The blossoming, yet at the same time shadowy, saga that has become Americas next long-range bomber, now known as Long Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B), continues to gain steam, although it has yet to be determined if the current economic investment being made in the program equates to only a temporary sugar high or a long-term adequately funded initiative. You can read an update on this program in the recent Flightglobal.com piece posted here.
LRS-B, once known as the Next Generation Bomber and 2018 Bomber, should be amongst Americas top military priorities, one that perfectly fits into Americas shift in focus from nation building and counter-insurgency fighting in the Middle East to peer state conflict in the Pacific region. Instead, the F-35, an aircraft that is arguably poorly suited for a conflict over the Pacific, especially when it comes to the predictably based A model, is sucking USAF coffers dry at an unprecedented and even unpredictable rate. So either the F-35 program gets axed and the LRS-B becomes part of a rationalized replacement program for it, which is sadly a very unlikely possibility, or the LRS-B has to be able to prove its business case to the folks at the Pentagon, the White House and on Capitol Hill. Currently, the USAF seems to want to field something, almost anything, that can fly far and survive in contested airspace with a decent weapons load. At this time it seems that the program will have somewhat limited goals by todays standards, with more focus being applied to cost control and time-frames than ancillary capabilities beyond long-range strike, hence the name Long Range Strike Bomber. This reality is a product of the USAFs management living within a post F-35 world, one where getting iron on the ramp, albeit with degraded capabilities, and then hoping for further upgrades down the line, is necessary as there simply is no cash due to the Joint Strike Fighter monetary black-hole. Yet treating a program like the LRS-B as specifically a bomber requirement, or even calling it a bomber, maybe the entirely wrong way to compete for limited defense funds. This is not 1980, where a single large airframe need perform only a single task. Quite the contrary, the idea of building a modern stealthy flying truck of sorts is incredibly exciting and much more relevant to the single role alternative. So instead of saying that the USAF needs 100 billion dollars for a bomber, the requirement should be aimed at needing that money for an incredibly flexible long-range multi-role stealth platform that is geared to do many things within the challenging area denial and anti-access combat environment. In framing the LRS-B in this fashion, the USAF can dip into other looming requirements, and thus funding categories, which would surely help such a programs chances of budgetary survival and greatly bolster its overall relevance.
Although the USAF has said the Next Generation Bomber would wear several hats, including possessing some surveillance potential in addition to its long-range strike focus, this multi-role functionality is less clear now that the program has morphed into the LRS-B iteration. But we must ask ourselves, just how much capability could the USAF build into a semi-clean sheet design so as to make an incredibly strong economic case for such a substantial defense-related investment? Keep in mind all these requirements do not have to be delivered in the aircraft straight from the factory, but designers must work their potential into the initial LRS-B design in order to cost effectively make them a reality later on. So here are some capabilities that would be beneficial for the LRS-B to one day be able to field, some of them are most conservative than others, but once again, we only have one shot at this for probably the better part of another century, so lets make the design as flexible as possible to evolve and grow into the future:
Standoff Attack & Deep Strike: This is already the cornerstone of the LRS-B concept. Basically the aircraft would need to be able to carry enough payload over at least 5000 miles un-refueld in order to give it the deep strike potential currently required. The aircraft would not have to carry as large of a weapons load as the B-2. Instead of two weapons bays, as seen on the B-2, possibly one over-sized bay capable of launching a dozen and a half JASSMs or dropping a single 30,000lb Massive Ordinance Penetrator would be sufficient. Ideally, such an aircraft would be able to carry a myriad of weapons on a single mission, each tailored for their intended target. For instance, when attacking airfield, the LRS-B should be able to launch a few JASSMs at key air defense nodes on its way in toward the target, then a couple dozen SDBs to take out each individual aircraft shelter, as well as a half dozen 2,000lb JDAMs for destroying larger structures and cratering the runway. Also, the inclusion of beyond visual range air to air missiles should not be out of the question due to the vulnerable nature of the LRS-Bs deep strike mission set. Even the ability to carry the AIM-9X Block II internally could be incredibly beneficial as it could be cued against fighter aircraft in a lock on after launch mode that would not require the LRS-B to maneuver for targeting. Utilizing one weapons bay could reduce the aircrafts size and weight and thus its cost when compared to a B-2 sized platform. Furthermore, the aircraft has to use the best wide-band stealth design and treatments currently available. These include RF, IR, acoustic, and possibly even visual low observable techniques. Ideally such a machine would be built out of existing and proven components when available and cutting edge components only where it is most advantageous to the design. Migrating the F-35′s Electro-Optical targeting system and Distributive Aperture System directly into the LRS-B design for enhanced situational awareness and precision targeting would be an example of this. Using the B-2′s recently upgraded massive AESA radar arrays would be another. The LRS-B should also feature the latest in open architecture mission computer systems as it would allow capabilities to be added over time with minimally invasive hardware changes and thus would lower spiral development costs. In the end, a rationalized design that balances cutting edge and modular interchangeable technologies with cost and development time-frames would be beneficial when it comes to the survival of the program over time. Yet this does not mean that the actual airframe itself cannot be a totally new and innovative multi-role design, it just means that the aircrafts subsystems could be sourced in many cases off the shelf.
