SAM which is hardly science fiction; SWERVE/BIM/LORAINE demonstrated all of the requisite technologies in the late 80's. The latter was to be cued by ROTHR (and a long range, high endurance UAV) against the long-range "Kent" cruise missile carrying Soviet bombers.
It's really not so different from the kill-chain (and terminally guided MaRV tech) that enables an IRBM ASBM.

"one thousand nautical miles (minus AAM range) is a long way from home for an interceptor to fly both ways. My .02."

Well, Colonel-Comrade Wu, we'll have submarines on station to pick you up. Surely you see the great advantage to China in exchanging your
$100 million interceptor for their $500 million 777X cruise missile carrier.

When China can come up with a 1000-mile range SAM for less than the cost of an AGM-86 let me know. (And don't forget the HUGE support structure required to actually use the thing.) I seem to recall work using X-ray lasers to shoot down RVs. Practice turned out to be much more difficult than theory.

 

[marauder2048]

When China can come up with a 1000-mile range SAM for less than the cost of an AGM-86 let me know. (And don't forget the HUGE support structure required to actually use the thing.) I seem to recall work using X-ray lasers to shoot down RVs. Practice turned out to be much more difficult than theory.

I would think that like BIM/LORAINE, the target would be the archer (the CMCA) not the arrows. As to support infrastructure,
the general utility of a terminally guided conventional MaRV mounted on an IRBM would be high and would probably be able to exploit the infrastructure they have in place or are developing to support the ASBM effort.

Sure, on a per-unit basis it would be expensive but worth it to take out a month's worth of LRSO production and its carrier aircraft.

 

[marauder2048]

It is my strong (and speculative) personal opinion next generation aircraft, especially the NGB will be, of course, VLO AND have defensive DEW.

If they are built to be able to bomb the most highly defended targets on earth at $550 million a copy in 2010 dollars so over $1 billion each by the time they are built you really cannot afford to lose too many IF any.

I'm much less concerned about LRS-B's survival against the threat type I outlined above. Some of the notional designs for NGB/LRSB have forward bays for self-protection missiles; some of the CUDA/SACM stuff they've been working on would probably have utility against the threat I described above. And you mention defensive DEW.

It's more the large CMCA that have limited SA, limited signature reduction, limited self-protection that I would be concerned about in that threat
environment. The point being that if you want a survivable CMCA in that timeframe, LRS-B is probably your best bet.

 

[flateric]

LRS-B RFP has no self-defense AAMs in the list

 

[marauder2048]

LRS-B RFP has no self-defense AAMs in the list

And where can we read the LRS-B RFP?

In any event, per the AFRL:

"Air Dominance Capability Concepts area will focus on developing technologies that could enable a self-defense capability for friendly aircraft. A comparatively small, extremely agile missile system is envisioned that could be part of a "last-ditch" defensive suite providing large, slow-maneuvering aircraft such as long-range strike bombers."

Lockheed, Boeing and Northrop were all (very recently) awarded contracts as part of this effort under the Miniature Self Defense Munition
initiative. Make of it what you will.

 

[sferrin]

When China can come up with a 1000-mile range SAM for less than the cost of an AGM-86 let me know. (And don't forget the HUGE support structure required to actually use the thing.) I seem to recall work using X-ray lasers to shoot down RVs. Practice turned out to be much more difficult than theory.

I would think that like BIM/LORAINE, the target would be the archer (the CMCA) not the arrows.

And to do that you have to shoot the archer before it gets close enough to launch it's arrows. BTW AGM-129 had a range closer to 2000+ miles so, as you can see, it's not difficult to extend the range of cruise missiles relatively easily.

As to support infrastructure,
the general utility of a terminally guided conventional MaRV mounted on an IRBM would be high and would probably be able to exploit the infrastructure they have in place or are developing to support the ASBM effort.

Shooting down an airplane with a MARV would be an order of magnitude more difficult than hitting a ship, simply because it can cover so much more distance in the time it takes the IRBM to reach it.

Sure, on a per-unit basis it would be expensive but worth it to take out a month's worth of LRSO production and its carrier aircraft.

It's not as simple as buying one-for-one.

 

[bobbymike]

When China can come up with a 1000-mile range SAM for less than the cost of an AGM-86 let me know. (And don't forget the HUGE support structure required to actually use the thing.) I seem to recall work using X-ray lasers to shoot down RVs. Practice turned out to be much more difficult than theory.

