Long Range Strike Capability

[fylr71]

Currently the US is the only country capable of attacking a target out of the range of carrier based planes. Russia although possessing about 15 operable TU-160 may or may not be able to support them and send them out at a moments notice. The EU if it wants to hit targets out of range of carrier based planes and airbases will need a "EUROBOMBER" in order to fulfill this. China will too if it wants to become a superpower. As was seen in Afganistan where the US was denied the use of airbases in Turkey, the B-52s, B-1Bs and B-2s were perfect for the job. They had the range as well as a significant payload. Long strike capability is not going anywhere either. The US already has the FALCON program underway which aims at developing a hypersonic bomber by 2025. Also I know it may sound absurd and I am currently very skeptical on it but the Russians supposedly are going to get a new strategic bomber by 2015. Here's the link.

http://www.deagel.com/pandora/tu-160_pm00277001.aspx

This comes from the website:

"The Russian Air Force, currently the sole Tu-160 operator, seeks to deploy a new strategic bomber beginning in 2015 and replacing current Tu-95, Tu-22 and Tu-160 aircraft."

 

[vivtho]

A lot of people say that the day of the bomber has gone by. However, in my opinion, one also needs to look at the context.

In the past each country needed a fleet of bombers as they were the primary strike force for that country's air arm. Today, fighters carry bombloads that would shame a WW2 bomber. So if a air force's mission statement is geared towards defense or local air dominance, then bombers are neither required or affordable.

However, if power projection is a stated aim of the country's air force, then a bomber fleet is a necessity. A single bomber can carry the more cruise missiles or bombs than an entire squadron of tactical fighters. Of course, you would need air superiority (using those same fighters) first.

I would liken the need for a bomber force to that of a carrier. If you only need to defend or deny your territory to others. If you wish to project your power or influence far beyond your borders, then bombers and carriers are the way to go.

That said, both Russia and the US wish to exert their influence globally. This makes bombers necessary. This is more true for Russia, who lack a credible naval aviation force. And building a bomber squadron is cheaper than building a CVBG anyday.

 

[DoC_FouALieR]

The EU if it wants to hit targets out of range of carrier based planes and airbases will need a "EUROBOMBER" in order to fulfill this.

I remember a project based on the A-380.
It consists of modifying this huge plane in order to make it a long range bomber, an AWACS with satellite links and C3I assets, or a heavy lift with a capacity equal of an An-124.
I don't know if the project has been shelved or canceled, but in the bomber version, it was carrying about 64 cruise missiles (a extended range version of the Scalp/Storm Shadow) and with a satellite link, was able to first recon the target and second to make a BDA right after the attack.

However, due to the expensive costs, I really doubt that the EU will ever have a bomber..

 

[Grand Danois]

Let us not forget pseudo-strategic bombers.

Stand off cruise missiles like TLAM or TAURUS KEPD 350 T palletized into a transport aircraft can act as huge force multipliers equivalent to some capabilities of strategic bombers.

Taurus T

The Taurus KEPD 350 is a high precision standoff weapon designed to penetrate dense air defense systems to destroy high value, hardened, stationary and semi-stationary targets. It was developed by Taurus Systems GmbH, a EADS/LFK GmbH (67 percent) and Saab Bofors Dynamics (33 percent) joint venture, based in Schrobenhausen (Germany) to meet the requirements of the German Air Force for a long range standoff weapon. Since, the weapon has evolved into a family of missiles that can be launched from a wide range of land, sea and/or airborne platforms.

The guidance system of the Taurus KEPD 350 missile consists of a GPS/INS and terrain recognition navigation system and infrared (IR) imaging seeker for the terminal phase of the flight for enhanced positive identification and discrimination of the assigned target. The Taurus KEPD 350 baseline model payload is one one Mephisto penetrator-warhead specially designed to penetrate hardened targets such as bunkers, fortifications or buried targets.

As a potential upgrade, Taurus standoff weapon could be fitted with a data-link allowing moving targets to be engaged precisely while providing feedback information to the weapon's operator. The data-link provides with an additional capability of assessment on whether the target was engaged successfully or not. Thanks to its modular architecture Taurus can be retrofitted at low cost and risks on further developments are avoided by the way.

Once released, the Taurus KEPD 350 flies at low altitude avoiding the air defenses relying upon its sophisticated navigation system. When the Taurus missile arrives to the target area its imaging IR seeker provides the critical information to carry out the final attack to effectively kill the pre-programmed target. Its long range, at least 350 km, increases launching aircraft survivability against extremely heavily defended targets where a direct attack is too dangerous.