Signals Intelligence: I am fairly certain that the USAF already has this capability in mind when it came to the Next Generation Bomber, although now that the program has morphed into the LRS-B I am not as certain. Regardless, a bomber of this sophistication that is designed to survive deep inside enemy territory would already have an incredibly sensitive and capable signals intelligence capability. Being able to precisely locate radar emitters and key transmitting components of an enemys integrated air defense system is absolutely crucial for war planners as well as for operating the LRS-B successfully in contested airspace. No aircraft is totally invisible to radar, and in order to stay far enough away from threatening SAM sites and search radars to remain undetected you have to know where exactly they are and what exactly they are. With this in mind, the LRS-B could use its built-in digital radar warning receiver (RWR) and electronic service measures (ESM), as well as other modular missionized electronic surveillance equipment that could be temporarily mounted in its large weapons bay, to record and/or transmit incredibly high-fidelity electronic intelligence information. Sure, the RC-135s, EP-3s, RQ-4 and various other more traditional aircraft prosecute this mission today, but none can do so without the enemy even knowing they are there or while deep inside the enemys territory. The best surveillance data can be had when the enemy does not even know they are being watched, low observable surveillance provides such an edge. Then, when you pair this capability with the LRS-Bs ability to launch things, such as air launched decoys and miniature drones, you have the ability for a single platform to not only passively listen to the enemys radar transmissions and other emissions on the electromagnetic spectrum, but you also have the ability to stimulate the enemys integrated air defense network at standoff distances, in an almost totally invisible manner, without putting American lives at risk. This way, during crucial surveillance missions, a LRS-B performing SIGINT duties could actually poke and prod specific enemy air defense sites without recourse. The data collected during a SIGINT mission could be recorded on-board and reviewed once the aircraft has returned to base or it could be beamed off the LRS-B via satellite data-link continuously in real-time (which degrades the invisibility of the aircraft to some extent) or in periodic bursts for near-real time exploitation.
Communications Intelligence: LRS-B could become a near invisible interceptor of enemy communications in much the same way it would prosecute the more organic signals intelligence mission as stated above. Once again, the bombers weapons bay could provide an area to mount specialized mission equipment in a conformal manner that would be designed to intercept enemy voice transmissions. Once again these transmissions could be data-linked back to a ground station in real-time using low probability of intercept (LPI) datalink, or it could be transmitted once the aircraft is back in friendly airspace, or just downloaded once the aircraft has returned back to base. By using an active link during the mission, it may be possible to use the LRS-B as a remote platform, with the equivalent of a RC-135′s cabin full of analysts and technicians remotely manipulating the communications intelligence payload in real-time in a ground station thousands of miles away. It could even provide this function passively why conducting other primary missions, thus leveraging the maximum potential of every hour put on the airframe while in or around hostile airspace, and thus risking less aircraft over the duration of a campaign. Once the aircraft has completed its COMINT mission it could be reverted back to bomber configuration by removing the module from the aircrafts weapons bay.
Jammer: The LRS-B would most-likely be outfitted with an advanced built-in electronic warfare and jamming suite that could be useful not only for self escorting duties but also for protecting other allied assets in the airspace around it during large scale raids. Then when you take into account that the aircraft will undoubtedly pack a massive AESA radar array, which would give the bomber an incredibly powerful organic electronic and cyber attack capability, the LRS-B is really already an electronic warfare platform by default. Additionally, by once again utilizing a large conformal array, or canoe, that could fit within the aircrafts weapons bay, an LRS-B could provide ridiculously powerful jamming support on a level that currently does not exist in the US armed forces. Also, such an aircraft could use its weapons carrying capacity, or a portion of it, to launch a swarm of advanced autonomous decoys that could confuse, spoof, and jam the enemys integrated air defense system. At the very least, an LRS-B equipped with a modular jamming pallet, could standoff at the edge of the enemys air defenses and work as an incredibly potent standoff jammer that could provide electronic warfare support for swarms of UCAVs sent in to attack the enemys air defense system before manned assets are brought to bear over the airspace. The USAFs stand-off jammer requirement has been around for decades and has since remained unfulfilled. With a relatively minor additional investment, the LRS-B may be the perfect platform to finally fill in this gap.
Low Observable Network Node: Providing an active net over the battlefield will be a key requirement for succeeding in the arena of aerial warfare in the 21st century. But how does one do this, especially beyond line of sight, if all the aircraft involved on a mission are low observable (stealth) in nature? Your stealth cover would be blown if you park a Global Hawk or other non-stealth aircraft high above or rear the fringe of an advancing stealthy force, not to mention these aircraft would be vulnerable to enemy attack. In other words, you need a low observable battlefield connectivity node that can collect, fuse, and rebroadcast sensor information from the various stealthily aircrafts (F-22, F-35, B-2, RQ-170 etc) unique low probability of intercept (LPI) data-links. The LRS-B is potentially a viable platform for this application, especially when you take into account its ability to survive and persist over or near the battlefield for long periods of time. It may be able to provide this capability when needed while also performing its primary strike function during missions that feature large formations of stealthy US aircraft, as there should be room aboard such a large machine for this kind of hardware. This same capability would be best provided by a high-altitude long-endurance stealthy UAV (such as the defunct Quartz), although one is not said to exist in any relevant numbers at this time. None-the-less, having a manned asset to back such a capability up as a secondary function would be extremely prudent as Americas armed forces continue to rely more and more on data-link and remote information fusion technologies.
