Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
Aviation Week & Space Technology
April 28, 2008
Pg. 24
USAF considers unmanned ISR penetrator based on future bomber design
By Douglas Barrie and Amy Butler
The U.S. Air Force plans to fill its long-standing capability gap to collect intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance in defended airspace by using its next-generation bomber also as the basis for a highly stealthy recce aircraft.
The system would provide overhead intelligence even in high-threat environments, a mission left unfulfilled since the retirement of the high-speed SR-71 in the 1990s. Today’s U-2s and the Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle can conduct a variety of missions, but they are operated primarily in a standoff capacity only, because they lack the requisite stealth to be able to comfortably cope with long- and medium-range surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems now in development.
Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne told Aviation Week & Space Technology that alongside the penetrating strike role envisioned for a bomber to be fielded in 2018, the Air Force is also on “a quest to have long-range reconnaissance.”
A proposed unmanned variant of the bomber would handle this “strategic recce” role.
Penetrating defended air space—including the missile engagement zones of so-called double-digit surface-to-air missile system, such as the Russian Almaz Antey S-400 (SA-21 Growler) and follow-on systems—is a key design stressor. Such systems are being designed with the aim of countering the present generation of low-observable platforms. Delivery of the S-400 has just begun to the Russian military, with variants likely to be exported to China. Countries such as Iran and North Korea are also keen to try to gain access to such a capable SAM system.
Wynne says that the 2018 fielding date is “aggressive,” but believes an initial operational capability (IOC) in this time frame is achievable. “We are trying to set in motion a viable program that has a target IOC of 2018.” Much of the technology development that supports this timeline, Wynne notes, is “under the classified envelope.”
A penetrating ISR system offers greater flexibility to the task than satellites that collect imagery and signals intelligence.
Air Force officials have been stalwart in their assertion that the bomber variant, which could carry nuclear weapons, must include a manned option. Some senior Pentagon civilians, however, are pushing for an unmanned version.
Taking the pilot out of the cockpit is fitting for the ISR role. “My problem with the U-2 is the man in the cockpit,” Wynne says. This effectively determines the maximum endurance of a mission. The duration is usually under 12 hr. for the U-2, with time-on-station often far less than that when transit to and from the target area is factored in.
While the Global Hawk can provide a mission endurance of up to 36 hr., Wynne suggests it does not meet all of USAF’s strategic reconnaissance needs. The size of the platform means it is limited in terms of the sensor payload it can carry.
The air force is already working on concepts of operation for highly stealthy tactical platforms in defended air space. “If you can fly through the target airspace, then you can catalogue the targets. You can then—for example—send these back to command headquarters.”
The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor is the first of the Air Force’s low-observable platforms to have the ability to operate “undetected,” even in airspace defended by double-digit SAMs, and have a sensor suite capable of detecting and identifying targets and threat systems.
A key question, says Wynne, is “how you off-board data.” Transmitting while in a high-threat environment might risk the platform being detected. One option is to “store the data and then forward it once you get out of the threat zone.”
Boeing and Lockheed Martin have teamed to compete for the bomber program; Northrop Grumman is the contender. Wynne is keen to try to help craft a procurement strategy that will keep open the option of a “fly-off” between the two designs, if this is at all possible within the available budget.
Funding two competing designs as long as possible is a policy pushed by John Young, undersecretary of Defense for acquisition, technology and logistics.
“We shouldn’t obviate that option,” Wynne adds.
Wynne suggests a decision on which design to take forward into production would likely be made in 2012-14.
Funding for the bomber to date has been disbursed among various technology efforts. The first dedicated funding is expected to be in the Fiscal 2010 budget, which is now being crafted at the Pentagon. This is also the last budget that will include input from the Bush administration. One industry executive says the recent buzz about an ISR variant is likely a result of the budget discussions. “The staff guys’ opinions are bubbling to the top,” according to this source. Also worth noting is that the Air Force, under fire from Defense Secretary Robert Gates for not providing more ISR for operations in Iraq sooner, may seek to increase funding to that area in the coming years (see p. 30).
Areas of particular technical challenge identified by Wynne include the need to reduce engine infrared signatures. “We are way overboard on the engine requirement,” he says. Engine makers have developed concepts for serpentine exhaust systems that mask infrared signatures more effectively. But, the bomber program’s ambitious 2018 date doesn’t allow time to integrate them into that system. It remains to be seen when this ISR version would be fielded, and that date may rely on the readiness of an appropriate propulsion system.
Discussing the basic penetrating strike role, Wynne says: “The soul of an air force is range and payload. It is the ability to hold hostage any point on the Earth. USAF is on a quest to refurbish that range and payload capability.”
The bomber aircraft is expected to carry at least 28,000 lb. of payload, although some concepts allow for as much as 40,000. If built off the same basic platform, the ISR variant could hoist a vast array of sensors and communications equipment. The industry executive suggests that the system could make use of technologies that allow for conformal antennas to be fused into the skin structure of the aircraft.
The Air Force Secretary suggests that along with the bomber there will be the need for “developing a portfolio” of weapons, and choosing the most suitable for a particular mission. One of the concept-of-operations questions for the very low-observable platforms will be “whether I should ‘uncloak’ and strike” or hand off the target to a standoff platform, he notes. The Air Force notionally plans to buy about 100 bombers, a number that could increase with an ISR derivative.
