Dogfights of The Future

[B52gator]

Anybody catch that show on the History Channel the other night? Pretty interesting stuff. Most of it speculation I'm sure, but cool nonetheless. Is the B-1R something that is actually being considered? Cool concept, liked the V-tail it had. I had heard they were possibly going to re-engine the BONEer with Raptor engines, but I didn't know they were going to make it an AMRAM truck. Screw the BONE, lets put a bunch of 120s on the BUFF!

[Guest Flyin' AF Hawaiian]

I caught the last half of the program, thought it was pretty interesting. I thought their portrayal of a potential stealth vs. stealth dogfight (F-22s against fictional Su-47s) was definitely pretty awesome.

[pbar]

The B-1R was a Boeing proposal a few years ago that came out when the AF was considering a regional bomber. We were considering the F/B-22 at the same along with a C-130 JASSM truck IIRC but that all went away when the AF pressed ahead with the 2018 bomber. The B-1 F-119 re-engining was over $4 billion IIRC and the AF doesn't have that kind of cash laying around.

I don't think it would be feasible to equip bombers with AMRAAMs simply due to the amount of training it would take, much to the detriment of our other training requirements and it would only ever be a secondary mission. Plus there would be the problem of every bomber crew ignoring their primary mission for the chance to score the first bomber AMRAAM kill...

PBAR

Edited May 13, 2008 by pbar

[pawnman]

I had heard about putting AMRAAMs on the BONE, but the way it was presented was we could launch a missile and keep an AI busy while we pressed into the target.

[Murph]

I know it's not necessarily thread related but I'm looking forward to the B-1s having the targeting pod--it's going to help... big time.

[AlphaMikeFoxtrot]

I know it's not necessarily thread related but I'm looking forward to the B-1s having the targeting pod--it's going to help... big time.

Targeting Pod only works when airborne...gotta get better before you can dream of big things. But, yeah, the POD helps all!

[AlphaMikeFoxtrot]

...Plus there would be the problem of every bomber crew ignoring their primary mission for the chance to score the first bomber AMRAAM kill...

PBAR

Right...like every bomber crew wanting to score the first NUDET on Moscow...gimme a break...there would be a bit of professionalism involved, and I think the BUFF not to mention other bomber communities have proven they can handle any "extra" that big blue can throw at them!

[Guest LittleMan]

Anybody catch that show on the History Channel the other night?

Yeah, I was about to turn the TV off when I ran into it. I watched it for a bit and TIVO'd the rest (still haven't had the time to watch the rest). It seemed pretty interesting, but the rendering on the Raptor and the "stealth dogfight" was pretty poor (the Raptor's cockpit looked pretty lame, too... I've seen better video games). The part I saw honestly looked like they had produced it like five years ago (or at least with technology from five years ago).

[afnav]

The B-1R was a Boeing proposal a few years ago that came out when the AF was considering a regional bomber. We were considering the F/B-22 at the same along with a C-130 JSSAM truck IIRC but that all went away when the AF pressed ahead with the 2018 bomber. The B-1 F-119 re-engining was over $4 billion IIRC and the AF doesn't have that kind of cash laying around.

I don't think it would be feasible to equip bombers with AMRAAMs simply due to the amount of training it would take, much to the detriment of our other training requirements and it would only ever be a secondary mission. Plus there would be the problem of every bomber crew ignoring their primary mission for the chance to score the first bomber AMRAAM kill...

PBAR

The "regional" bomber is alive and well.

Stay tuned...

[pbar]

Right...like every bomber crew wanting to score the first NUDET on Moscow...gimme a break...there would be a bit of professionalism involved, and I think the BUFF not to mention other bomber communities have proven they can handle any "extra" that big blue can throw at them!

Sorry...I meant this tongue-in-cheek.

The "regional" bomber is alive and well.

Stay tuned...

In addition to the 2018 bomber or instead of? Just curious.

PBAR

[Guest Cap-10]

The B-1R was a Boeing proposal a few years ago that came out when the AF was considering a regional bomber. We were considering the F/B-22 at the same along with a C-130 JSSAM truck ..."

So the C-130 is going to be used to truck around the Joint Services Small Arms Management Committee (JSSAM)?

