USAF News and Discussion

[Ranger25]

Northrup Grumann wins the LRS-B Award.

No real details available yet.

Sounds like the LRSB may be a generational leap forward for strike bombers. Optionally manned, full ECM/ECCM. Sounds like a larger F35 in the making.

Will be interesting to see if it has the ability to carry AAW as a "mother ship" concept whereby F35\F22 can highlight targets and then the B3 can release ordinance

 

[John Fedup]

That was asked several times (not directly) in the press conference and the answer was no.

The answer would have to be "no" even if the answer was really "yes". No point in making the protest easy. In any event, retaining three combat air framers is a win for US taxpayers. NG has done some great work with the RQ180 and X-47B so hopefully this continues with the LRSB.

 

[barney41]

Congrats to NG, I was rooting for them. I think their unique experience in actually building and supporting the B-2 rranslated into a superior offer. The DoD was on the record that the best platform solution would win and that industry considerations would not factor into the evaluation.

 

[Ranger25]

Congrats to NG, I was rooting for them. I think their unique experience in actually building and supporting the B-2 rranslated into a superior offer. The DoD was on the record that the best platform solution would win and that industry considerations would not factor into the evaluation.

I see the B3 are potentially more than just A long range strike platform. We've all seen discussions regarding the light AAW load out of the F35 series and the potential of using another "truck" to carry a large load of AMRAMs etc. initial indications may look toward the LRSB as having this capabi,it's


Some details of the LRS-B program have by now been well-publicized. The projected costs over the next ten years have been estimated—by two independent teams—at $23.5 billion in development, and $564 million per initial production aircraft. The latter is well under the inflation-adjusted cost cap of about $619 million (in FY 2016 terms) set in 2010 by then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates. An eighty-person team in the Air Force’s Rapid Capabilities Office is managing the entire project, with a greatly streamlined process. The electronic architecture will be open, as already demonstrated on the B-2A, so that add-on capabilities will be easier to incorporate in the future should it be deemed necessary. Two or three test aircraft will be built first, followed by five low-rate production lots comprising another 21 aircraft. Around 2025, the first squadron of LRS-Bs will fly as part of Global Strike Command, the USAF’s consolidated home for all bombers.

There has been some sound speculation as well. The new plane won’t be just a “bomber,” according to retired Lieutenant General David Deptula, but a “long-range sensor-shooter,” in an indication of a much wider range of potential capabilities. John Stillion of the CSBA has suggested even an air-to-air role. Presumably, each plane will be a versatile flying wing-body, with a two-person crew, numerous bombs, high subsonic speed, high survivability, and no gold-plating. If the aircraft performs as well as hoped, the shift in American attention to the long distances of the Pacific theater may set up “an inevitable competition” for money between LRS-B and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) over the next decade.

 

[Toblerone]

So the russians' obsession with big radars and big high-speed aircraft able to carry a huge assortment of BVR missiles is well-placed. Because a barrage of long-range missiles with different seekers seems to be an answer to big and stealthy strike aircraft with ultra-advanced electronics.

 

[Ranger25]

So the russians' obsession with big radars and big high-speed aircraft able to carry a huge assortment of BVR missiles is well-placed. Because a barrage of long-range missiles with different seekers seems to be an answer to big and stealthy strike aircraft with ultra-advanced electronics.

I don't necessarily agree it's "the answer".

There are still many things that can disrupt the kill chain for those many missiles assuming they can effectively locate, track, and get and maintain a successful firing solution. All of which the F35 is built to maximize.

Yes, do Russian fighters have higher load out, but that still doesn't necessitate success via higher tech aircraft IMO

 

[the concerned]

Would this new bomber have enough power to use a laser rather than aam's. Otherwise it sounds like a bad idea putting a large expensive aircraft anywhere near modern interceptors most of which have missiles that outrange the amraam.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Would this new bomber have enough power to use a laser rather than aam's. Otherwise it sounds like a bad idea putting a large expensive aircraft anywhere near modern interceptors most of which have missiles that outrange the amraam.

there has been mention of the use of onboard lasers. not necessarily as a weapons system

 

[barney41]

there has been mention of the use of onboard lasers. not necessarily as a weapons system

At the very least LRSB could benefit from something like this being envisioned for the F-35.
Northrop Unveils F-35 Missile Protection System | Defense News | defensenews.com

By the next decade, the Air Force Research Lab projects airborne lasers powerful enough to take out a/c and missiles. I think Congress won't be hard to convince once they see actual prototypes in action.

