The next deep strike platform for the USAF will probably be a UCAV development, but politics will definitely play a role (as usual) and a manned aircraft may be preferred for various reasons.
—–
US Air Force sets sights on interim bomber fleet
Flight International
11-May-2004
The US Air Force has invited industry to propose ideas for a new bomber force that will be capable of striking more of the most difficult targets and be delivered two decades before a next-generation aircraft arrives in 2037.
A tailless, larger version of the Lockheed Martin/Boeing F/A-22 Raptor – dubbed the F/B-22 – is a leading contender, but competing concepts also are being developed by Boeing and Northrop Grumman. The X-45C unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV)is expected to be the focus of Boeing’s proposal, which could set up one of the first competitions between a manned an unmanned platform. Northrop Grumman plans to offer a range of options that borrow from the company’s work on quiet supersonic technology, the B-2A stealth bomber and the X-47B UCAV.
The companies have 30 days to respond to a request for information posted on 29 April. The invitation, which is open only to US companies, was released by the capability planning division at the Aeronautical Systems Center, which manages the air force’s fighter and bomber programmes.
The request could pave the way to a development effort beginning in 2006, followed by initial operational capability in 2015, with all deliveries to be completed by 2020. This scheduling approach is intended to serve as a bridge between the existing bomber force, which includes 21 B-2As, about 60 Rockwell B-1Bs and about 90 Boeing B-52Hs, and a next-generation long-range strike platform planned for 2037. The interim capability would not be used as a replacement, but would supplement the existing fleet with new upgrades.
The goal is to be able to operate at “extended distances” with a flexible payload, including nuclear and conventional munitions, and be able to strike hardened and deeply buried targets. A new or modified bomber aircraft is considered the most likely option, but the air force is open to other ideas.
Marvin Sambur, assistant secretary to the air force for acquisition, says the F/B-22 is one of the options the air force wants to review.
Responses to the request for information are required to include “the magnitude of resources necessary to field this capability in 2015”, the USAF says. “Desired attributes are responsiveness, persistence, survivability (including lethal self-protection), lethality, connectivity and affordability.”
STEPHEN TRIMBLE / WASHINGTON DC
——-
[1st Published in Popular Science]
A proposal to transform the F-22 Raptor into a high-altitude, first-strike bomber illustrates a harsh reality: The U.S. bombing fleet is ill-prepared to fight wars in regions that are short on friendly nations willing to lend air bases.
by Bill Sweetman
FB-22 FIGHTER BOMBER 
Illustration by John MacNeill
Range: 2,200 miles
Weight: 42.5 tons
Top speed: Mach 1.8
Deployment: 2015 (est.)
A. Delta wing
The longer, thicker delta wing would enable the FB-22 to carry up to 80 percent more fuel than the F-22, giving it a correspondingly greater range. The larger profile would also help the FB-22 lift its added weight at lower speeds.
B. Inlets
A bulge in the air inlets—a stealthy design detail borrowed from the Joint Strike Fighter—would divert turbulent air away from the engines.
C. Weapons
Main weapons bay, stretched by 12 feet, would hold 24 Small Diameter Bombs; each side bay would hold an AMRAAM for self-defense against other planes. D. Engines
Two new engines—either GE’s F136 or Pratt & Whitney’s F135, both of which were designed for the Joint Strike Fighter. E. Body
Fuselage would be lengthened by 10 feet.
USAg, i reported that last remark of yours. Way out of line.
Sorry….I apologize to all it may have offended….with the exception of who the reply was specifically directed to.
BTW, nobody likes a ‘taddle-tale’ Arthur…and I’m sure that had the remark been directed at me…(or America)…you would have laughed and encouraged the poster instead of reporting it.
Is anyone thinking this MMA-deal is a reward from the US government for Boeing doing some in-house cleaning? Quite a few high heads rolled at Renton since the KC-767 sham, could this deal be interpreted that Boeing is now considered ‘clean’ again?
No…Boeing won this one based on merit I believe. As far as the KC-767 deal is concerned, the USAF is still going to go with Boeing (if politicians don’t quash the entire program and make them start over), its just that they are using the controversy to negotiate a better deal.
If the PAF wants a new fighter they should ask the US about acquiring some of these aircraft…
…we have plenty of them sitting in storage, will offer them cheap and they are far more advanced than anything you’ll find in the current PAF inventory.
😀
Sign In
