Tactical Bomber

Discuss air warfare, doctrine, air forces, historic campaigns, etc.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

PhillyGuy

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 637
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2006, 03:07

Unread post01 Jun 2017, 09:50

Looking at the two most dangerous areas of operation for any future US military conflict,
it becomes apparent how desperately the USAF needs another F-111 type aircraft in the fleet.

Something with the range and speed of the F-111 and a more diverse and larger internal payload.
The F-15F is too much of a fighter adapted in the strike role and in any case, not survivable enough to be really effective in the modern battlefield.

I'm thinking more along the lines of either a manned or unmanned BWB concpet stealth pocket strike bomber. FB-23 I call and envision her in my dreams.

Most of our forward deployed front line tactical aircraft are within pre-emtive striking range of China and Russia. Most of our strategic bombers are way further back either in the US or remote territories like Guam and Diego Garcia.

What's needed is an aircraft with the political and military footprint of a tactical asset, the range and firepower of a strategic one, and mobility/support of a fighter sized platform.

This aircraft could be based and forward deployed in that middle sweet spot. Not too close to be vulnerable to most of the enemy's strike weapons, not too far to be out of the fight until later, but close enough to get to the front line quickly and support our forward deployed positions AORs.

Again it would have to have the right combination of speed, survivability, range, payload and mobility.
Ideally an unmanned concept would be best, and it would not have to be too large or expensive.

What do you guys think?
"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post01 Jun 2017, 21:57

PhillyGuy wrote:This aircraft could be based and forward deployed in that middle sweet spot. Not too close to be vulnerable to most of the enemy's strike weapons


What is "too close to be vulnerable to most of the enemy's strike weapons"? Which weapons? How many do they have? Where do they have them? Can we defend against them through other means?

And even if, in some hypothetical scenario, 1 US airbase gets attacked by surprise, does the fate of the conflict hang in the balance of us retaliating instantly? Do we spend a few hundred billion dollars for a new program to get a strike aircraft to fit one particularly unlikely scenario?

Also, B-21.

Most of our forward deployed front line tactical aircraft are within pre-emtive striking range of China and Russia


They are?
Offline

wolfpak

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 121
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post02 Jun 2017, 22:21

Think you will see the PCA be defined as a multi-role aircraft similar to a tactical fighter bomber. Designed as an air-o-air fighter with a deep magazine and long range will give it the ability to carry air-to-ground ordnance in the same volume in lieu of a complete air to air load-out. It's only my thinking but conceptually it will be more of a F-4 or F-15E than a F-15C or F-22. If you could get an aircraft with the ability to 8000 lb. weapon load as an air to ground platform (at reduced G) or half that weight in air to air weapons at 9+ you would have a winner. The issue is can you make an Aircraft with the volume required have the legs and maneuverability you need? The 8000 lbs. would be comprised of a 2000 lb. combat laser system and 6000 lbs. of traditional ordnance over a combat radius of 800 miles. Deletion of the laser or a reduction in it's weight would improve performance but it would be prudent to include an allowance in the design for it.
Offline
User avatar

FlightDreamz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 799
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 17:18
  • Location: Long Island, New York

Unread post03 Jun 2017, 22:31

Sounds like the (canceled) A-12 Avenger II is what you're looking for. It would've replaced the Navy's A-6 Intruders and the U.S.A.F. F-111 Aardvarks
[YouTube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4Q249XB0dw[/YouTube]
Image
But I think U.S.A.F.'s B-1B Lancers, B-2 Spirits and the forthcoming B-21 Raider (as arian mentioned) have strike pretty well covered (and I don't believe that the F-15E Strike Eagle is as helpless as you do).
My :2c:
A fighter without a gun . . . is like an airplane without a wing.— Brigadier General Robin Olds, USAF.
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post04 Jun 2017, 21:07

FlightDreamz wrote:(and I don't believe that the F-15E Strike Eagle is as helpless as you do).


It's hard to see how it can be that both US airbases are in grave threat from very conventional weapons like enemy 4th gen fighters, and at the same time our own 4th gen fighters are helpless.

Return to Air Power

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mmm and 5 guests