US Next Generation Bomber Studies

If a USAF official speak about " much faster" than the other long range strike surely it is something different than a subsonic X-56 style plane. Boeing surely know how to make a supersonic stealth plane too, look at the Boeing FA/XX - F/X may be the more Advanced concept for a new fighter, the two team are working together, its difficult to say what design is choose may be a mix of 2 concept. Remember the lead of Boeing in the X-51 a lot of experience for high speed. ( I don't say the Bomber will be hyper)
 
sferrin said:
Is there something magical about going supersonic that makes an aircraft expensive? Same materials, same engines (albeit with afterburners), same technology. It's not like we're talking Mach 3+ which takes new materials. As long as they leave VG out of it I don't see why it should be that much more expensive than a subsonic bomber. Afterburners aren't THAT expensive.
Click to expand...

I'm wondering if the cost of thermal signature management (e.g. fuel circulation to cool surfaces) for a platform as large as an intercontinental bomber becomes quite considerable when you start propelling it into the supersonic regime.
 
If the USAF is going for supersonic dash, they perhaps we have to reassess our perceptions of the plane's size?

Instead of a B-2 lite, might this be more along the lines of a Tu-22?

In this case, stealthy in the cruise near the target area, then dash in to deliver weapons?
 
sublight is back said:
X-56 MUTT has a flutter suppression system. Long thin wings and supersonic dash are mutually exclusive platform attributes.
Click to expand...


Supersonic aircraft experience flutter.
 
DrRansom said:
It would explain why Northrop is hesitant over this whole program, as supersonic may undermine Northrop's lead in flying wing designs.
Click to expand...


Northrop has plenty of experience with supersonic aircraft.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2681.0.html
 
quellish - I stand corrected. Thanks for that information.
 
DrRansom said:
If the USAF just went with subsonic broadband stealth, the airframe is obvious. If it is high stealth supersonic dash, the airframe becomes less obvious and that, to me, is a signal for more expensive. It would explain why Northrop is hesitant over this whole program, as supersonic may undermine Northrop's lead in flying wing designs.
Click to expand...


Haven't you heard Northrop is building the bomber in Florida? If not the NGB then maybe UFOs?
 
tacitblue said:
Haven't you heard Northrop is building the bomber in Florida? If not the NGB then maybe UFOs?
Click to expand...

Project Magellan. It's a two phase project, if I understand it correctly. Engineering and design in phase one and then, if NG wins the competition, expansion for assembly.
 
High speed doesn't necessarily mean higher risk approach. The air force in the beginning was deciding between high speed to get to the target quickly, or to be slower but with better stealth to be stand-in. Perhaps trying to achieve the kind of stealth that can make the air force comfortable with having their most advanced bomber to be stand-in is a riskier approach than having an aircraft that can respond quickly and just get the hell out of there.
 
www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,20584.msg202515.html#msg202515
 
From Stephen Trimble's Twitter feed. LRS-B concept?

Source:
https://twitter.com/FG_STrim/status/480433706268491776
http://mdolab.engin.umich.edu/MDO_Workshop_2011/Agenda_files/Kolonay_MDO_2011_SORCER.pdf
 

Attachments

  • LRSB1.png
    LRSB1.png
    351.9 KB · Views: 593
  • LRSB2.png
    LRSB2.png
    554.8 KB · Views: 593
Is that me or the weapons bay seems to contain AMRAAMs? unless they're AGM-88s...still, weird loadout.
 
see http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=2681.15 NG STAV
 
it look a lot like that.
 

Attachments

  • 18kyk10g0ko5gjpg.jpg
    18kyk10g0ko5gjpg.jpg
    25.4 KB · Views: 38
Last edited by a moderator:
AeroFranz said:
Is that me or the weapons bay seems to contain AMRAAMs? unless they're AGM-88s...still, weird loadout.
Click to expand...

The *forward* weapons bay(s) contain AMRAAMs. You can see the noses of regular bombs aft of the cockpit.
 

Attachments

  • ng.jpg
    ng.jpg
    22.9 KB · Views: 452
It also looks like it has a bicycle undercarriage. At least the main landing gear leg and dual wheels shown in the image appear to be on the center line. I also don't see any room for the nose gear, but I'm guessing it would be located between the missiles, as you aren't going to put it in front of the RADAR. I'm guessing the nose gear is probably attached to the same bulkhead the RADAR is attached to, only behind it and retracting between the forward missile bays?
 
Sundog said:
It also looks like it has a bicycle undercarriage. At least the main landing gear leg and dual wheels shown in the image appear to be on the center line. I also don't see any room for the nose gear, but I'm guessing it would be located between the missiles, as you aren't going to put it in front of the RADAR. I'm guessing the nose gear is probably attached to the same bulkhead the RADAR is attached to, only behind it and retracting between the forward missile bays?
Click to expand...

I think that's the nose gear. The mains are likely further back under the wings. Think XB-70.

And I don't think you really need to be putting "radar" in all caps any more; it may have started as an acronym but now it's pretty much a full-fledged word like "seat" or "wing" ;)
 
I think that is the nose gear in a tricycle arrangement. The forebody is very slender and light; the cg is probably much further aft than you might expect. One of the other cutaway views shows a gap in the fuel tanks about where the main gear would be.
 
gtg947h said:
I think that's the nose gear. The mains are likely further back under the wings. Think XB-70.
Click to expand...

Oh, duh, you are so right. Thanks, it just wasn't "computing" for me.
 
2000 nautical mile combat radius...that's very nearly Guam to Beijing and back again.
 
