Modern Flying fortresses

Why is an Airbus A380, Boeing 777 or a similar big, heavy, slow, unmaneuverable aircraft not a survivable platform for penetrating modern integrated air defense? Are they really unsurvivable?

If you think this is a moronic question, think again? what exactly threatens these platforms? AAA, Flak and MANPADs? They are no threat, not with a 40,000 feet cruising altitude. This leaves Fighters and Missiles. Now we know we can kill fighters and missiles going after ships, so why can?t we kill fighters and missiles going after bombers?

Basically, the idea is a straight forward, brute force one. You fly a formation of Mach 0.8 bombers at 40,000 feet. You let the enemy AWACs, SAM radars and fighters see you come. You let them come at you and shoot missiles at you. You carry enough missiles to exchange fire with and overpower these adversaries. Imagine an Airbus A380 which, along with its bomb load carry a similar radar system as AWACs and a mixture of 100 or so SM-6, ESSM or PAC-3 class missiles along with ample anti-radiation missiles. Basically, the idea is that the bombers will out range the fighters and can shoot down SAMs on the way in and out. Even a flight of 5 or six of such aerial fortresses will be very hard to saturate with fighters or SAMs and in any event will have favorable attrition numbers even if they are defeated.

Think of them as fly AEGIS ships with bomb bays. No stealth, no speed, no agility. But you can?t get within 400km of them without getting shot at and they are very good at shooting down SAMs and AAMs even if you do survive long enough to release weapons on them.

-DA

1.  Francis Gary Powers was shot down in his U-2 at 80,000 ft in 1960.  How do you figure 40,000 ft is safe?  The Russians are fielding SAMs with ranges of 120-200 miles.  Ya' think they can't get 8 miles up?

 

2.  The biggest future threat to advanced countermeasures is going to be ballistic artillery rockets.  I read something before the invasion of Iraq in '03 about the potential threat of Saddam's army firing volleys of artillery rockets into the air.  He had millions.  Fighters can be countered by escort fighters and other things that shoot down airplanes.  Guided missiles can be confused into thinking the bomber in front of it is its Aunt Gertrude.  But there is limited defense for a mass of artillery that comes up unseen and explodes where ever it wants.

Basically, the idea is a straight forward, brute force one. You fly a formation of Mach 0.8 bombers at 40,000 feet. You let the enemy AWACs, SAM radars and fighters see you come. You let them come at you and shoot missiles at you. You carry enough missiles to exchange fire with and overpower these adversaries. Imagine an Airbus A380 which, along with its bomb load carry a similar radar system as AWACs and a mixture of 100 or so SM-6, ESSM or PAC-3 class missiles along with ample anti-radiation missiles. Basically, the idea is that the bombers will out range the fighters and can shoot down SAMs on the way in and out. Even a flight of 5 or six of such aerial fortresses will be very hard to saturate with fighters or SAMs and in any event will have favorable attrition numbers even if they are defeated. 

Lets see ... You have the equivalent of 5-6 AWACs aircraft with a missile load driving into the teeth of a credible air defense.  BAD IDEA!

 

Try this defense scenario:

 

1)   Defending AWACs detects your incoming "Flying Fortresses" and sound the alarm while falling back to stay out of range of your missiles but close enough to direct defending missiles.  Ground based AAA shutdown immediately on alert and relocate.  Fighters equiped with long range missiles equivalent to yours take off and head to 60,000ft.

2)   On command all fighter accelerate into the mutual engagement range and launch their long range missiles and hand over guidance to the defending AWACs (which are not within the attacker's missile range), then turn away and exit the engagment zone before the "Flying Fortresses" missiles can reach them.

 

3)   The "Flying Fortresses" are now in full defensive mode, with survival depending on a number of simple questions:

If the answer to either of these is "no" then you just lost a bunch of VERY EXPENSIVE aircraft with large (12+) crews to no gain.

 

The idea is not to stay above or beyond the range of SAMs. The idea is to shoot down the SAMs. A fortress is not an airplane with 6 missiles. It is one with 200+ missilesthat include anti-radiation missiles to kill SAM radars and AAMs to kill the SAMs, AAMs and/or fighters shot at you. You kill these with long range (read 400km+ missiles ala SM-2), medium range missiles (ala PAC-3 or ESSMs), short range interceptors (ala RAM) and CIWS guns.

