AFGSC hints at ARRW hypersonic boost-glide and LRSO plans for the B-1B

Global Strike Command is planning to put the hypersonic AGM-183 Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon externally on the B-1 bomber, and AFGSC chief Gen. Timothy Ray said he sees a conventional version of the Long-Range Stand-Off weapon as a sensible approach to replacing the conventional Air-Launched Cruise Missile if a weapon with longer range than the JASSM-ER is required.
...
“My goal would be to bring on at least a squadron’s worth of airplanes modified with external pylons on the B-1, to carry the ARRW hypersonic cruise missile,” Ray said. A B-1 squadron typically has 18 aircraft.

www.airforcemag.com...


Bringing back the fuselage hardpoints (maybe removing the bulkhead?). Also mentions 31 missile -carriage capability anticipated with HAWC. Doesn't really address whether you could mate ARRW with the CSRL, but I assume that'd be problematic.

a reply to: RadioRobert

Also assuming there's enough b-1's flight worthy.

My goal would be to bring on at least a squadron’s worth of airplanes modified with external pylons on the B-1, to carry the ARRW hypersonic cruise missile,” Ray said. A B-1 squadron typically has 18 aircraft.

I agree!!!Better start pulling them out of Boneyards Or go crazy and restart the production line. "Cough F15 Cough"..

a reply to: RadioRobert

Have a squadron of 18 aircraft capable of carrying them so they can launch 3 to actually use.

a reply to: Blackfinger

Well, the theory goes that retiring and cannibalizing the hangar queens means spending the limited time and resources on the remainder increasing availability. Readiness rates are mostly just budget dollars in this case. They don't have a steady flow of parts because they don't pay for a steady flow. Which means it takes longer to get them, and it costs more.

Frankly, I'd retire B-2's as soon as the -21 is available, but I'd try to keep every Buff and Bone in the air, by hook or crook. We're unlikely to ever have as many strategic platforms as we need. But it's not my money.

best looking swing wing....Idk anyone cared about em...

a reply to: RadioRobert

I'm not sure any of the B-1s in AMARG can come back out. They've all been hit pretty hard for parts. Going by Ghost Rider and Wise Guy, by the time the last 11 B-52s could be flying again it'll be time to retire the fleet.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Because they don't order new parts to have on hand. No company is going to keep a production line on hold, the original subs are long gone. So when they need something, they have to convince a vendor with a machine shop to produce 1 or 2 or a dozen at time from scratch, no tooling. Which takes time. And when they're all gone, it's back to square one. They don't want to spend to set up an actual supply line that includes mass production and a robust supply on hand. That is the easiest stuff to cut budgetwise when required because theoretically, you can always buy more when you need it. But it is penny-wise, pound-foolish, and is why availability problems are piling up on all the 707s, Buffs, Bones, etc

a reply to: RadioRobert

How many strategic bombers does the US need to deter China?

a reply to: Masisoar

A lot?

a reply to: RadioRobert

Do you foresee the rise of an unmanned bomber for strategic and tactical strike roles within our lifetimes?

Optionally-manned probably soon. Maybe one Raider controls two or three others in a near-peer engagement, which keeps aircrew out of the hottest danger bubbles. Unmanned assets are certainly going to be run in parallel. Think of the plan with Quartz Tier III and the B-2. I would wager the "family of systems" is going to be robust. But a dedicated unmanned strategic bomber? Not any time soon.
Tactical strike may already be here.

They should seriously think about a low tech, low effort missile carrier supplementing the B-21 fleet.
The B-1B is an almost ideal plane for the job on paper, but the maintnance requirements just won't cut it going forward.

Doesn't have to be a true arsenal plane, shouldn't be impossible to modify existing cargo or passenger planes to mount suitable hardpoints. Other than Boeing aircraft of course.

Maybe a system for deployment from a C5/17/130?? Use the cargo rollers to deploy them out the back then the f22/35 or whatever’s guidance system takes control of the missile and off it goes...bit simplistic I know but you can see what I mean. Apparently the US marine corp have been using C130 Harvest Hawk’s as missile trucks of a kind for a few years now...firing missiles from pylons...off the ramp and through the side doors so with a bit of design work I’m sure they could get the proposed missiles out through or off the hard points...a reply to: mightmight

a reply to: Silentvulcan

That always sounds great, until you realize that if we're involved in the sort of war that requires launching weapons from transport aircraft, the transport aircraft are going to be needed doing that transport thing. Against third-world countries, sure, we might get away with it. C-5 is tired, and the line is long gone. C-17 line has been allowed to shutter. Leaves you with a C-130, which is cheap, but limited in capability and survivability.

There is talk that the P-8 could get LRASM, but it'd be limited carry, and again, they'd probably be pretty busy with ASW/ASuW. You could buy a barebones derivative to lug JDAMS or something, which would be great in Sandistan, but not so great against any one with rudimentary IADS.

There's essentially no chance they get funding for Raider AND another new "bomber", even if it's a B737. That's why they ought to be not divesting airframes. They need to dance with the girls they came with. Not much choice. Replace the B-2 1-for-1 with the Raider, and then add as many Raiders as you can before being forced to cut Bones.

a reply to: RadioRobert

Unfortunately I agree with your take, but what happens long term?

They'll replace B-2s and B-1s with B-21s and end up with a significant throw weight reduction while demand will continue to grow exponentially.
Who knows how many hypersonics the B-21 will be able to carry, the worst case might be as few as four? Never mind the fact that penetrating assets wouldn't be available to haul long range ordnance in a near peer conflict anyway.

I really don't think B-52s will be suficient on the low end once the B-1s are gone. There will be a need for another missile hauler. But knowing them, they probably try for some unmanned arsenal monstrosity with an IOC post 2050 and cover the gap with F-15s in the mean time.

a reply to: mightmight

IF HAWC comes to fruition, you might be surprised. If it's stuck with ARRW, it's going to be next to useless for the Raider.

Cross your fingers that we can push the costs down on the Raider enough to get boatloads of them.

a reply to: RadioRobert

We probably will, I think the national security issue of deterring China is great enough, but what kind of message would it send if suddenly, the US intended to amass a far larger number of B-21s than originally projected? Would send China and Russia into a tizzy.

a reply to: Masisoar

Both those countries are already buying new bombers. I don't really care what they think of our acquiring new ones *shrug*

Almost on cue, AFGSC touts clean-sheet arsenal plane

Sigh