Drone Quarterback: By the time LRS-B hopefully becomes a reality, predicted to be in the mid-2020s at this time, Americas armed forces will most likely be receiving ever greater numbers of low-observable unmanned attack aircraft. These aircraft will be by and large autonomous in nature, and able to make their own decisions over the battlefield during the opening days of a conflict. But this does not mean there wont be times when they need to ask a question, or where it will be advantageous to simply tell them what to do. This is where LRS-B could come in handy. The aircraft could work as a line of sight control platform, data fusion center and relay router for swarms of marauding UCAVs. Such a line of sight capability is known to be more stable, harder to detect and much more jam resistant than its satellite alternative. An LRS-B orbiting on the outside edge of the battle-space, where it can freely relay large amounts of data, collected by UCAVs operating deep in enemy airspace, to control centers around the globe using its low probability of intercept satellite data-link, could also provide an active line of sight network for the drone swarm. This way, in a pinch, the drones operators could talk to their machines directly via the LRS-B working as a data relay node. Even the two-man crew aboard LRS-B could monitor a battle plan being executed by an unmanned swarm and make quick changes on the fly or approve a drones next action if it is deemed by the drones brain to be outside of its automated parameters or too confusing for its software to figure out on its own. Such a line of sight data-link and satellite relay system could be an essential element of operating UCAVs at extremely long ranges and over extremely hostile territory. Think of it as a human foreman of a robotic production line, someone to trouble shoot issues on the fly and to relay status updates up to the management on a continuous basis. Every football team needs a quarterback, in this case that would be the LRS-B and her crew, with the couching staff monitoring the game from thousands of miles away and all the rest of the players being robots.
Battlefield Area Surveillance: The LRS-B could provide invaluable radar, and even electro-optical, surveillance very near or even over the battlefield. Such a capability, that could leverage an aircraft like the LRS-Bs huge radar aperture, could provide ground moving target indicator (GMTI) radar surveillance back to commanders in the field, or anywhere in the world for that matter, in real-time. The aircrafts long loitering time would also be a key factor in providing this capability. Seeing as the E-8 J-STARS fleet of archaic 707s are rapidly aging, and money to replace them partially or in full has not been identified, so building portion of the J-STARS capability into the LRS-B may help divert some much-needed funds its way. For instance, splitting the large-scale GMTI job between a P-8 airframe (737) focused on a standoff capability and an over-the-battlefield capability via the LRS-B may be prudent. The stealthy over the battlefield radar surveillance capability has been on the DoDs wish list since the Pave Mover and Tacit Blue programs that took place some over 30 years ago. Today, some of this requirement may be finally provided on a micro-tactical level by the RQ-170 Sentinel, but publicly a low observable battlefield aerial radar surveillance platform of strategic capability has never been disclosed.
Maritime Strike: The B-2 is not known for its maritime strike capability, and in reality none of the aircraft in the USAFs current bomber lineup are highly optimized for this duty, especially in a anti-access/area denial scenario. Sure the B-52 has demonstrated its ability to hit moving targets with JDAMs, as has the B-1, yet striking highly defended targets like Aircraft carriers, or ships in the enemys littorals with free-fall guided bombs, or even the venerable AGM-84 Harpoon, is not really the ideal weapon-aircraft combination in the days of initiatives like the Air-Sea Battle concept. This is especially true when fighting against a well armed and modern enemy that possess a powerful navy with integrated air defense capability. Instead, the USAF should come up with an anti-shipping variant of the stealthy JASSM, or even a larger cruise missile, and integrate it into the LRS-B in a complete manner. The LRS-Bs powerful radar arrays used for surface targeting, combined with a stealthy or hypersonic anti-ship missiles that can pack a big warhead over a standoff range, would really allow the LRS-B to step into the realm of air to surface warfare in a big way. Such a combination of capabilities would provide an incredibly potent anti-ship asset that could work at depleting an enemys naval buffer surrounding their shores. An affective campaign using the LRS-B against picket ships and other key naval vessels would open up the door for shorter ranged assets, such as carrier-borne UCAVs or F-35s, to begin prosecuting targets on or near the enemys coastline. With an increasing focus and dollars being applied to the emerging air-sea battle doctrine, surely the LRS-B, if properly designed for maritime strike missions and paired with a proper munitions for that job, can economically compete with other systems as an invaluable anti-access/area denial busting weapon system of the future.