I think you meant the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile. (JASSM).

Cap-10

[Guest Cap-10]

Right...like every bomber crew wanting to score the first NUDET on Moscow...gimme a break...there would be a bit of professionalism involved, and I think the BUFF not to mention other bomber communities have proven they can handle any "extra" that big blue can throw at them!

Uummm.......does that include that one time, at B-52 camp, when a BUFF flew across the central US, and not one of the 69 crew members knew that there were nuclear cruise missiles on board? Were those "extra" missiles?

Cap-10

[Guest Lindseyaf]

I watched this with my dad. I'm not sure if you all have talked about this before, because I don't understand the acronyms, but would putting a laser on a 757 truly work?

[Ice Cream]

I watched this with my dad. I'm not sure if you all have talked about this before, because I don't understand the acronyms, but would putting a laser on a 757 truly work?

I'm not sure if I remember correctly, but it seems that concept was underway until 1993 when budget cuts grinded the project to a halt. I'm sure in the future they might have something like that. The fighters they showed on the edge of space had them, but that seemed a little farfetched to me, but who knows.

[Steve Davies]

I watched this with my dad. I'm not sure if you all have talked about this before, because I don't understand the acronyms, but would putting a laser on a 757 truly work?

Lindsey

The Air Force currently has one in the nose of a 747-400 and by all accounts it works quite well. See: ABL

[B*D*A]

Lindsey

The Air Force currently has one in the nose of a 747-400 and by all accounts it works quite well. See: ABL

I saw it on a base visit to EDW a few years ago. Pretty cool stuff.

[Guest C130 Crew Chief Instructor]

I watched this with my dad. I'm not sure if you all have talked about this before, because I don't understand the acronyms, but would putting a laser on a 757 truly work?

They have also recently installed one on a C-130 and it works quite well, able to put a large hole right through tanks.

[B*D*A]

They have also recently installed one on a C-130 and it works quite well, able to put a large hole right through tanks.

Kinda like a maverick?

[Steve Davies]

Can't be bothered to reformat the text below, but this is taken from the GAO's latest report and provides a useful update on the ABL.

Page 35 GAO-08-467SP Assessments of Major Weapon Programs

MDA’s ABL element is being developed to destroy enemy missiles during the

boost phase of their flight. Carried aboard a modified Boeing 747 aircraft,

ABL employs a beam control/fire control subsystem to focus the beam on a

target, a high-energy chemical laser to rupture the fuel tanks of enemy

missiles, and a battle management subsystem to plan and execute engagements.

We assessed the system’s prototype design that is expected to lead to a

lethality demonstration in 2009.

None of ABL’s critical technologies are fully mature, yet MDA has released

100 percent of the prototype’s engineering drawings. Program officials

expected to demonstrate the prototype’s critical technologies during a

flight test planned for late 2008, but recent integration issues and

technical challenges delayed that test until 2009. Additional drawings may

be needed if problems encountered during future testing necessitate design

changes. The work for ABL’s prime contract was rebaselined in 2004 and

refined again in 2005. However, the contractor continued to experience cost

and schedule delays in 2006. In May 2007, the program replanned its contract

work again, increasing costs and extending the length of the contract.

Subsequent to the replan, the contractor continued to overrun its cost and

schedule budgets through fiscal year 2007.

The program office assessed all seven of its critical technologies—the

six-module laser, missile tracking, atmospheric compensation, transmissive

optics, optical coatings, jitter control, and managing the high-power

beam—as nearly mature. According to program officials, all of these

technologies have been demonstrated in a relevant environment. Although the

program office assessed jitter control as nearly mature, it considers this

technology to be a high risk to the program. Jitter is a phenomenon

pertaining to the technology of controlling and stabilizing the high-energy

laser beam so that vibration unique to the aircraft does not degrade the

laser’s aimpoint. It is critical to imparting sufficient energy to the

target to rupture its fuel tank. The program’s assessment of this

technology is based on models that have been anchored to measurements taken

during recent ground and flight tests. On the basis of current jitter

measurements, officials are confident that they can successfully execute a

key flight test planned for 2009.