As of 2005, the Taurus missile was validated for release from the Tornado, Typhoon, F/A-18, Gripen, F-16, P-3C and F-111 aircraft. There are plans to develop special Taurus variants with different warheads and released from different platforms such as ships and ground vehicles. In addition to the Taurus KEPD 350, Taurus Systems GmbH has developed the Taurus CL for launch from ground- and sea-based platforms; Taurus HPM; Taurus M; Taurus KEPD 350 L; and Taurus T so far. The new variants of Taurus system were unveiled at the Paris Air Show 2005.

Taurus T is a special variant tailored to be released by tactical transport aircraft such as the C-130 Hercules or the Airbus A400M. These aircraft can be loaded with 12 Taurus T missiles to conduct attack missions at longer ranges than tactical fighter aircraft. The missiles are dropped through the transport aircraft's rear door. During early 2000s military operations the United States military demonstrated that long range bombers armed with tactical weapons are highly valuable. Taurus T would add this capability to the German Air Force and to other Air Forces that can't afford to acquire/operate bombers.

http://www.deagel.com/pandora/index.aspx?p=mn00069006

So you have A400M's that can be used as MRTT (Multi Role Tanker Transport) and as standoff bombers also.

Cheers.

 

[vivtho]

I remember a project based on the A-380.
It consists of modifying this huge plane in order to make it a long range bomber, an AWACS with satellite links and C3I assets, or a heavy lift with a capacity equal of an An-124.
I don't know if the project has been shelved or canceled, but in the bomber version, it was carrying about 64 cruise missiles (a extended range version of the Scalp/Storm Shadow) and with a satellite link, was able to first recon the target and second to make a BDA right after the attack.

However, due to the expensive costs, I really doubt that the EU will ever have a bomber..

I read a proposal by a Captain (I think... it was a very long time ago) in the USAF about converting 747s and C-5s as cruise missile launchers on the cheap. He put forward a very convincing argument. I don't have the PDF with me any more, but the gist of it was that the structural changes to the 747 could be minimized by using the existing baggage/cargo bays at the bottom of the aircraft, and by using underwing weapon pylons. He made an estimate that a single 747 could carry around 20-30 cruise missiles, which makes for a useful payload.

There have already been experiments with launching a missile from a C-5 (early 80's, I believe). However, that was with a ballistic missile. The missile was pulled out of the rear of the aircraft in flight by a parachute and ignited once the launch aircraft was clear.

That said, I believe that such a conversion is not worth the cost. It would give at most 50% the capability of the bomber, with none of it's self defense capability, and the bombers would be tied to the range of the fighter and EW aircraft supporting them.

 

[vivtho]

Let us not forget pseudo-strategic bombers.

Stand off cruise missiles like TLAM or TAURUS KEPD 350 T palletized into a transport aircraft can act as huge force multipliers equivalent to some capabilities of strategic bombers.



So you have A400M's that can be used as MRTT (Multi Role Tanker Transport) and as standoff bombers also.

Cheers.

Been there done that.

During the 1971 war, both India and Pakistan used transport aircraft to perform bombing missions. The Indian AF used the An-12s for the role and they were supposedly quite effective against area targets. The method used was to place bombs on the internal conveyor belt, and press the 'Start' button once over the target (at a medium altitude).

Does anybody have any details of these missions. I'm particularly interested about how they 'unsafed' the fuzes on the bombs. Running 'active' bombs down a conveyor belt over a combat zone is either extremely brave or extremely foolhardy.

 

[Grand Danois]

I read a proposal by a Captain (I think... it was a very long time ago) in the USAF about converting 747s and C-5s as cruise missile launchers on the cheap. He put forward a very convincing argument. I don't have the PDF with me any more, but the gist of it was that the structural changes to the 747 could be minimized by using the existing baggage/cargo bays at the bottom of the aircraft, and by using underwing weapon pylons. He made an estimate that a single 747 could carry around 20-30 cruise missiles, which makes for a useful payload.

There have already been experiments with launching a missile from a C-5 (early 80's, I believe). However, that was with a ballistic missile. The missile was pulled out of the rear of the aircraft in flight by a parachute and ignited once the launch aircraft was clear.

That said, I believe that such a conversion is not worth the cost. It would give at most 50% the capability of the bomber, with none of it's self defense capability, and the bombers would be tied to the range of the fighter and EW aircraft supporting them.