Theater Ballistic Missile Defense: LRS-B could be designed to counter theater ballistic missiles. By utilizing its large weapons bay and low observability, a LRS-B could loiter right on the edge of the enemys airspace, waiting for the alert that a ballistic missile has been launched. At which time it could employ anti-ballistic missile missiles against the rising threat. The MIM-104 Patriot PAC-3″ was paired with an AIM-9Xs seeker head for testing aboard an F-15C in this exact role recently. The long-range anti-ballistic missile-missile could be shot at an enemy ballistic missile during its crucial launch phase. This is best time to engage such a threat as the ability to shoot down a ballistic missile during its launch phase works as a clear deterrent to the launching party as whatever nasty stuff was packed in the ballistic missile in questions warhead would fall back near its place of origins once it is shot down. Furthermore, the launch and boost phase is where the ballistic missile is at its lowest energy state while at the same time providing the largest infra-red signature. In other words, the LRS-B could attempt to capture some missile defense dollars by adding such a capability, which due to the aircrafts stealthy penetrating abilities, could allow for an even more effective way of providing a ballistic missile screen over a war zone than the AEGIS class Ballistic Missile Defense Destroyers that are deployed today.
Air To Air Arsenal Ship: LRS-B could carry much larger air to air missiles, and in larger quantities, than what an F-22, F-15, F-16 or F-35 are capable of carrying today. With little modification, an LRS-B could push into enemy territory behind a line of F-22s, and/or F-35s, on a stealthy counter-air mission in the role as a stealthy weapons truck. F-22s and F-35s could remotely request missiles from the LRS-B as they detect, sort and prosecute enemy targets, via passing on the targeting coordinates to the LRS-B with a command to fire. The #1 thing F-22 pilots seem to dislike about their jets (beyond the Raptor cough fiasco apparently) is that it only carries six beyond visual range air to air missiles. What is more concerning is that the F-35, at least at this point, will only carry four of these missiles. LRS-B, working as an air to air artillery battery of sorts, could be the perfect force multiplier for air to air fighters during the opening days of a conflict, especially against a major player like China who has thousands of tactical aircraft in inventory. Having the LRS-B lob extremely long-range air to air missiles on cue from forward deployed fighters would allow for greater fighter cover over the battlefield and would provide a tactically unpredictable wildcard in the fight. LRS-B could even gain an air to air mode for its powerful AESA radar, most likely based on the B-2′s latest upgrade, that could allow it to work as a standoff radar picture provider for stealthy F-22s and F-35s forward deployed over the battle-lines. This would allow the F-22s and F-35s to remain almost totally silent while venturing deep into enemy airspace, which would offer them an enhanced degree of stealthiness and thus survivability as the big LRS-B provides a common aerial radar picture while loitering safely in less hostile airspace.
Tanker: This is my favorite out of the entire list. It is somewhat preposterous to think that if the US were really going to face a peer state with serious firepower that we would have an elaborate and incredibly expensive force of short-legged tactical fighters sweep towards the enemys borders undetected, followed by big, unstealthy tankers lumbering a couple hundred miles behind. With other countries procuring long-range surface to air missile systems, both land and sea based, as well as stealth fighters, the way we have done the fighter business for decades simply will not do. With an almost all stealth fighter force, you need a contingent of stealthy tankers to support such a fleet during combat far from home, especially during the opening weeks of a conflict. These stealthy tanking aircraft would not be used as aerial bridge tankers in the traditional sense, such as dragging fighter aircraft across benign airspace enroute to their targets, or working as lilly pads for tactical aircraft regularly traversing long distances. Instead they would be utilized to accompany low observable combatants the last 500 miles or so from their targets, and to provide them with gas close to the enemys shore, as well as on their way out of enemy air space after completing their missions. Furthermore, with autonomous aerial refueling close to becoming an operational reality, the potential of refueling already long-legged UCAVs via a stealthy tanker aircraft would be a massive force multiplier and could result in a quantum leap in unmanned and undetected persistence over enemy airspace. In many ways, fielding a version of the LRS-B with tanking capacity could save the US gobs of money as less stealthy tactical aircraft would be required to achieve the same persistence over the battlefield during a time of conflict. In other words, you could buy less stealthy tactical aircraft and have the same effect as having a larger inventory if they were paired with a stealthy tanker, and this is especially true in the stealthy UCAV department, where range and loitering time is more limited by the oil and lubricants the aircraft carries than a pilots physical endurance. Finally, in the next two decades we will have to buy new tankers no matter what bomber we buy or do not buy, so why not make sure some of these new tankers are low observable in nature. If this stealthy aerial refueling capability, that will surely be more expensive than a standard tanker of equal size, were to bite into the standing tanker procurement budget, than offset some of this expense by immediately standing up private contractor tanking services for domestic training and international non-combat related missions such as fighter drags or refueling heavy cargo aircraft on international supply flights. In the end betting the budgetary farm on a fleet of thirsty stealth fighters that have combat radiuses in the realm of 500 miles while at the same time stating that the Pacific Theater, with all of its distance challenges, is our new strategic focus, is just ridiculous without a stealth tanker. China is fully aware that it cannot do battle with our tactical fighters on a toe to toe basis and win without saturating an area with aircraft and thus absorbing huge losses. Yet they do know of our ridiculous dependance on aerial tankers. It is a lot easier to shoot down a tanker that eight individual F-22s depend on for gas than to shoot down the F-22s themselves. Hence Chinas J-20, an aircraft built with long range in mind and a stealthy skin, all aimed at sneaking by our fighters and taking out their source of nutrition, the lumbering and very detectible aerial tanker. With a stealth combat tanker this damning issue ceases to exist.
