SchorschA large bizjet could be an option, or the P-8A, which already has a weapons bay. I don’t know the exact reason for the above mentioned delays, but a lot of that is probably financing and mission system related.
“My” auxiliary COIN/CT bomber would be just a delivery system with a minimum of changes. And the idea of giving it a hose/drogue system and give the A-10 a receiver for that is that the A-10 could do close-in work with the gun, while the auxiliary bomber does stand-off JDAM/SDB/GBU-44/… work PLUS helps to keep the A-10 in a target area longer. For that a bizjet doesn’t have enough fuel to give away.
There ain’t something like “no changes”. Even the KC-767 contains plentiful of changes, a civil airliner is just not suitable for military operations. You cannot just drill a hole in the fuselage and call it a bomb bay. The different mission calls for complete re-certification.
A better option would be something that has civil routes and can take some technologies from that sector. The Global Express of Bombadier for example has good field performance, more speed, more ceiling (FL510) and it would be easier to cancel the fuselage entirely and instead install a fuel tank and bomb bay. After all, I would look at something like the A-6 with few updated features.
SchorschFrom that AFA article above:
Boeing. The director of global strike integration, Rich Parke, noted that his company had submitted six proposals. These included a Prompt Global Strike Missile using decommissioned ICBMs; an X-45D direct-attack unmanned combat air vehicle with increased range and payload; a blended wing body arsenal ship aircraft that could hold 96 cruise missiles; and a “B-1R” bomber. Parke said the B-1R (R stands for “regional”) would be a Lancer with advanced radars, air-to-air missiles, and F/A-22 engines. Its new top speed—Mach 2.2—would be purchased at the price of a 20 percent reduction of the B-1B’s combat range.
A top speed of M2.2 would call for a heat resisitant airframe.
M1.8 is totally sufficient.
SchorschI’d say for range -20% a M2.2 ingress/egress would be worth the upgrade costs. I wonder if that optimistic gentleman would use the varible inlets of the B-1A?
A Mach 2 capable medium weight bomber?
How about a nice shiny B-58?
Don’t call it outdated!
You have a hard time beating the J79 on supersonic performance.
The crew of three is just what you need. Maybe even cancel one. The systems can be reduced in size (the B-58 had a mechanical IRS and an analgue computer). Or you take the FB-111 out of the desert again. These are tested and proven systems. No multi-billion USD procurement.
Any why fly a around in huge fuel tanks when the USAF is willing to pay 40bln USD for tankers? You come away with a fraction of the cost if you size the aircraft to fly a 1000nm radius and let the rest to the tanker.
SchorschThe point about retiring the B-52H is that I think three strategic bomber types is a least one too many, too costly. B-2 is needed for the triade. And since the B-1 has more life in it (not only airframe, also taking mission capabilities into account) than the B-52 the choice might not be popular but obvious.
I doubt that the B-52 is cheaper to operate than an airliner. Have no numbers in that, though.
Cost to operate is interesting, but cost to procure matters more.
What makes the B-52 so expensive?
– 5 crew members
– offensive & defensive systems (though these are mostly post 1990)
– airframe
– engines (hurts most, but if you want you can develop replacements)
– fuel (that shouldn’t matter too much)
SchorschI disagree.
# No1 I think that what is going on currently is a waste of money, using modern supersonic jets for COIN/CT. Hence I agree with the auxiliary bomber concept for those missions w/o airborne or anti-air threat. Like the Luftwaffe used Ju52 in Spain, the USAF needs a B-767 for long-range/loitering stand-off CAS (doubling as AAR platform with hose/drogue for A-10, also doubling as com-relay). Such a B-767 could be fielded within three years.
Boeing is unable to deliver a B767-derived tanker, a B737-derived AWACS and a B737-derived sea control aircraft. All behind schedule, above schedule. A civil aircraft, especially a large one, is highly unsuitable for military operations if not a high number of compromises are made.
A much better platform would be a large business jet: better speed, you can cancel the pressurized fuselage and install a different fuselage. Still, time from proposal to service entry at least 5 years, if not longer.