April 28, 2008
Pg. 24
USAF considers unmanned ISR penetrator based on future bomber design
By Douglas Barrie and Amy Butler
The U.S. Air Force plans to fill its long-standing capability gap to collect intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance in defended airspace by using its next-generation bomber also as the basis for a highly stealthy recce aircraft.
The system would provide overhead intelligence even in high-threat environments, a mission left unfulfilled since the retirement of the high-speed SR-71 in the 1990s. Today’s U-2s and the Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle can conduct a variety of missions, but they are operated primarily in a standoff capacity only, because they lack the requisite stealth to be able to comfortably cope with long- and medium-range surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems now in development.
Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne told Aviation Week & Space Technology that alongside the penetrating strike role envisioned for a bomber to be fielded in 2018, the Air Force is also on “a quest to have long-range reconnaissance.”
A proposed unmanned variant of the bomber would handle this “strategic recce” role.
Penetrating defended air space—including the missile engagement zones of so-called double-digit surface-to-air missile system, such as the Russian Almaz Antey S-400 (SA-21 Growler) and follow-on systems—is a key design stressor. Such systems are being designed with the aim of countering the present generation of low-observable platforms. Delivery of the S-400 has just begun to the Russian military, with variants likely to be exported to China. Countries such as Iran and North Korea are also keen to try to gain access to such a capable SAM system.
Wynne says that the 2018 fielding date is “aggressive,” but believes an initial operational capability (IOC) in this time frame is achievable. “We are trying to set in motion a viable program that has a target IOC of 2018.” Much of the technology development that supports this timeline, Wynne notes, is “under the classified envelope.”
A penetrating ISR system offers greater flexibility to the task than satellites that collect imagery and signals intelligence.
Air Force officials have been stalwart in their assertion that the bomber variant, which could carry nuclear weapons, must include a manned option. Some senior Pentagon civilians, however, are pushing for an unmanned version.
Taking the pilot out of the cockpit is fitting for the ISR role. “My problem with the U-2 is the man in the cockpit,” Wynne says. This effectively determines the maximum endurance of a mission. The duration is usually under 12 hr. for the U-2, with time-on-station often far less than that when transit to and from the target area is factored in.
While the Global Hawk can provide a mission endurance of up to 36 hr., Wynne suggests it does not meet all of USAF’s strategic reconnaissance needs. The size of the platform means it is limited in terms of the sensor payload it can carry.
The air force is already working on concepts of operation for highly stealthy tactical platforms in defended air space. “If you can fly through the target airspace, then you can catalogue the targets. You can then—for example—send these back to command headquarters.”
The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor is the first of the Air Force’s low-observable platforms to have the ability to operate “undetected,” even in airspace defended by double-digit SAMs, and have a sensor suite capable of detecting and identifying targets and threat systems.
A key question, says Wynne, is “how you off-board data.” Transmitting while in a high-threat environment might risk the platform being detected. One option is to “store the data and then forward it once you get out of the threat zone.”
Boeing and Lockheed Martin have teamed to compete for the bomber program; Northrop Grumman is the contender. Wynne is keen to try to help craft a procurement strategy that will keep open the option of a “fly-off” between the two designs, if this is at all possible within the available budget.
Funding two competing designs as long as possible is a policy pushed by John Young, undersecretary of Defense for acquisition, technology and logistics.
“We shouldn’t obviate that option,” Wynne adds.
Wynne suggests a decision on which design to take forward into production would likely be made in 2012-14.
Funding for the bomber to date has been disbursed among various technology efforts. The first dedicated funding is expected to be in the Fiscal 2010 budget, which is now being crafted at the Pentagon. This is also the last budget that will include input from the Bush administration. One industry executive says the recent buzz about an ISR variant is likely a result of the budget discussions. “The staff guys’ opinions are bubbling to the top,” according to this source. Also worth noting is that the Air Force, under fire from Defense Secretary Robert Gates for not providing more ISR for operations in Iraq sooner, may seek to increase funding to that area in the coming years (see p. 30).
Areas of particular technical challenge identified by Wynne include the need to reduce engine infrared signatures. “We are way overboard on the engine requirement,” he says. Engine makers have developed concepts for serpentine exhaust systems that mask infrared signatures more effectively. But, the bomber program’s ambitious 2018 date doesn’t allow time to integrate them into that system. It remains to be seen when this ISR version would be fielded, and that date may rely on the readiness of an appropriate propulsion system.
Discussing the basic penetrating strike role, Wynne says: “The soul of an air force is range and payload. It is the ability to hold hostage any point on the Earth. USAF is on a quest to refurbish that range and payload capability.”
The bomber aircraft is expected to carry at least 28,000 lb. of payload, although some concepts allow for as much as 40,000. If built off the same basic platform, the ISR variant could hoist a vast array of sensors and communications equipment. The industry executive suggests that the system could make use of technologies that allow for conformal antennas to be fused into the skin structure of the aircraft.
The Air Force Secretary suggests that along with the bomber there will be the need for “developing a portfolio” of weapons, and choosing the most suitable for a particular mission. One of the concept-of-operations questions for the very low-observable platforms will be “whether I should ‘uncloak’ and strike” or hand off the target to a standoff platform, he notes. The Air Force notionally plans to buy about 100 bombers, a number that could increase with an ISR derivative.