LRS-B, once known as the Next Generation Bomber and 2018 Bomber, should be amongst Americas top military priorities, one that perfectly fits into Americas shift in focus from nation building and counter-insurgency fighting in the Middle East to peer state conflict in the Pacific region. Instead, the F-35, an aircraft that is arguably poorly suited for a conflict over the Pacific, especially when it comes to the predictably based A model, is sucking USAF coffers dry at an unprecedented and even unpredictable rate. So either the F-35 program gets axed and the LRS-B becomes part of a rationalized replacement program for it, which is sadly a very unlikely possibility, or the LRS-B has to be able to prove its business case to the folks at the Pentagon, the White House and on Capitol Hill. Currently, the USAF seems to want to field something, almost anything, that can fly far and survive in contested airspace with a decent weapons load. At this time it seems that the program will have somewhat limited goals by todays standards, with more focus being applied to cost control and time-frames than ancillary capabilities beyond long-range strike, hence the name Long Range Strike Bomber. This reality is a product of the USAFs management living within a post F-35 world, one where getting iron on the ramp, albeit with degraded capabilities, and then hoping for further upgrades down the line, is necessary as there simply is no cash due to the Joint Strike Fighter monetary black-hole. Yet treating a program like the LRS-B as specifically a bomber requirement, or even calling it a bomber, maybe the entirely wrong way to compete for limited defense funds. This is not 1980, where a single large airframe need perform only a single task. Quite the contrary, the idea of building a modern stealthy flying truck of sorts is incredibly exciting and much more relevant to the single role alternative. So instead of saying that the USAF needs 100 billion dollars for a bomber, the requirement should be aimed at needing that money for an incredibly flexible long-range multi-role stealth platform that is geared to do many things within the challenging area denial and anti-access combat environment. In framing the LRS-B in this fashion, the USAF can dip into other looming requirements, and thus funding categories, which would surely help such a programs chances of budgetary survival and greatly bolster its overall relevance.
Although the USAF has said the Next Generation Bomber would wear several hats, including possessing some surveillance potential in addition to its long-range strike focus, this multi-role functionality is less clear now that the program has morphed into the LRS-B iteration. But we must ask ourselves, just how much capability could the USAF build into a semi-clean sheet design so as to make an incredibly strong economic case for such a substantial defense-related investment? Keep in mind all these requirements do not have to be delivered in the aircraft straight from the factory, but designers must work their potential into the initial LRS-B design in order to cost effectively make them a reality later on. So here are some capabilities that would be beneficial for the LRS-B to one day be able to field, some of them are most conservative than others, but once again, we only have one shot at this for probably the better part of another century, so lets make the design as flexible as possible to evolve and grow into the future:
Standoff Attack & Deep Strike: This is already the cornerstone of the LRS-B concept. Basically the aircraft would need to be able to carry enough payload over at least 5000 miles un-refueld in order to give it the deep strike potential currently required. The aircraft would not have to carry as large of a weapons load as the B-2. Instead of two weapons bays, as seen on the B-2, possibly one over-sized bay capable of launching a dozen and a half JASSMs or dropping a single 30,000lb Massive Ordinance Penetrator would be sufficient. Ideally, such an aircraft would be able to carry a myriad of weapons on a single mission, each tailored for their intended target. For instance, when attacking airfield, the LRS-B should be able to launch a few JASSMs at key air defense nodes on its way in toward the target, then a couple dozen SDBs to take out each individual aircraft shelter, as well as a half dozen 2,000lb JDAMs for destroying larger structures and cratering the runway. Also, the inclusion of beyond visual range air to air missiles should not be out of the question due to the vulnerable nature of the LRS-Bs deep strike mission set. Even the ability to carry the AIM-9X Block II internally could be incredibly beneficial as it could be cued against fighter aircraft in a lock on after launch mode that would not require the LRS-B to maneuver for targeting. Utilizing one weapons bay could reduce the aircrafts size and weight and thus its cost when compared to a B-2 sized platform. Furthermore, the aircraft has to use the best wide-band stealth design and treatments currently available. These include RF, IR, acoustic, and possibly even visual low observable techniques. Ideally such a machine would be built out of existing and proven components when available and cutting edge components only where it is most advantageous to the design. Migrating the F-35′s Electro-Optical targeting system and Distributive Aperture System directly into the LRS-B design for enhanced situational awareness and precision targeting would be an example of this. Using the B-2′s recently upgraded massive AESA radar arrays would be another. The LRS-B should also feature the latest in open architecture mission computer systems as it would allow capabilities to be added over time with minimally invasive hardware changes and thus would lower spiral development costs. In the end, a rationalized design that balances cutting edge and modular interchangeable technologies with cost and development time-frames would be beneficial when it comes to the survival of the program over time. Yet this does not mean that the actual airframe itself cannot be a totally new and innovative multi-role design, it just means that the aircrafts subsystems could be sourced in many cases off the shelf.