I would think that like BIM/LORAINE, the target would be the archer (the CMCA) not the arrows.

And to do that you have to shoot the archer before it gets close enough to launch it's arrows. BTW AGM-129 had a range closer to 2000+ miles so, as you can see, it's not difficult to extend the range of cruise missiles relatively easily.

As to support infrastructure,
the general utility of a terminally guided conventional MaRV mounted on an IRBM would be high and would probably be able to exploit the infrastructure they have in place or are developing to support the ASBM effort.

Shooting down an airplane with a MARV would be an order of magnitude more difficult than hitting a ship, simply because it can cover so much more distance in the time it takes the IRBM to reach it.

Sure, on a per-unit basis it would be expensive but worth it to take out a month's worth of LRSO production and its carrier aircraft.

It's not as simple as buying one-for-one.

In my amateur analysis - please feel free to say where I err - I don't see how a long range SAM IRBM could possible work because the target basket the aircraft could be thousands of cubic miles.

For this weapon to be effective you have to launch them as the CWC flew into it's range (let's assume 15 minute flight time) because of the booster size the US could detect these launchers as soon as they happened and the planes could simply turn around and fly out of range or scatter.

So at say 500 mph not only could the aircraft be 125 miles away (in 15 minutes) IN ANY direction but it could be at 30k ft. or 5k feet (or less) altitude. That equates to box with a total possible width of 250 miles, a length of 250 miles and a height of approx. 5 miles or 312,000 cubic miles/aircraft.

 

[bring_it_on]

Phasing the T-X, the Bomber, and the Rest

The factory for the Long-Range Strike Bomber won't be facilitized to build all 80-100 in a hurry, but at the most efficient rate, given predicted learning curves, "and stick to it," LaPlante said. The bomber will likely be built "over five to 10 years, so ... you could do the math, it's probably in the ballpark of 10-12-14 a year ... But that's the idea. It's not to start and stop or do an early spike, it's actually to do the most efficient learning."

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2015/July%202015/July%2013%202015/Phasing-the-T-X,-the-Bomber,-and-the-Rest.aspx

 

[sferrin]

Phasing the T-X, the Bomber, and the Rest

The factory for the Long-Range Strike Bomber won't be facilitized to build all 80-100 in a hurry, but at the most efficient rate, given predicted learning curves, "and stick to it," LaPlante said. The bomber will likely be built "over five to 10 years, so ... you could do the math, it's probably in the ballpark of 10-12-14 a year ... But that's the idea. It's not to start and stop or do an early spike, it's actually to do the most efficient learning."

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2015/July%202015/July%2013%202015/Phasing-the-T-X,-the-Bomber,-and-the-Rest.aspx

That's how they did the B-1B. 100 bombers produced in about 4 years. I remember seeing a picture of the check out facility with 4 B-1Bs parked inside it at once.

 

[LowObservable]

The plan for the B-2 was to peak at 32 per year. How'd that work out?

 

[bobbymike]

Reason for award delay?

Protest-Proofing the LRS-B

—John A. Tirpak

7/14/2015

​The only way to prevent a successful protest of the Long-Range Strike Bomber contract award is to execute it exactly as planned, Air Force acquisition chief William LaPlante told Air Force Magazine. LaPlante said the lesson learned from the KC-X debacle—which resulted in a years-long competition being thrown out and re-run, with different results—is to "do what you say you're going to do. If you say how you're going to evaluate, that it's clear and unambiguous, and then you evaluate it … in a credible and substantive way, that you followed exactly the process you said you'd follow," then a protest likely won't succeed. LaPlante said he recognizes that companies that don't win contracts "have every right" to protest—"there are a lot of hard-working people out there who legitimately are trying their best to help the nation's security and give us the best product"—but USAF has built a good track record of protests not being sustained. The figure is very small—out of 100,000-plus contracting actions last year, only 150 were protested, "and out of those … [only about] two … were sustained, if that much. So the success rate … is actually very, very low," and well below the federal government rate of about seven percent, said LaPlante. Still, he believes there has to be an appeals process, because "you never want to be cocky about it. We're humans, and we make mistakes."

 

[sferrin]

The plan for the B-2 was to peak at 32 per year. How'd that work out?

