Dominant Logistics
The Future Bomber Force
Many have asked what form the future bomber force should take. Some suggest expanding the B-2 Stealth Bomber fleet and perhaps developing a new B-2 that is less expensive and requires less maintenance. Others suggest using high-speed, high-altitude bombers that can effectively strike from long range. Still others propose using modified cargo aircraft to deploy massive conventional bombs. I am of the opinion that we should develop a variety of these concepts to maximize our overall capabilities. The problem with this is that supporting a force of this nature can be difficult and expensive. The following is an outline for how we can affordably and effectively field a very large, very diverse, and very effective bomber force to meet the needs of future conflicts as well as peace time operations.
Heavy Bomber - General Purpose
The backbone of any bomber force must be a simple, general purpose bomber. The best example of this is the existing B-52. It may be old and it isn't particularly pretty or sexy, but this is arguably one of the most effective weapon systems ever devised. It can carry a massive payload of just about anything to a great distance and deliver it effectively. Many take issue with the lack of survivability of the B-52 but any design is a compromise and a stealthy, highly survivable design means sacrificing payload and range. We need to have something that is low cost, high impact to meet the general purpose needs of the force.
Current plans call for keeping the B-52 operational for many more years. If we are serious about doing this, we need to completely rebuild these aircraft - not just overhaul them. A rebuild would entail stripping the aircraft down to the bare fuselage and replacing all components that CAN go bad, not just those that HAVE gone bad. This is a more expensive approach but it will also mean improved support and operations costs down the road. It is one thing to stretch the service of the B-52 out a few more years but some suggestions are calling for another 40 years of operations. Rebuilding would cost more initially but would give us greater benefits over the long term.
Another option would be to develop a general purpose bomber based on a modified Boeing 747. We could design a fuselage shaped similar to the existing B-1 that would sit on the wing structures and undercarriage of the current 747. This would allow for substantial weapons payload and range in a cost effective package.
Heavy Bomber - High Performance
While the general purpose bomber is the ideal platform for most bombing missions, there remains a need for a bomber that can engage in actions against an enemy immediately and independently instead of relying upon supporting assets or waiting for enemy air defenses to be taken out. In years gone by, the B-1 has filled this role with its ability to fly at high speeds below enemy radar. Currently, the B-2 is intended to fill this role using stealth however its effectiveness has not been complete.
Studies in the 1990s indicated that perhaps the best option for this role is the high-altitude, high-speed bomber. An aircraft of this design would fly higher than enemy air defenses can engage while traveling at high speeds to allow for timely actions over great distance. The design I propose would look something like a bomber version of the old SR-71 Blackbird.
The aircraft would feature a long fuselage and carry a payload similar to that of the current B-2. It would feature large delta wings in the rear with forward canards to improve manueverability. To minimize drag at speed, there would be no vertical stabilizers or outboard engines - thrust vectoring engines would be housed in the rear of the fuselage to provide stabilization control with minimal drag. The fuselage would feature a very sharp nose with no forward windows since we normally land by instruments or sensors anyway. This allows even more drag reduction as well as substantial radar cross section reduction. Ideally, we want a range of about 8000 miles at a normal cruising speed of Mach 2. We don't want to go too fast because we want to maximize fuel efficiency for range and we don't want the design to get too exotic and expensive.
The weapons bay would be something similar to the forward bays of the B-1 where we can configure the aircraft with two smaller bays or a single large bay. This would allow for conventional PGMs to be delivered in quantity using the two smaller bays while the single large bay would make the aircraft able to carry a new breed of heavy munitions. This aircraft would be equipped to carry a new family of 40,000 lb bombs available in a few different designs.
The penetrating bomb would feature a long, thick, hardened steel tube with a tungsten tip for penetrating hard targets. The tube could be filled with concrete to minimize collateral damage, fuel for pyrophoric effects, or conventional explosives. Guidance would come from a combination of infrared video as well as integrated GPS and inertial navigation to counter most jamming situations. This bomb will be dropped from very high altitudes so it should have a very impressive penetration capability.
The destroyer bomb would be much larger in size and would feature more explosive payload to maximize destructive effects. This would look like a larger version of the current Daisy Cutter or MOAB. It would be available as a fuel-air explosive device, a conventional explosive device, or filled with reinforced concrete. The last design would be used like the bombs used in WWII for attacking dams. These bombs were designed to skip along and slam into the dam at it's base. This design would be more intended to engage large facilities where the bomb enters one side of the facility, explodes and the debris and force are propelled through the facility by forward momentum - think of it as a meteor on a low trajectory.
Having this capability in a bomber that can be utilized at any time, in any location, would dramatically expand on the overall capabilities of the bomber force.