 

[Ranger25]

there has been mention of the use of onboard lasers. not necessarily as a weapons system

From what I've read Laser with offensive power and range are a goal of integration into the FA/XX and the next 6th gen fighter

 

[Bonza]

there has been mention of the use of onboard lasers. not necessarily as a weapons system

Wouldn't be comms/datalink related, by any chance?

 

[CB90]

Wouldn't be comms/datalink related, by any chance?

My guess would've been as DIRCM, though that's fairly common even now.

AF is pursuing HELLADS for a self protection laser to shoot down incoming threats.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Wouldn't be comms/datalink related, by any chance?

there has been some work on short range laser comms, especially with subs. mainly blue lasers though

my understanding is that there have been trials for multi carrier capability

eg short range defence and disruptor/weapons and DIRCM in the one system

 

[Bonza]

My guess would've been as DIRCM, though that's fairly common even now.

AF is pursuing HELLADS for a self protection laser to shoot down incoming threats.

there has been some work on short range laser comms, especially with subs. mainly blue lasers though

my understanding is that there have been trials for multi carrier capability

eg short range defence and disruptor/weapons and DIRCM in the one system

Thanks very much for the information gents, it's appreciated.

 

[Toblerone]

I don't necessarily agree it's "the answer".

There are still many things that can disrupt the kill chain for those many missiles assuming they can effectively locate, track, and get and maintain a successful firing solution. All of which the F35 is built to maximize.

Yes, do Russian fighters have higher load out, but that still doesn't necessitate success via higher tech aircraft IMO

Heh that's why I said "an" answer. Basically, considering the difference between USA and Russia in budget and general prowess of the military industry, there isn't much flexibility for the russians.

They will be stuck with flanker variants loooong after the F-35 goes fully operational and in mass production. Powerful radars and jamming-resistant BVR missiles fired in succession are an answer. And threatening the carrier group with a possible AShM saturation attack.

Now about these laz0rs ... aren't they dramatically dependent on the weather/clouds/humidity?

 

[Todjaeger]

Heh that's why I said "an" answer. Basically, considering the difference between USA and Russia in budget and general prowess of the military industry, there isn't much flexibility for the russians.

They will be stuck with flanker variants loooong after the F-35 goes fully operational and in mass production. Powerful radars and jamming-resistant BVR missiles fired in succession are an answer. And threatening the carrier group with a possible AShM saturation attack.

Now about these laz0rs ... aren't they dramatically dependent on the weather/clouds/humidity?

Something else to consider, is that the Russian (and before them, the Soviet) doctrine is to conduct long-ranged saturation attacks.

This in turn means that the US and NATO has doctrine to counter/minimize/neutralize such threats.

Having 'powerful' radar is all well and good, but unless the radar is able to reliably detect and track LO targets like the B-2, F-35, and F-22... Then saturation missile attacks are not all that useful. Especially since the on-board seeker in a missile is very unlikely to be more capable than what can be fitted aboard a fighter or AEW aircraft. And honestly, I doubt that the B-3 would fail to include LO capabilities of one sort or another.

One of the other issues which can plague saturation attack tactics, is the ability of the side launching the attack to spot the targets if using long-ranged munitions. Given that some of the Russian AShM's have ranges measured in the hundreds of n miles or more, either those same AShM's need to be able to self-target once they arrive into a target box, or the Russians will need to have some asset able to act as a spotter to guide the missiles in until their own guidance can take over.

While Russia does have aircraft like the Tu-95 which can perform such missions, they are not exactly subtle...

 

[CB90]

Heh that's why I said "an" answer. Basically, considering the difference between USA and Russia in budget and general prowess of the military industry, there isn't much flexibility for the russians.

They will be stuck with flanker variants loooong after the F-35 goes fully operational and in mass production. Powerful radars and jamming-resistant BVR missiles fired in succession are an answer. And threatening the carrier group with a possible AShM saturation attack.

Now about these laz0rs ... aren't they dramatically dependent on the weather/clouds/humidity?

Well...yes. But weather and clouds can play hell with the usability of other sensors/weapons as well. Even a radar isn't all too happy about trying to operate through cloud cover. So aircraft generally try to stay the hell out of bad weather...which is usually pretty easy for them to do, which also means it's easy for them to minimize the effects of environmentals on their lasers.

Now ships...that's another story. You're stuck with what you've got.