The program plans to demonstrate all of its critical technologies during

this flight test of the system prototype, referred to as a lethality

demonstration, in which ABL will attempt to shoot down a short- range

ballistic missile. Although the program had expected to complete the

lethality demonstration in 2008, software integration issues and recent

technical challenges associated with the system’s beam control/fire control

component delayed the demonstration until 2009.

We could not assess ABL’s design stability because the element’s initial

capability will not be fully developed until the second aircraft is well

underway. While the program has released 100 percent of its engineering

drawings for the prototype, it is unclear whether the design of the

prototype aircraft can be relied upon as a good indicator of design

stability for the second aircraft. More drawings may be needed if the design

is enhanced or if problems encountered during flight testing force design

changes.

We did not assess the production maturity for the system’s prototype because

statistical process control data are not available due to the limited

quantity of hardware being produced for the prototype aircraft.

MDA estimates that it will have spent approximately $5.1 billion for its ABL

element from its inception in 1996 through its lethality demonstration in

2009. For years, the program has faced significant cost and schedule growth.

In 2004, the ABL program restructured its prime contract work to focus on

executing near-term milestones within budget and on schedule. However, since

that restructure, the program has continued to experience cost growth and

schedule delays. During 2005, the program further refined its work plan to

ensure it could meet its cost and schedule objectives. However, a year

later, the ABL program encountered new technical challenges that contributed

to additional cost increases and schedule slippage. Consequently, program

officials reevaluated the program and implemented a new baseline for all

remaining work. In 2007, the ABL program once again modified its prime

contract, increasing the cost ceiling by $253 million and extending the

period of performance by approximately 1 year. The prime contract is

currently valued at about $3.9 billion and is expected to end in February

2010.

In commenting on a draft of this assessment, the ABL Program Office

concurred with our asssessment. The program office also provided technical

comments, which were incorporated as appropriate.Production Maturity We did

not assess the production maturity for the system’s prototype because

statistical process control data are not available due to the limited

quantity of hardware being produced for the prototype aircraft.

MDA estimates that it will have spent approximately $5.1 billion for its ABL

element from its inception in 1996 through its lethality demonstration in

2009. For years, the program has faced significant cost and schedule growth.

In 2004, the ABL program restructured its prime contract work to focus on

executing near-term milestones within budget and on schedule. However, since

that restructure, the program has continued to experience cost growth and

schedule delays. During 2005, the program further refined its work plan to

ensure it could meet its cost and schedule objectives. However, a year

later, the ABL program encountered new technical challenges that contributed

to additional cost increases and schedule slippage. Consequently, program

officials reevaluated the program and implemented a new baseline for all

remaining work. In 2007, the ABL program once again modified its prime

contract, increasing the cost ceiling by $253 million and extending the

period of performance by approximately 1 year. The prime contract is

currently valued at about $3.9 billion and is expected to end in February

2010.

In commenting on a draft of this assessment, the ABL Program Office

concurred with our asssessment. The program office also provided technical

comments, which were incorporated as appropriate.

[Guest Fogo]

Along the lines of the History Channel show, starting in June the Military Channel is starting a series about air combat.

Evidently it is going to be re-enacting famous air battles with actual aircraft, as well as re-telling their stories with footage and computer animation.

Seems like they are just taking the History Channel "Dogfights" show to the next level by using live aircraft to re-enact the battles.

[Ill Destructor]

Seems like they are just taking the History Channel "Dogfights" show to the next level by using live aircraft to re-enact the battles.

It's going to suck. Period. You can't re-enact the battles as they happened. Let's see Battle of Britain... "Where can I get 75 Spitfires and 160 Me-109s? What? You say there aren't that many flying anymore? Shit!" Dogfights has the format right. Love that show.

[Guest Fogo]

You got that right... listening to those old guys talk about their experiences while seeing it re-enacted as best we ever could is amazing.

You got that right... listening to those old guys talk about their experiences while seeing it re-enacted as best we ever could is amazing.

[sky_king]

You can say that again

[Guest 055-NOS]

I'd love to watch this - anyone know where I can grab it/stream it off the net?

[StoleIt]

I'd be interested to see how they figure an F-22 and an Su-47 would go at it. Probably try BVR and nobody can lock eachother up and then just close in and go for guns?