You can thank the "Peace Dividend" for that. It's obviously possible, as we'd done it only a few years prior with the B-1B. Where planes are being kept in service so much longer though I'm not sure I see the sense in it these days. Tough to buy spare parts or additional aircraft when the assembly line is gone. *cough* F-22 *cough*

 

[quellish]

In my amateur analysis - please feel free to say where I err - I don't see how a long range SAM IRBM could possible work because the target basket the aircraft could be thousands of cubic miles.

The system was designed for that, yes.

So at say 500 mph not only could the aircraft be 125 miles away (in 15 minutes) IN ANY direction but it could be at 30k ft. or 5k feet (or less) altitude. That equates to box with a total possible width of 250 miles, a length of 250 miles and a height of approx. 5 miles or 312,000 cubic miles/aircraft.

Something like that, yes. Again, the "IRBM-SAM" and "IRBM-AAM" of the early 80s was designed for this and flight tested the important components of the system - a gliding hypersonic vehicle, GPS-INS, range safety and course updates through plasma, etc. The terminal guidance system was flight tested but not on the hypersonic vehicle.

 

[sferrin]

In my amateur analysis - please feel free to say where I err - I don't see how a long range SAM IRBM could possible work because the target basket the aircraft could be thousands of cubic miles.

The system was designed for that, yes.

So at say 500 mph not only could the aircraft be 125 miles away (in 15 minutes) IN ANY direction but it could be at 30k ft. or 5k feet (or less) altitude. That equates to box with a total possible width of 250 miles, a length of 250 miles and a height of approx. 5 miles or 312,000 cubic miles/aircraft.

Something like that, yes. Again, the "IRBM-SAM" and "IRBM-AAM" of the early 80s was designed for this and flight tested the important components of the system - a gliding hypersonic vehicle, GPS-INS, range safety and course updates through plasma, etc. The terminal guidance system was flight tested but not on the hypersonic vehicle.

Any program names?

 

[marauder2048]

When China can come up with a 1000-mile range SAM for less than the cost of an AGM-86 let me know. (And don't forget the HUGE support structure required to actually use the thing.) I seem to recall work using X-ray lasers to shoot down RVs. Practice turned out to be much more difficult than theory.

I would think that like BIM/LORAINE, the target would be the archer (the CMCA) not the arrows.

And to do that you have to shoot the archer before it gets close enough to launch it's arrows. BTW AGM-129 had a range closer to 2000+ miles so, as you can see, it's not difficult to extend the range of cruise missiles relatively easily.

As to support infrastructure,
the general utility of a terminally guided conventional MaRV mounted on an IRBM would be high and would probably be able to exploit the infrastructure they have in place or are developing to support the ASBM effort.

Shooting down an airplane with a MARV would be an order of magnitude more difficult than hitting a ship, simply because it can cover so much more distance in the time it takes the IRBM to reach it.

Sure, on a per-unit basis it would be expensive but worth it to take out a month's worth of LRSO production and its carrier aircraft.

It's not as simple as buying one-for-one.

In my amateur analysis - please feel free to say where I err - I don't see how a long range SAM IRBM could possible work because the target basket the aircraft could be thousands of cubic miles.

For this weapon to be effective you have to launch them as the CWC flew into it's range (let's assume 15 minute flight time) because of the booster size the US could detect these launchers as soon as they happened and the planes could simply turn around and fly out of range or scatter.

So at say 500 mph not only could the aircraft be 125 miles away (in 15 minutes) IN ANY direction but it could be at 30k ft. or 5k feet (or less) altitude. That equates to box with a total possible width of 250 miles, a length of 250 miles and a height of approx. 5 miles or 312,000 cubic miles/aircraft.

I'm assuming an OTH radar cell size of 30 mi (W) x 10 mi (L) and a continuous track being fed to the MaRV. The OTH radar has a reasonable PRF to detect and track an evading militarized commercial widebody which has a max turn rate of say 6 degrees/second, max rate of descent of 8000 fpm and for argument's sake 8000 fpm max rate of climb.

Assuming strategic warning 1 minute after launch, that leaves 14 minutes for evasion. At 600 mph, the target is still confined to at most one OTH radar cell per minute. Given the altitude band you outlined, the terminal seeker needs to look at one OTH cell's worth of altitude or 1500 cubic miles
worth of airspace.

For a MaRV equipped with a conformal, multi-beam, electronically scanned array, that doesn't sound like an totally unreasonable volume to search. None of the range, cross-range extensions required to close with a target that didn't meet a constant bearing, constant speed intercept point seem unreasonable to me either. Plenty of technical challenges of course but tractable in the 2030 timeframe.