Heavy Bomber - Multi-Role
During the bomber studies of the 1990s, one of the most intriguing prospects was the idea of a bomber-transport. This concept would use an existing transport aircraft and modify it to carry a large quantity of cruise missiles. I would take this a step further and include an option to convert the same aircraft to a refueler as well. The launcher systems are palletized so this would simply involve using a different pallet. I've also outlined in another article that the C-17 could be used as a firefighting/chemical decontamination system by using a pallet for dropping massive quantities of water. We should use two designs to fill this role.
The first design would be based on the C-17. Most C-17s would remain as presently designed but to expand the fleet to meet future needs, this multi-role version of the C-17 could function as a bomber, a refueler, a firefighter/decon system, or as a transport. This would involve replacing the rear ramp with one modified to allow for the missile to be ejected through the ramp and to accomodate for a refueling boom. The remainder of the missions would be met by using the appropriate pallet in the cargo area for the mission desired. A bomber pallet would carry magazines of cruise missiles, a tanker pallet would use fuel pallets with pumps and tanks, while the decon pallet would feature long, angled water tanks and nozzles to allow for spraying the bulk liquids where needed. If additional transports are required, just remove the pallets and the aircraft is back to being a standard C-17 cargo aircraft.
The next design would be based upon the Boeing 747. This airframe features greater range and payload but requires greater support resources on the ground. To minimize the modifications necessary to use this airframe, we should limit its roles to cargo handler, bomber, and refueler.
Light Bomber - Multi-Role
The Light Bomber design should be based on the current AC-130 with a few modifications. A modern AC-130 would retain the current model's batteries of 30mm and 40mm cannons but the 105mm cannon should be removed in favor of a palletized system. The pallet system would incorporate a variety of weapon systems that could quickly and easily be incorporated in the AC-130. For example, newer technologies in laser and microwave weapons are now coming online but we have very limited ability to rapidly incorporate these systems. With a pallet system, it would require nothing more than building a pallet from which the new weapon would operate and swapping it into an existing aircraft. Ideally, the option should be included to have floor doors so that bomb pallets could also be used. Pallets could include:
With this approach, the aircraft would use side doors in the airframe to allow for removing and installing pallets very rapidly. This would also allow for weapons to be placed on either or both sides of the aircraft. This would also allow for the retention of the ability to use the very large 10,000lb bomb (the Daisy Cutter) or the new MOAB. Additionally, we could include a refueling pallet to allow the aircraft to refuel helicopters as does the current KC-130 used by the Marines. To limit the problems of backblast from rockets and missiles, we can use a soft launch system like that used on the Javelin anti-tank missile to get the missile out away from the aircraft before engaging the primary motor. We could also incorporate a blast deflector since the aircraft will have openings on both sides of the fuselage.
Bomber Force Structure
Currently, we claim a need for 170 long range heavy bombers but this is really a subjective figure as it is generally based upon previous wars and assumptions that may or may not occur in the future. This is why an effective, flexible force structure is so vital - we can't predict future events and designing and building a new heavy bomber requires a decade or more. We also have to account for technological changes like the increased use of cruise missiles which are much heavier and larger than conventional bombs. I feel an appropriate force structure would look something like the following:
80 Heavy Bomber - General Purpose
60 Heavy Bomber - High Performance80 Heavy Bomber - Multi-Role (based on the C-17)
60 Heavy Bomber - Multi-Role (based on the 747)280 Light Bomber - Multi-Role (based on the AC-130)
With this force we would maintain a dedicated fleet of 140 heavy bombers while an additional 140 aircraft would be available to augment that force or to augment our lift or refueling needs. Supplementing this fleet would be 280 bombers of shorter range and payload that could also be used for other purposes including direct fire support of forces on the ground. With this approach, we could bring a total of 560 bombers to bear against an enemy or use most of the aircraft to support other missions. In peace time, the bulk of the fleet could be shifted to other roles that are equally critical including support for humanitarian missions and homeland defense.
The High Performance Bomber would take over the bulk of the special missions of the heavy bomber fleet including all nuclear roles and the delivery of the 40,000lb family of bombs. This aircraft could also be used as a manned recon platform on the lines of the old SR-71. If we go with the suggestions of Carlton Meyer and go all the way to sub-atomic bombs (enormous conventional bombs with more powerful conventional explosives), the C-17 version of the Multi-Role Bomber will be available for weapon delivery.
References
http://www.g2mil.com/meteor.htm
http://www.g2mil.com/subatomicbombs.htm
http://www.g2mil.com/bm747.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/b-3.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ac-130.htm