 

[barney41]

Laser tech is proving to be more adaptable to adverse athmospheric conditions based on actual tests using a relatively low-power 10kw laser. Aircraft lasers such as HELLADS will be in the 150kw category and should for the most part enjoy more favorable weather conditions.

Neither rain, nor fog, nor wind stops Boeing's laser weapon destroying targets

Neither rain, nor fog, nor wind stops Boeing's laser weapon destroying targets
If you've ever gone outside on a foggy night and shined a laser pointer about, you’ve seen two things: how flashy a raygun it makes, and the problem laser weapons face in such conditions as fog and rain scatters the energy that should be destroying missiles. However, in recent tests at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, Boeing and the US Army have shown that their High Energy Laser Mobile Demonstrator (HEL MD) is capable of successfully locking onto and taking out targets in very laser-unfriendly foggy, rainy, and windy maritime conditions.
The HEL-MD is the US Army's first mobile, high-energy laser, Counter Rocket, Artillery and Mortar (C-RAM) platform. It consists of a 10-kW high-energy laser mounted on an Oshkosh tactical vehicle and is capable of tracking and engaging (a polite way to say blasting out of the sky) a variety of targets.

It has already undergone extensive testing at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico in 2013 and at Eglin earlier this year, and now Boeing says that it has managed to engage 150 aerial targets. And not just in the clear, sunny skies of New Mexico, but in the windy, rainy, and foggy conditions in Florida that whould normally make for a bad day for the lasers. But the HEL-MD still managed to deal with its targets, including 60 mm mortars and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV).
Exactly how this was done is something that Boeing is keeping close to its chest, but it’s likely that it involves using a reference laser beam to probe through, for example, the fog so that computers could analyze how the atmospheric conditions were distorting the laser. The optics in the HEL-MD would then refocus the weapon beam, so the distortion, instead of spreading it or bending it off course, puts it back into the right shape.

 

[Ranger25]

And plans are to to got 50kw and then 100



http://www.smdc.army.mil/FactSheets/HELMD.pdf

 

[CB90]

Laser tech is proving to be more adaptable to adverse athmospheric conditions based on actual tests using a relatively low-power 10kw laser. Aircraft lasers such as HELLADS will be in the 150kw category and should for the most part enjoy more favorable weather conditions.

Neither rain, nor fog, nor wind stops Boeing's laser weapon destroying targets

Neither rain, nor fog, nor wind stops Boeing's laser weapon destroying targets
If you've ever gone outside on a foggy night and shined a laser pointer about, you’ve seen two things: how flashy a raygun it makes, and the problem laser weapons face in such conditions as fog and rain scatters the energy that should be destroying missiles. However, in recent tests at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, Boeing and the US Army have shown that their High Energy Laser Mobile Demonstrator (HEL MD) is capable of successfully locking onto and taking out targets in very laser-unfriendly foggy, rainy, and windy maritime conditions.
The HEL-MD is the US Army's first mobile, high-energy laser, Counter Rocket, Artillery and Mortar (C-RAM) platform. It consists of a 10-kW high-energy laser mounted on an Oshkosh tactical vehicle and is capable of tracking and engaging (a polite way to say blasting out of the sky) a variety of targets.

It has already undergone extensive testing at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico in 2013 and at Eglin earlier this year, and now Boeing says that it has managed to engage 150 aerial targets. And not just in the clear, sunny skies of New Mexico, but in the windy, rainy, and foggy conditions in Florida that whould normally make for a bad day for the lasers. But the HEL-MD still managed to deal with its targets, including 60 mm mortars and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV).
Exactly how this was done is something that Boeing is keeping close to its chest, but it’s likely that it involves using a reference laser beam to probe through, for example, the fog so that computers could analyze how the atmospheric conditions were distorting the laser. The optics in the HEL-MD would then refocus the weapon beam, so the distortion, instead of spreading it or bending it off course, puts it back into the right shape.

The article glosses over some of the physics.

Adaptive optics are useful for turbulence (wind), not for dealing with moisture in the air. Moisture is an attentuation problem (laser energy getting absorbed by water molecules in the air). There's not a whole lot you can do about it other than go somewhere it isn't or try to power through (which has its own problems).

Not denying the test results, but it's a big step in power required going from shooting down 60mm mortars in a C-RAM setup or small UAVs with composite skins, and trying to shoot down missiles or full sized metal aircraft 10's of klicks out.