They still drop ballistic missiles out the back of transports. Read about a test recently.

I think the A400M/C-130 Herc idea should comprise little conversion of the transport, you just throw the pallets out the back of the transport, which means you have a great first day of war/pseudo-strategic capability.

Some concepts the Brits are looking at:

 

[Grand Danois]

Been there done that.

During the 1971 war, both India and Pakistan used transport aircraft to perform bombing missions. The Indian AF used the An-12s for the role and they were supposedly quite effective against area targets. The method used was to place bombs on the internal conveyor belt, and press the 'Start' button once over the target (at a medium altitude).

Does anybody have any details of these missions. I'm particularly interested about how they 'unsafed' the fuzes on the bombs. Running 'active' bombs down a conveyor belt over a combat zone is either extremely brave or extremely foolhardy.

The Americans deployed the "Daisy Cutter" bomb in the same way during the Vietnam War. IIRC it was stored on a pallet, on which it was dragged out with a parachute... Boom! - LZ cleared for hostile infantry!

 

[RubiconNZ]

At the moment

They are doing this testing on the C17 at the moment, using to launch low orbit satellites, the DARPA AF Falcon system I think, so far they have been succesful, AFAIK to overly simplify if you put a satellite into space you can easily make swap payload if you have the tech for a nuclear delivery weapon.

Edit : Yup Falcon it is heres a link to article and picture:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/AirLaunch_Breaks_Another_Drop_Record_999.html

 

[RubiconNZ]

I remember a project based on the A-380.
It consists of modifying this huge plane in order to make it a long range bomber, an AWACS with satellite links and C3I assets, or a heavy lift with a capacity equal of an An-124.
I don't know if the project has been shelved or canceled, but in the bomber version, it was carrying about 64 cruise missiles (a extended range version of the Scalp/Storm Shadow) and with a satellite link, was able to first recon the target and second to make a BDA right after the attack.

However, due to the expensive costs, I really doubt that the EU will ever have a bomber..

I think in the short to mid term, we will se alot of demonstrator concepts being but into place, just keeping the technology alive, in the EU mindset of cuts and Peacekeeping there is no immediate needs for a Big Bomber, not even a mid range bomber even the US doesn't have a true version of this anymore.

 

[swerve]

They still drop ballistic missiles out the back of transports. Read about a test recently.

I think the A400M/C-130 Herc idea should comprise little conversion of the transport, you just throw the pallets out the back of the transport, which means you have a great first day of war/pseudo-strategic capability.

IIRC there were a few extra electronics (to arm the missiles, give them targeting info, etc), but they could be carried aboard & plugged in by the weapons operator who'd be added to the crew. Something like a ruggedized laptop? The plane would also need a little bit of wiring, to connect that up to the launcher. But even that could be rigged up pretty damn quick. A few cable ties & some gaffer tape . . .

 

[contedicavour]

Wouldn't a destroyer with 32+ VLS cells for Scalp cruise missiles (or Tomahawks for those who can afford it) do the job better than a bomber yet to be invented ?
In terms of costs, time it takes to produce and test, I prefer the naval solution...

cheers

 

[Grand Danois]

Wouldn't a destroyer with 32+ VLS cells for Scalp cruise missiles (or Tomahawks for those who can afford it) do the job better than a bomber yet to be invented ?
In terms of costs, time it takes to produce and test, I prefer the naval solution...

cheers

Cost of two A400M missions + cost of conversion kit + cost of 24 JASSM-ER/TAURUS T << Cost of 24 permanent Sylver cells + cost of 1 FREMM mission+ 24 Scalp Naval.

When a FREMM has fired 24 Scalps it can't use that "mission space" for anything anymore. The A400M can do tanking, transport or another missile raid, whilst the FREMM has lost its raison d'etre and may just as well leave theatre for rearming. But it would, of course, be optimal if the two capabilities supported each other.

Surge/first day of war/Overwhelm enemy IADS.

 

[Grand Danois]

IIRC there were a few extra electronics (to arm the missiles, give them targeting info, etc), but they could be carried aboard & plugged in by the weapons operator who'd be added to the crew. Something like a ruggedized laptop? The plane would also need a little bit of wiring, to connect that up to the launcher. But even that could be rigged up pretty damn quick. A few cable ties & some gaffer tape . . .

Yes. But I would think that fancy electronics like midcourse datalinks on the a/c should be left off the "transporter" versions of the ALCM's to keep complexity down. That would perhaps keep cost of conversion kit down... So only static targets.