# No2 the B-3 itself:
Mission description I would put as “Deep Strike against mobile, time-critical targets, doubling as ISR platform”,
resulting in rough specs like:
— supercruise with an unrefuelled combat radius of at least 2250nm
— the question of penetration altitude: Low only if do-able technically and pricewise
— payload 10 metric tons consisting of Skybolt/SRAM-types and enhanced free-falling types, not more than 8 effectors
— nuclear qualified
— manned (maybe back to four crew cockpit), but optionally unmanned
— for the ISR mission a kind of parasite UAV could be an option for increased coverage, also as decoy
Such an aircraft would be very expensive. Much more effective to use supersonic cruise missiles and use F-35 for the proposed mission.
SchorschKilling time in some less-than-inspiring conference (Hey! At least you get a free dinner!) I’m thinking about the limits of UAVs.
For example the new USN BAMS UAV will be a pretty complex thing with a new set of autonomous flight maneuvers.
And I was thinking that once you get the general flying part right, like a software library, you can apply it to any platform. Of course parameters will change, and the supersonic library is not really interesting for an infantry micro UAV. But the principle remains.
I think an important step would be to give the UAV a kind of 4D self-awareness during every part of the mission, including ground movement, and an awareness of its own need (like fuel – radioing for an AAR UAV) and vulnerability (evasive maneuvers when shot at, knowing that hitting the ocean will kill it). Multi-spectral spheric sensors, a rough “knowledge” of missions and environment, maybe some social behaviour patterns like software-ants.
But how far could automation/robotization go? BAMS will operate 24/7 with 3 vehicles. What if it could take-off/land autonomously, and you could do a MRO roboter unit that would refuel it and do routine maintenance jobs, being networked with the logistics base to call for spares (wich are delivered by autonomous cargo units, of course).
Not really Skynet-, more like HAL-capability, no real AI, but a very advanced expert system. Lost one? No problem – ask the bookkeeping software-agent at Congress for money, he says yes, hikes up the takes 0.1%, next year the factory will build one more XYZ, or send it over as replacement.
How far can such a scenario realisticly go? Homo Sapiens Sapiens units only as supervisors and for extraordinary events?
And I was also thinking of the influence a complete “fly.dll” could have on commercial operations. A single pilot cockpit, to make the pax feel good?
Thousands of very knowledgeable people have worked on one of the most complex programs existing (Windows), still it is anything but bug-free. It runs perfectly in the Microsoft lab, but the enemies (=users, programs) always find a weak spot and it crashes. You cannot plan ahead for things you don’t know. If you try to program some “intelligence” into the system you will see that even basic intelligence is something beyond the capability of a computer.
I think UAVs are useful systems for a lot of missions, but this “our next grass mower will be inhabited” is kind of a hype. People said similar things in the 1980s.
SchorschI’m a little confused as to the single seat Su-27 vs the two seat Su-27UB fuel and ranges.
Janes has the Su-27 as:
11775 L fuel
3680 km rangeThe Su-27UB has “1,500 kg increase in empty weight, no reduction in internal fuel capacity.”
3000 km rangeBrasseys has the Su-27:
Up to 12000 L fuel in 5 tanks (2 in wing centre section, 2 outer wings, 1 tail boom).
3720 km clean
2800 km with 10 AAM (1090 km radius at high altitude)Su-27UB
3000 km cleanSukhopi site: http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su27sk/lth/
Su-27SK range
3530 km with 2 R-27R, 2 R-73
9400 kg fuel of which 5270 kg might be standard.Su-27UBK: http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su27ubk/lth/
3000 km with 2 R-27R, 2 R-73 (530 km difference)
Fuel looks the sameDoes anyone have official figures for the Su-27UB fuel and an explanation of the range decrease, possibly:
1) Higher drag of the two seat cockpit and the 1500 kg weight?
2) There is a decrease in Su-27UB internal fuel? Looking at images it does look like the second seat eats into fuselage space, so I could believe this.
3) Anything else – CoG with the Su-27UB?Any ideas on the individual fuel tank capacities and the order in which fuel is used from the tanks?