Signals Intelligence: I am fairly certain that the USAF already has this capability in mind when it came to the Next Generation Bomber, although now that the program has morphed into the LRS-B I am not as certain. Regardless, a bomber of this sophistication that is designed to survive deep inside enemy territory would already have an incredibly sensitive and capable signals intelligence capability. Being able to precisely locate radar emitters and key transmitting components of an enemys integrated air defense system is absolutely crucial for war planners as well as for operating the LRS-B successfully in contested airspace. No aircraft is totally invisible to radar, and in order to stay far enough away from threatening SAM sites and search radars to remain undetected you have to know where exactly they are and what exactly they are. With this in mind, the LRS-B could use its built-in digital radar warning receiver (RWR) and electronic service measures (ESM), as well as other modular missionized electronic surveillance equipment that could be temporarily mounted in its large weapons bay, to record and/or transmit incredibly high-fidelity electronic intelligence information. Sure, the RC-135s, EP-3s, RQ-4 and various other more traditional aircraft prosecute this mission today, but none can do so without the enemy even knowing they are there or while deep inside the enemys territory. The best surveillance data can be had when the enemy does not even know they are being watched, low observable surveillance provides such an edge. Then, when you pair this capability with the LRS-Bs ability to launch things, such as air launched decoys and miniature drones, you have the ability for a single platform to not only passively listen to the enemys radar transmissions and other emissions on the electromagnetic spectrum, but you also have the ability to stimulate the enemys integrated air defense network at standoff distances, in an almost totally invisible manner, without putting American lives at risk. This way, during crucial surveillance missions, a LRS-B performing SIGINT duties could actually poke and prod specific enemy air defense sites without recourse. The data collected during a SIGINT mission could be recorded on-board and reviewed once the aircraft has returned to base or it could be beamed off the LRS-B via satellite data-link continuously in real-time (which degrades the invisibility of the aircraft to some extent) or in periodic bursts for near-real time exploitation.
Communications Intelligence: LRS-B could become a near invisible interceptor of enemy communications in much the same way it would prosecute the more organic signals intelligence mission as stated above. Once again, the bombers weapons bay could provide an area to mount specialized mission equipment in a conformal manner that would be designed to intercept enemy voice transmissions. Once again these transmissions could be data-linked back to a ground station in real-time using low probability of intercept (LPI) datalink, or it could be transmitted once the aircraft is back in friendly airspace, or just downloaded once the aircraft has returned back to base. By using an active link during the mission, it may be possible to use the LRS-B as a remote platform, with the equivalent of a RC-135′s cabin full of analysts and technicians remotely manipulating the communications intelligence payload in real-time in a ground station thousands of miles away. It could even provide this function passively why conducting other primary missions, thus leveraging the maximum potential of every hour put on the airframe while in or around hostile airspace, and thus risking less aircraft over the duration of a campaign. Once the aircraft has completed its COMINT mission it could be reverted back to bomber configuration by removing the module from the aircrafts weapons bay.
Jammer: The LRS-B would most-likely be outfitted with an advanced built-in electronic warfare and jamming suite that could be useful not only for self escorting duties but also for protecting other allied assets in the airspace around it during large scale raids. Then when you take into account that the aircraft will undoubtedly pack a massive AESA radar array, which would give the bomber an incredibly powerful organic electronic and cyber attack capability, the LRS-B is really already an electronic warfare platform by default. Additionally, by once again utilizing a large conformal array, or canoe, that could fit within the aircrafts weapons bay, an LRS-B could provide ridiculously powerful jamming support on a level that currently does not exist in the US armed forces. Also, such an aircraft could use its weapons carrying capacity, or a portion of it, to launch a swarm of advanced autonomous decoys that could confuse, spoof, and jam the enemys integrated air defense system. At the very least, an LRS-B equipped with a modular jamming pallet, could standoff at the edge of the enemys air defenses and work as an incredibly potent standoff jammer that could provide electronic warfare support for swarms of UCAVs sent in to attack the enemys air defense system before manned assets are brought to bear over the airspace. The USAFs stand-off jammer requirement has been around for decades and has since remained unfulfilled. With a relatively minor additional investment, the LRS-B may be the perfect platform to finally fill in this gap.
Low Observable Network Node: Providing an active net over the battlefield will be a key requirement for succeeding in the arena of aerial warfare in the 21st century. But how does one do this, especially beyond line of sight, if all the aircraft involved on a mission are low observable (stealth) in nature? Your stealth cover would be blown if you park a Global Hawk or other non-stealth aircraft high above or rear the fringe of an advancing stealthy force, not to mention these aircraft would be vulnerable to enemy attack. In other words, you need a low observable battlefield connectivity node that can collect, fuse, and rebroadcast sensor information from the various stealthily aircrafts (F-22, F-35, B-2, RQ-170 etc) unique low probability of intercept (LPI) data-links. The LRS-B is potentially a viable platform for this application, especially when you take into account its ability to survive and persist over or near the battlefield for long periods of time. It may be able to provide this capability when needed while also performing its primary strike function during missions that feature large formations of stealthy US aircraft, as there should be room aboard such a large machine for this kind of hardware. This same capability would be best provided by a high-altitude long-endurance stealthy UAV (such as the defunct Quartz), although one is not said to exist in any relevant numbers at this time. None-the-less, having a manned asset to back such a capability up as a secondary function would be extremely prudent as Americas armed forces continue to rely more and more on data-link and remote information fusion technologies.