But extended standoff ranges would be very attractive, as the delivery platform is quite vulnerable. 550km-600km at the least. And integrated BDA imagery via satelitte uplink would also be on my list.

 

[fylr71]

As effective as ship launched cruise missiles are, they have a limited range even the tactical tomahawk which has one of the longest ranges of any attack missile still has a max range of about 1,000 miles. Even more of an issue is the limited number which can be deployed on ships plus they are expensive. A 500 pound PGB will usually do the same job as a cruise missile. A B-2 can carry 80 JDAMs and be anywhere in the world within 24 hours. 4 B-2s can carry 320 JDAMs hit a target and come back 36 hours later with 320 more JDAMs. A Burke class destroyer can carry 96 tomahawks but can only hit targets up to 1,000 miles away from the coast. Each platform performs very well at their respective missions but especially with the Europeans who do not have carrier battle groups all around the world all the time. If a target needs to be hit immediately then a long range bomber with a large payload is a great asset to have.

 

[swerve]

Yes. But I would think that fancy electronics like midcourse datalinks on the a/c should be left off the "transporter" versions of the ALCM's to keep complexity down. That would perhaps keep cost of conversion kit down... So only static targets.

But extended standoff ranges would be very attractive, as the delivery platform is quite vulnerable. 550km-600km at the least. And integrated BDA imagery via satelitte uplink would also be on my list.

Agreed, in all respects.

What little I've heard about this proposal suggests a minimalist approach to the carrier aircraft conversion, most likely a very basic field conversion kit. The missiles could have datalinks (customer choice, I reckon), but updates would have to come from a separate aircraft, maybe an AWACS.

It would do very well for Scalp Naval, without the booster which I presume they'll fit for ship or sub launch. Or an extended range version of Taurus. A Storm Shadow/Scalp EG would take such a big slow plane rather too close to the potential target for my liking. Is it limited to Taurus-T so far?

AFAIK, this is still just an EADS proposal, with no customers, but it's pretty low-risk & low-cost, so they may have done most of the work on spec. & be able to deliver quite quickly. There was another proposal some years ago, for an A340 Scalp carrier, which would have required considerable re-work to the aircraft. Suggested to the AdlA, who rejected it. No funding, of course.

The UK has the option of fitting Storm Shadow to Nimrods. The MRA4 will have considerably more range than the current MR2, & greater range & speed than an A400M, but won't be able to carry a dozen or more missiles, as the A400M could. And I wouldn't want to risk it within range of air defences,,even with its EW capabilities.

 

[contedicavour]

Cost of two A400M missions + cost of conversion kit + cost of 24 JASSM-ER/TAURUS T << Cost of 24 permanent Sylver cells + cost of 1 FREMM mission+ 24 Scalp Naval.

When a FREMM has fired 24 Scalps it can't use that "mission space" for anything anymore. The A400M can do tanking, transport or another missile raid, whilst the FREMM has lost its raison d'etre and may just as well leave theatre for rearming. But it would, of course, be optimal if the two capabilities supported each other.

Surge/first day of war/Overwhelm enemy IADS.

I don't have any data available on the comparative costs of an air-launched SCALP vs the naval SCALP. Are you sure the price tag is so different ?
A FREMM could always have an AOR sailing next to it with enough missiles for 2-3 launches.
Last but not least, against most of today's or tomorrow's potential enemies (Iran, N. Korea, Venezuela, or even - heaven forbids :roll - China) ships are much safer than big un-stealth bombers. Hitting a bomber with a Grumble missile is much easier than sinking a Burke or a Horizon in the middle of a battle group.
I believe the US can afford the luxury of having both CGs/DDGs/SSNs and bombers ... but not Europe.

cheers

 

[Grand Danois]

I don't have any data available on the comparative costs of an air-launched SCALP vs the naval SCALP. Are you sure the price tag is so different ?

It is not the cost of the missiles that makes up for the difference. It is the cost of the delivery platform.

A FREMM could always have an AOR sailing next to it with enough missiles for 2-3 launches.

And the aircraft can reload at the base. Can Sylver 70 be reloaded at sea during RAS?

Last but not least, against most of today's or tomorrow's potential enemies (Iran, N. Korea, Venezuela, or even - heaven forbids :roll - China) ships are much safer than big un-stealth bombers. Hitting a bomber with a Grumble missile is much easier than sinking a Burke or a Horizon in the middle of a battle group.
I believe the US can afford the luxury of having both CGs/DDGs/SSNs and bombers ... but not Europe.