Janes has 6600 of the 11775 litres being normal operational fuel load. “Higher figure represents internal auxiliary tank for missions in which maneuverability not important”
Brasseys has 9400 kg of which 6000 kg is normal and the remaining 3400kg is an ‘internal auxiliary tank’.
So for short range missions the aircraft would only be fuelled with 6600 L. What are the agility restrictions with full internal fuel? Which tank is the internal auxiliary – fuselage, tailboom or wings?
For long range missions are there any restrictions with the internal auxiliary fuel tank. Is this tank used first?
I would compare the fuel fractions in this case.
The normal Flanker has clean (no payload) 16.7t (EW+350kg) OEW + 9.4t fuel an TOW of 26.1t, yielding a fuel fraction of .36.
The UB has 1.5t more, resulting in a fuel fraction of .34.
If we divide fuel fraction by range we got:
Su-27: 9.8E-5
Su-27UB: 11.3E-5
Ideally, both values should be the same (they express: relative fuel weight needed per km). A higher value indicates more drag, less efficient engines. The higher average weight will additionally increase drag. After all, the numbers look realistic.
SchorschCapabilities planned for US UCAVs are far beyond being a reusable cruise missile. Members of the UCAV swarm will be equipped with AESAs with AMTI and SAR modes that allow them to detect, identify (using NCTR techniques) and target moving vehicles. Some will use foliage penetrating radar modes for targeting objects hidden in trees. Others members of the swarm will have EO/IR for detecting and targeting poorly camouflaged objects. Others may only carry weapons. All will share situational awareness data with other members of the swarm and any other weapon system on the net. The swarm will also receive real-time situational awareness/target updates from off-board sensor systems and potential re-tasking commands through the net.
Currently UAVs are unable to see a truck parked on a landing strip. If they are told to land at coordinate N32.961 E9.2742, they gonna do it, even if I park a pink school bus on the runway. Before they evade somebody has to develop a subsystem that identifies pink school buses and makes evasive maneuvers.
Seriously, before a computer system achieves the flexibility of a human there are decades to come. It is rather questionable to invest billions into systems that may rule a battlefield that is ruled by USAF anyways in the years to come, while the majority of US soldiers still dies of IEDs and 200USD a piece AK-47s. “Yeah, but we saved the pilot’s life … “
The abilities you talk about are possibly achievable with today’s technology, but even involved programmers underestimate the time needed to make a working and reliable system out of it (I underestimate the time needed to debug my programs regularly by a fair margin, so does Microsoft and Lockheed Martin). Finally, when real life funding beyond the DARPA game money is needed, it will fail to attract the responsible people.
SchorschSome posters believe UAVs are nothing more than RC-controlled airplanes relying on some slack-jawed goober with a joystick to command it’s every move. Nothing could be further from reality than that belief.
The UAVs in development today are autonomous. A flight plan is programmed before takeoff (with waypoints and free-fire zones) and they fly it without the need of further instruction. If the UAV encounters an adversary, it will act in accordance within it’s pre-programmed level of autonomy. The UAV will detect, identify, target (sometimes passing target data to other UAVs in the swarm), plan an attack, execute the attack (if allowed under the ROE, or ask “Mother, may I?” if required) and assess the effectiveness of the attack.
If you remember the Terminator movies of the 1980s, this is pretty much the way the drones acted when trying to exterminate the humans.
The flexibility of a human operator in the loop with all his emotions and motivation cannot be replaced by a computer.
In the end, a UCAV is designed to drop a bomb on a previously known or pre-assigned target.
Schorschmanned A/C will be dead soon….then its all UAVs.
For many reasons this ain’t gonna happen. A UCAV can fight the mission people thought of when it was designed, but it may fail in disaster when parameters change. You opponent will do all to trick your UCAVs. Relying on UCAVs is like blindfolding your air force.
And honestly: is loss rate of pilots so bad that we have to keep them out of combat?
SchorschThe problem is with daily technology that the financial incentive is sometimes not so great. And it is politics: people don’t like to pay more for mobility, and people may vote different if someone taxes their gas. In Western societies a very delicate issue.
