• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

B-1's and B-52's as flying arsenals of air to air missiles?

Randy Daytona

Cold War Relic
pilot
Super Moderator
Any of our pointy nose guys here want to give an opinion?

"The U.S. military is considering developing a so-called "arsenal plane" to accompany stealth fighters into combat, hauling large numbers of munitions in order to significantly boost the stealthy planes' firepower.

The arsenal-plane concept, announced by Defense Secretary Ashton Carter in a Feb. 2 speech previewing the Pentagon's 2017 budget proposal, could help solve one of the U.S. military's most intractable military problems — its lack of "magazine depth" compared to more numerous Chinese forces in various Pacific war scenarios."


http://theweek.com/articles/604382/china-huge-firepower-advantage-over-america
 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
They had better come up with some new whiz-bang super-long range A/A missiles that go really fucking fast, or the concept doesn't make a lot of sense.

"A Washington, D.C. think tank, proposing that the Pentagon's next fighter should be the size of a bomber and carry 24 air-to-air missiles..."

That'll go over great at the merge. This concept is well intentioned, but half-baked.
 

nittany03

Recovering NFO. Herder of Programmers.
pilot
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
This is what happens when you put the words "think tank" and "tactics" in the same sentence.

Shoulda roped the boys and girls from Nellis and/or Fallon into the discussion before they published.
 

azguy

Well-Known Member
None
Same concept has bounced around in surface warfare... Refit an old L-class ship (amphib) with several hundred VLS cells. The problem is you make that asset into a super-critical node; along with a slew of tactical issues.
 

sevenhelmet

Low calorie attack from the Heartland
pilot
My $0.02: Magazine depth isn't defined by the number of missiles a jet can carry. It's defined by the number of missiles and launchers (LAUs/monster racks/etc.) available in inventory. That's what we'll run out of first, very likely on day one.

Their bomber carrying a bunch of missiles is nothing but a big fat target, considering "missile trucks" tend to be placed out ahead of the advanced sensors providing support, in order to better reach the enemy. Out front is not where you want your large RCS fat kid that can't run away. Positioning and distribution is also critical, especially in a defensive scenario where lanes come into play. What happens when your B-1B is on the wrong side of his lane (running down other threats) and can't reach a leaker in time?

A division of Rhinos (or F-15s, or F-22s, or probably even F-35s) with advanced radar carrying 6 missiles each is vastly preferable.
 
Last edited:

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
I think the other part of the 'arsenal plane' concept is a much more realistic and practical, basically as a giant cruise missile or stand-off weapon carrier. The B-52 already does this to a degree but they could modify the bomb bays to carry more conventional capacity than it already does, much like the 'Big Belly'-modified B-52D's that were the primary bombers used over Vietnam. That would arguably make the B-52 even more flexible and enduring than the B-2 or LRSB since it would be much easier to modify weapons than planes to meet existing threats. The utility of a squadron of B-52's carrying 20-30 anti-ship missiles or 120 decoys would be huge to PACOM in countering the PLAN or SA-20's.
 
Last edited:

ryan1234

Well-Known Member
Completely leaving alone the kinematic shortcomings and tactical application of a fatty shooting air to air missiles... the greater tragedy here is the capability based planning without a specific strategic or even operational context. I'm not sure "victory" against China looks like the Battle of Britain or some other war of annihilation - no one wants their Amazon packages stuck in some Chinese port while the air battle rages overhead to some ambiguous outcome. If we're trying to counter China's quest for regional hegemony and its path to undermining US primacy, the strategic/operational answer may look completely different - not the tech for tech offset strategy that we played in the Cold War where the two economies were completely divorced of each other.
 

Pags

N/A
pilot
Any of our pointy nose guys here want to give an opinion?

"The U.S. military is considering developing a so-called "arsenal plane" to accompany stealth fighters into combat, hauling large numbers of munitions in order to significantly boost the stealthy planes' firepower.

The arsenal-plane concept, announced by Defense Secretary Ashton Carter in a Feb. 2 speech previewing the Pentagon's 2017 budget proposal, could help solve one of the U.S. military's most intractable military problems — its lack of "magazine depth" compared to more numerous Chinese forces in various Pacific war scenarios."


http://theweek.com/articles/604382/china-huge-firepower-advantage-over-america
If you read the article Carter didn't specify in his speech what type of weapons his proposed Arsenal plane would carry. The author mentions existing studies involving arsenal planes and seems to assume that Carter meant an AA version.
 

jmcquate

Well-Known Member
Contributor
I know, quite a bit of BS speculation, but this idea is at the 15 minute mark.
 
Last edited:

pilot_man

Ex-Rhino driver
pilot
They had better come up with some new whiz-bang super-long range A/A missiles that go really fucking fast, or the concept doesn't make a lot of sense.

"A Washington, D.C. think tank, proposing that the Pentagon's next fighter should be the size of a bomber and carry 24 air-to-air missiles..."

That'll go over great at the merge. This concept is well intentioned, but half-baked.

What would I ever want a missile truck with 24 AMRAAM at 50,000' doing 1.2 for?

These things wouldn't be going to a merge. It's called force shaping.
 

Uncle Fester

Robot Pimp
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
This was the whole idea of the F6D Missileer in the '60's - fat kid missile truck that wouldn't need to go to the merge because, hey, shitload of missiles. Building a plane with the ability for one fight, and assuming that the bad guys cooperate? It was a dumb idea then and it's a dumb idea now.

The F6D technology and concept evolved into the AWG-9/Phoenix for the F-111B and thus is the weird acheopteryx that eventually became the Tomcat, but still.
 
Top