With proper stand off range, the converted MRTT/bomber isn't that vulnerable.

We are talking two capabilities here. The bomber brings power and projection, whilst the ships bring persistence. They complement each other.

Scenario
4 A400M arrives at bases outside of theater ie outside enemy ballistic missile range. They are tasked with bringing volume to an air campaing intended to roll back an IADS.

They have been used for transport of equipment into theater untill the launch of the campaign. The day before, they convert to the bomber role with a kit. When the air campaign begins, these four bomber conversions are tasked to fly perhaps 1500 km to theatre, release 12 ALCM's each that has a range of 550km+, and do two missions each a day.

4 A400M x 2 days x 2 missions/day x 12 ALCMs/mission/A400M = 4 x 2 x 2 x 12 = 192 ALCM's delivered in two days.

Cost of this exercise: 16 A400M missions + 4 conversion kits + 192 ALCM's

The 4 A400M can now return to the MRTT role in support of the classic air campaign.

How many FREMM do you need to do the same?

What the ship launched cruise missiles bring to the battle is persistence. Round the clock, in support of special forces and as a respondent to time critical infomation from a varity of ISR assets. The converted bomber is poor at that.

The capabilities complement each other.

 

[contedicavour]

It is not the cost of the missiles that makes up for the difference. It is the cost of the delivery platform.




And the aircraft can reload at the base. Can Sylver 70 be reloaded at sea during RAS?



With proper stand off range, the converted MRTT/bomber isn't that vulnerable.

We are talking two capabilities here. The bomber brings power and projection, whilst the ships bring persistence. They complement each other.

Scenario
4 A400M arrives at bases outside of theater ie outside enemy ballistic missile range. They are tasked with bringing volume to an air campaing intended to roll back an IADS.

They have been used for transport of equipment into theater untill the launch of the campaign. The day before, they convert to the bomber role with a kit. When the air campaign begins, these four bomber conversions are tasked to fly perhaps 1500 km to theatre, release 12 ALCM's each that has a range of 550km+, and do two missions each a day.

4 A400M x 2 days x 2 missions/day x 12 ALCMs/mission/A400M = 4 x 2 x 2 x 12 = 192 ALCM's delivered in two days.

Cost of this exercise: 16 A400M missions + 4 conversion kits + 192 ALCM's

The 4 A400M can now return to the MRTT role in support of the classic air campaign.

How many FREMM do you need to do the same?

What the ship launched cruise missiles bring to the battle is persistence. Round the clock, in support of special forces and as a respondent to time critical infomation from a varity of ISR assets. The converted bomber is poor at that.

The capabilities complement each other.

Interesting perspective, I see your point.
To answer your question, GP FREMMs can launch 32 SCALP maximum each in one go, so 192/32=6 ships needed to launch 192 missiles, unless they can be reloaded at sea. Frankly I don't know if it is feasible, though I've seen transfer of Aspide and Teseo missiles from an AOR to a Maestrale FFG with manual reloading done on deck in a relatively calm sea. SCALPs are bigger, but not that much bigger, so I presume reloading is feasible at sea.
I still would be worried about the vulnerability of such a big aircraft 550km away from enemy bases. True, it is beyond range of long range enemy SAMs, my key objection. However it is such a tempting target for enemy SU30s that it would need very heavy escort from tens of Typhoons or F35Bs. Mission costs should include that.

cheers

 

[Grand Danois]

Interesting perspective, I see your point.
To answer your question, GP FREMMs can launch 32 SCALP maximum each in one go, so 192/32=6 ships needed to launch 192 missiles, unless they can be reloaded at sea. Frankly I don't know if it is feasible, though I've seen transfer of Aspide and Teseo missiles from an AOR to a Maestrale FFG with manual reloading done on deck in a relatively calm sea. SCALPs are bigger, but not that much bigger, so I presume reloading is feasible at sea.
I still would be worried about the vulnerability of such a big aircraft 550km away from enemy bases. True, it is beyond range of long range enemy SAMs, my key objection. However it is such a tempting target for enemy SU30s that it would need very heavy escort from tens of Typhoons or F35Bs. Mission costs should include that.

cheers

AFAIK FREMM has 32 Sylver cell + with 16 as an upgrade... Need room for the Aster 15's... But fair enough.

Depending on the opposition, the bomber would need a fighter sweep/escort. However, the FREMM would need escorts too, either AAW vessels or fighters. So if they operate in the same area, they could use the same cover..(?)