Drone Quarterback: By the time LRS-B hopefully becomes a reality, predicted to be in the mid-2020s at this time, Americas armed forces will most likely be receiving ever greater numbers of low-observable unmanned attack aircraft. These aircraft will be by and large autonomous in nature, and able to make their own decisions over the battlefield during the opening days of a conflict. But this does not mean there wont be times when they need to ask a question, or where it will be advantageous to simply tell them what to do. This is where LRS-B could come in handy. The aircraft could work as a line of sight control platform, data fusion center and relay router for swarms of marauding UCAVs. Such a line of sight capability is known to be more stable, harder to detect and much more jam resistant than its satellite alternative. An LRS-B orbiting on the outside edge of the battle-space, where it can freely relay large amounts of data, collected by UCAVs operating deep in enemy airspace, to control centers around the globe using its low probability of intercept satellite data-link, could also provide an active line of sight network for the drone swarm. This way, in a pinch, the drones operators could talk to their machines directly via the LRS-B working as a data relay node. Even the two-man crew aboard LRS-B could monitor a battle plan being executed by an unmanned swarm and make quick changes on the fly or approve a drones next action if it is deemed by the drones brain to be outside of its automated parameters or too confusing for its software to figure out on its own. Such a line of sight data-link and satellite relay system could be an essential element of operating UCAVs at extremely long ranges and over extremely hostile territory. Think of it as a human foreman of a robotic production line, someone to trouble shoot issues on the fly and to relay status updates up to the management on a continuous basis. Every football team needs a quarterback, in this case that would be the LRS-B and her crew, with the couching staff monitoring the game from thousands of miles away and all the rest of the players being robots.
Battlefield Area Surveillance: The LRS-B could provide invaluable radar, and even electro-optical, surveillance very near or even over the battlefield. Such a capability, that could leverage an aircraft like the LRS-Bs huge radar aperture, could provide ground moving target indicator (GMTI) radar surveillance back to commanders in the field, or anywhere in the world for that matter, in real-time. The aircrafts long loitering time would also be a key factor in providing this capability. Seeing as the E-8 J-STARS fleet of archaic 707s are rapidly aging, and money to replace them partially or in full has not been identified, so building portion of the J-STARS capability into the LRS-B may help divert some much-needed funds its way. For instance, splitting the large-scale GMTI job between a P-8 airframe (737) focused on a standoff capability and an over-the-battlefield capability via the LRS-B may be prudent. The stealthy over the battlefield radar surveillance capability has been on the DoDs wish list since the Pave Mover and Tacit Blue programs that took place some over 30 years ago. Today, some of this requirement may be finally provided on a micro-tactical level by the RQ-170 Sentinel, but publicly a low observable battlefield aerial radar surveillance platform of strategic capability has never been disclosed.
Maritime Strike: The B-2 is not known for its maritime strike capability, and in reality none of the aircraft in the USAFs current bomber lineup are highly optimized for this duty, especially in a anti-access/area denial scenario. Sure the B-52 has demonstrated its ability to hit moving targets with JDAMs, as has the B-1, yet striking highly defended targets like Aircraft carriers, or ships in the enemys littorals with free-fall guided bombs, or even the venerable AGM-84 Harpoon, is not really the ideal weapon-aircraft combination in the days of initiatives like the Air-Sea Battle concept. This is especially true when fighting against a well armed and modern enemy that possess a powerful navy with integrated air defense capability. Instead, the USAF should come up with an anti-shipping variant of the stealthy JASSM, or even a larger cruise missile, and integrate it into the LRS-B in a complete manner. The LRS-Bs powerful radar arrays used for surface targeting, combined with a stealthy or hypersonic anti-ship missiles that can pack a big warhead over a standoff range, would really allow the LRS-B to step into the realm of air to surface warfare in a big way. Such a combination of capabilities would provide an incredibly potent anti-ship asset that could work at depleting an enemys naval buffer surrounding their shores. An affective campaign using the LRS-B against picket ships and other key naval vessels would open up the door for shorter ranged assets, such as carrier-borne UCAVs or F-35s, to begin prosecuting targets on or near the enemys coastline. With an increasing focus and dollars being applied to the emerging air-sea battle doctrine, surely the LRS-B, if properly designed for maritime strike missions and paired with a proper munitions for that job, can economically compete with other systems as an invaluable anti-access/area denial busting weapon system of the future.