If the system is anywhere near as good as an AEGIS ship, it'll take about 100 missiles to kill one. Send in half a dozen and it'll take 600 SAMs and AAMs to saturate the flight. Forget about 2nd and 3rd tier adversaries. Not even 1st tier ones like Russia or China has that much "stuff" distributed to every location they need to defend.

Ultimately, the idea is that the presence of a platform which can attack ANYWHERE along an expansive front and which require a tremendous concentration of resources to saturate and defeat will force the enemy to either yield to this threat or to commit a disproportionate amount of resources -- much more than it takes to build and field these platforms -- to ensure that saturation of this threat can be achieved no matter where it shows up. It will take less money to keep half a dozen of these behemoth sky fortresses in the inventory than it will take the enemy to put in place the ability to saturate it EVERYWHERE!

In my opinion, it would be cheaper to take the 21 B-2's we have and put conformal AESA arrays on them, add an air to air payload and develop a DEW/HPM for missile defense. 

-DA

P.S. Bet you are a Dale Brown fan...;)

I don't think a load of 200 missiles is a realistic scenario.  The proposed C-5/747 cruise missile carrier was only loaded with 50 - 60 missiles max.  Even if the defensive systems are reduced in size - the fact that the fortress is a big and very visible target will bring with it the attention of the local IADS in spades.  The point being - can you intercept a S-300 or S-400 before it gets to you?  Can you intercept 3 or 4 along with a MiG-31 and a dozen MiG-29s? 

 

The risk of such a large platform is putting all your eggs in the single basket.  Even ARM (revised Standard) is larger than a ALCM.  You need the C3 and radar to direct all of this on board.  I can see a 50 to 80 missile load at best.  Even then - its not the number of missiles its how fast, how effective and how close are the targets.

 

This is why we see the movement toward a laser based system on a 747 platform.  The only way to stop the incoming is to have a sure fire defense and enough of it to hold off the baddies.  Even at the speed of light its still a dicey proposition.

 

Now compare this to an equal priced number of UCAVs armed with directed energy weapons, small diameter bombs and a few missiles.  The UCAVs accompany a small fight of F-35s armed with JDAMs and a few ARMS.  They will be on top of the IADS before it can react, destroying C3 assets and missile launchers.  No more IADS.  Few humans at risk, any losses are minimal and can easily be replaced.  The fortress or even a DC-3 can fly in later armed with dumb weapons and carpet bomb at will.

 

I am afraid the wave of the future is the UCAV, directed energy weapons, AESA and stealthy strike fighters. 

I don't think the flying fortress defensive systems can be as good as AEGIS for the simple fact that you aren't dealing with large, subsonic AShMs.  You're dealing with maneuvering missiles flying at upwards of Mach 6, coming from any direction.  And since the fortress' signature is so horrendous, even simple radar systems will see them a LONG ways away.  Plus, you have to give up so much volume and weight to carry these defensive systems that you really won't be able to carry a large offensive payload.

OTOH, as others have said, airborne lasers and DEWS on large aircraft will increasingly have a place, just not in a penetrating role. 

 

You are violating one of the major rules of warfare...  Force on force is a no-win situation.  Force on weakness is the winning combination.

 

The big fortress in the sky is a great idea but cannot help but attrack loads of attention from every fighter, and SAM site in any IADS.  Nice but not a winning combination.  The idea is to defeat the IADS and bomb targets not fight the IADS.

 

This is why the stealth fighter F-117 was the selection of choice over classic strike packages with ECM and Wild Weasels.  Penetrate, destroy the critical C3 links, bring the network down and then the strike packs can roam at will.

 

I can defeat any IADS with stealthly fighters and UCAVs at the fraction of the cost of the fortress.  I can strike weakness in the S-300 and S-400 instead of trying to dual with them at range.  I can hit the enemy, paralize them and take out critical targets... missiles sites, bombers on the ground, leadership, comannd, computers, communications links before anyone is even aware of the attack.  The first sign of my strike is not a large blip on the radar at 400 miles but an explosion knocking out the IADS or even a AESA electronic attack bringing the whole computer system down.

 

The fortress looks good but it means that every SAM and SCUD will be on alert or be fired.  Stealth attack means I take out the SAMs on the pad, the leadership in the bunker (or bed) and the SCUD while its still down on the TEL farm.