SchorschThe problem is with daily technology that the financial incentive is sometimes not so great. And it is politics: people don’t like to pay more for mobility, and people may vote different if someone taxes their gas. In Western societies a very delicate issue.
SchorschSo, by weight liquid hydrogen has more energy than kerosene. But it volume it has not. Additionally, to be “liquid hydrogen” technically challenging tanks must be provided, while kerosene stays liquid at normal to cruise altitude air pressure and according temperatures.
The question is further: where do we get the hydrogen from? Hydrogen must be produced, by either conventional/nuclear/alternative energy. The last one drops out, we have hardly enough alternative sources to cover 5% of our electric consumption, increase to 20% will take at least 10 years if possible at all. Conventional/nuclear would call for massive investments into capacity, and only nuclear energy is CO2-free.
A hydrogen aircraft will need more energy, although this energy might be “clean”. As hydrogen production also causes losses, the overall efficiency of air travel will drop dramatically. As all studies imply, a hydrogen solution doubles the amount of primary energy needed. A hydrogen aircraft must look completely different with more volume suitable for circular tanks.
Actually, the ideas about coal-based fuel are equally bullock. You double the energy and CO2 consumed by that.
The only actual way would be to replace oil as primary energy source of cars, trains and heating by energy sources like nuclear energy, biofuels, bio-material (= wood) or simply by deleting the demand (reduction of primary energy for heating in a magnitude of ~30% is possible with affordable conventional technologies). I think the problem will finally solve itself: when oil in 15 years is at 200USD (consider 2007 prices), it will still be affordable for air travel but not to drive the 2.2t VW Tuareg to the next supermarket.
In conclusion: oil is wasted today on a still staggering amount, so that it seems dubious why civil commercial aviation should be concerned about its efficiency, which has reduced its fuel burn per seatmile about 50-70% since mid 60ies, and does continue on a rate of 5-10% per decade.
SchorschSo, by weight liquid hydrogen has more energy than kerosene. But it volume it has not. Additionally, to be “liquid hydrogen” technically challenging tanks must be provided, while kerosene stays liquid at normal to cruise altitude air pressure and according temperatures.
The question is further: where do we get the hydrogen from? Hydrogen must be produced, by either conventional/nuclear/alternative energy. The last one drops out, we have hardly enough alternative sources to cover 5% of our electric consumption, increase to 20% will take at least 10 years if possible at all. Conventional/nuclear would call for massive investments into capacity, and only nuclear energy is CO2-free.
A hydrogen aircraft will need more energy, although this energy might be “clean”. As hydrogen production also causes losses, the overall efficiency of air travel will drop dramatically. As all studies imply, a hydrogen solution doubles the amount of primary energy needed. A hydrogen aircraft must look completely different with more volume suitable for circular tanks.
Actually, the ideas about coal-based fuel are equally bullock. You double the energy and CO2 consumed by that.
The only actual way would be to replace oil as primary energy source of cars, trains and heating by energy sources like nuclear energy, biofuels, bio-material (= wood) or simply by deleting the demand (reduction of primary energy for heating in a magnitude of ~30% is possible with affordable conventional technologies). I think the problem will finally solve itself: when oil in 15 years is at 200USD (consider 2007 prices), it will still be affordable for air travel but not to drive the 2.2t VW Tuareg to the next supermarket.
In conclusion: oil is wasted today on a still staggering amount, so that it seems dubious why civil commercial aviation should be concerned about its efficiency, which has reduced its fuel burn per seatmile about 50-70% since mid 60ies, and does continue on a rate of 5-10% per decade.
SchorschI’ve seen a prototype which was fed water in a typically sized fuel tank. The engine did the rest.
10 years ago it occupied a 1 foot high space beneath the passenger compartment. And extended most the length of the vehicle between the axles. In all, it was not that much different from the space taken my a conventional cumbustion engine, just flattened out and placed in what would normaly be dead space.
What shows again that space and weight are much less of concern in a car. Most cars drive distances below 50km a day with an average occupation of below 2 pax/car. Any hydrogen/biofuel application is best used in cars.
Sign In