Theater Ballistic Missile Defense: LRS-B could be designed to counter theater ballistic missiles. By utilizing its large weapons bay and low observability, a LRS-B could loiter right on the edge of the enemys airspace, waiting for the alert that a ballistic missile has been launched. At which time it could employ anti-ballistic missile missiles against the rising threat. The MIM-104 Patriot PAC-3″ was paired with an AIM-9Xs seeker head for testing aboard an F-15C in this exact role recently. The long-range anti-ballistic missile-missile could be shot at an enemy ballistic missile during its crucial launch phase. This is best time to engage such a threat as the ability to shoot down a ballistic missile during its launch phase works as a clear deterrent to the launching party as whatever nasty stuff was packed in the ballistic missile in questions warhead would fall back near its place of origins once it is shot down. Furthermore, the launch and boost phase is where the ballistic missile is at its lowest energy state while at the same time providing the largest infra-red signature. In other words, the LRS-B could attempt to capture some missile defense dollars by adding such a capability, which due to the aircrafts stealthy penetrating abilities, could allow for an even more effective way of providing a ballistic missile screen over a war zone than the AEGIS class Ballistic Missile Defense Destroyers that are deployed today.
Air To Air Arsenal Ship: LRS-B could carry much larger air to air missiles, and in larger quantities, than what an F-22, F-15, F-16 or F-35 are capable of carrying today. With little modification, an LRS-B could push into enemy territory behind a line of F-22s, and/or F-35s, on a stealthy counter-air mission in the role as a stealthy weapons truck. F-22s and F-35s could remotely request missiles from the LRS-B as they detect, sort and prosecute enemy targets, via passing on the targeting coordinates to the LRS-B with a command to fire. The #1 thing F-22 pilots seem to dislike about their jets (beyond the Raptor cough fiasco apparently) is that it only carries six beyond visual range air to air missiles. What is more concerning is that the F-35, at least at this point, will only carry four of these missiles. LRS-B, working as an air to air artillery battery of sorts, could be the perfect force multiplier for air to air fighters during the opening days of a conflict, especially against a major player like China who has thousands of tactical aircraft in inventory. Having the LRS-B lob extremely long-range air to air missiles on cue from forward deployed fighters would allow for greater fighter cover over the battlefield and would provide a tactically unpredictable wildcard in the fight. LRS-B could even gain an air to air mode for its powerful AESA radar, most likely based on the B-2′s latest upgrade, that could allow it to work as a standoff radar picture provider for stealthy F-22s and F-35s forward deployed over the battle-lines. This would allow the F-22s and F-35s to remain almost totally silent while venturing deep into enemy airspace, which would offer them an enhanced degree of stealthiness and thus survivability as the big LRS-B provides a common aerial radar picture while loitering safely in less hostile airspace.
Tanker: This is my favorite out of the entire list. It is somewhat preposterous to think that if the US were really going to face a peer state with serious firepower that we would have an elaborate and incredibly expensive force of short-legged tactical fighters sweep towards the enemys borders undetected, followed by big, unstealthy tankers lumbering a couple hundred miles behind. With other countries procuring long-range surface to air missile systems, both land and sea based, as well as stealth fighters, the way we have done the fighter business for decades simply will not do. With an almost all stealth fighter force, you need a contingent of stealthy tankers to support such a fleet during combat far from home, especially during the opening weeks of a conflict. These stealthy tanking aircraft would not be used as aerial bridge tankers in the traditional sense, such as dragging fighter aircraft across benign airspace enroute to their targets, or working as lilly pads for tactical aircraft regularly traversing long distances. Instead they would be utilized to accompany low observable combatants the last 500 miles or so from their targets, and to provide them with gas close to the enemys shore, as well as on their way out of enemy air space after completing their missions. Furthermore, with autonomous aerial refueling close to becoming an operational reality, the potential of refueling already long-legged UCAVs via a stealthy tanker aircraft would be a massive force multiplier and could result in a quantum leap in unmanned and undetected persistence over enemy airspace. In many ways, fielding a version of the LRS-B with tanking capacity could save the US gobs of money as less stealthy tactical aircraft would be required to achieve the same persistence over the battlefield during a time of conflict. In other words, you could buy less stealthy tactical aircraft and have the same effect as having a larger inventory if they were paired with a stealthy tanker, and this is especially true in the stealthy UCAV department, where range and loitering time is more limited by the oil and lubricants the aircraft carries than a pilots physical endurance. Finally, in the next two decades we will have to buy new tankers no matter what bomber we buy or do not buy, so why not make sure some of these new tankers are low observable in nature. If this stealthy aerial refueling capability, that will surely be more expensive than a standard tanker of equal size, were to bite into the standing tanker procurement budget, than offset some of this expense by immediately standing up private contractor tanking services for domestic training and international non-combat related missions such as fighter drags or refueling heavy cargo aircraft on international supply flights. In the end betting the budgetary farm on a fleet of thirsty stealth fighters that have combat radiuses in the realm of 500 miles while at the same time stating that the Pacific Theater, with all of its distance challenges, is our new strategic focus, is just ridiculous without a stealth tanker. China is fully aware that it cannot do battle with our tactical fighters on a toe to toe basis and win without saturating an area with aircraft and thus absorbing huge losses. Yet they do know of our ridiculous dependance on aerial tankers. It is a lot easier to shoot down a tanker that eight individual F-22s depend on for gas than to shoot down the F-22s themselves. Hence Chinas J-20, an aircraft built with long range in mind and a stealthy skin, all aimed at sneaking by our fighters and taking out their source of nutrition, the lumbering and very detectible aerial tanker. With a stealth combat tanker this damning issue ceases to exist.