Orionblamblam said:
AeroFranz said:
Is that me or the weapons bay seems to contain AMRAAMs? unless they're AGM-88s...still, weird loadout.
Click to expand...

The *forward* weapons bay(s) contain AMRAAMs. You can see the noses of regular bombs aft of the cockpit.
Click to expand...


Thanks for clarifying on AMRAAMs. I was thinking AGMs because it fits more (at least in my view) with what I thought the airplane did.
AAMs on long-range strike platforms, while not unheard of, imply a rather curious CONOPs. I mean, either they're for self-defense, in which case four seems like a big loadout, or you are using them when you are actively looking for trouble, which is more like the mission set of an interceptor. Should a high-value platform like that be doing that? Obviously the designers think so!
 
It can be interesting to have a long range strike with A/A capacity, with a plane like this a lot of missions are possible.
 
Think of it as a placeholder for Next-Generation MIssile/JDRADM/whatever else replaces AMRAAM -- probably a dual-role missile with both air-to-air and air-to-ground defense suppression roles.
 
With plane like this great futur to come for the bombers, with dual role capacity for a bomber like this no need of a lot of escort plane.
 
On other reason for the forward AMRAAM / placeholder is that the design may have a Center of Gravity far behind the Center of Rotation, so adding weight forward may help the design stability. There was an article in the Northrop STAV /ESAV thread about the flight controls needed for that unorthodox configuration.

For CONOPS, a Mach 2 cruising bomber should be a pain to intercept. Adding AAMs / SEAD missiles perhaps reflects the anticipation that the bomber will still be threatened by SAMs or Fighters.
 
It's curious that NGC thinks that this platform should be able to 'fight it out'...


Anyway, all air vehicles carrying 'expendables' (be they fuel or ordnance) are designed to fly with the worst possible combination of the same. This is usually shown in a chart called 'potato plot'(!).
If you are relying on having missiles on board to keep your CG within a certain flyable range, then they can't be expended and they're as good as ballast.
The fact that 4 AMRAAMs are a relatively small percentage of the total aircraft weight does help a lot in minimizing their effect on overall CG, whether they be on or off. You can also get creative with pumping fuel back and forth (a la Concorde), but having to rely on such system is undesirable unless you REALLY have to. Plus what happens when you're out of fuel?
All in all, the best strategy tends to be putting the payload and fuel on the cg of the empty aircraft, which guarantees only small shifts of overall cg as fuel and ordnance are expended.
 
dark sidius said:
With plane like this great futur to come for the bombers, with dual role capacity for a bomber like this no need of a lot of escort plane.
Click to expand...


Stealth aircraft never really operated with escort, because there isn't as much of a need for stealth aircraft to have escort and simply, there wasn't any stealth escort to go with it. The same can be said for this notional aircraft, there's no aircraft with that level of stealth (low frequency/all aspect) and speed (mac 2 cruise) to really escort it.
 
TomS said:
Think of it as a placeholder for Next-Generation MIssile/JDRADM/whatever else replaces AMRAAM -- probably a dual-role missile with both air-to-air and air-to-ground defense suppression roles.
Click to expand...


One of the key NRC recommendations was that a stealthy, sustained supersonic cruise bomber should be complemented with high speed penetration aids.
 
DrRansom said:
On other reason for the forward AMRAAM / placeholder is that the design may have a Center of Gravity far behind the Center of Rotation, so adding weight forward may help the design stability. There was an article in the Northrop STAV /ESAV thread about the flight controls needed for that unorthodox configuration.

For CONOPS, a Mach 2 cruising bomber should be a pain to intercept. Adding AAMs / SEAD missiles perhaps reflects the anticipation that the bomber will still be threatened by SAMs or Fighters.
Click to expand...

1. Would a new Foxhound replacement be one possible adversary?
2. The overall layout is reminiscent of the SR-71. Long slender fore-body, delta placed far back.
3. Why not use this configuration as next generation fighter also? Payload, range, stealth, speed, plenty of room for a DEW?
 
Marauder - Do you have a link to that NRC study?

Kcran:
1) I think that the speed focus for the design signals that the USAF anticipates the bomber being detected by somebody at some point of the flight profile. In that case, speed and stealth will help, but self defense doesn't hurt.

3) If I had to guess, this design is not maneuverable nor good for loitering. That would make it bad for an air superiority platform. Especially if the USAF / USN anticipate using their fighters to establish a presence within the AA/AD zone.

On the other hand, it would be very good for an interceptor.
 
DrRansom said:
Marauder - Do you have a link to that NRC study?

Kcran:
1) I think that the speed focus for the design signals that the USAF anticipates the bomber being detected by somebody at some point of the flight profile. In that case, speed and stealth will help, but self defense doesn't hurt.

3) If I had to guess, this design is not maneuverable nor good for loitering. That would make it bad for an air superiority platform. Especially if the USAF / USN anticipate using their fighters to establish a presence within the AA/AD zone.

On the other hand, it would be very good for an interceptor.
Click to expand...

"Future Air Force Needs for Survivability"

By The Committee on Future Air Force Needs for Survivability, Air Force Studies Board, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences, National Research Council
 

Attachments

  • nrc-future-air-force-survivability.pdf
    1.3 MB · Views: 58
AeroFranz said:
Thanks for clarifying on AMRAAMs. I was thinking AGMs because it fits more (at least in my view) with what I thought the airplane did.
AAMs on long-range strike platforms, while not unheard of, imply a rather curious CONOPs. I mean, either they're for self-defense, in which case four seems like a big loadout, or you are using them when you are actively looking for trouble, which is more like the mission set of an interceptor. Should a high-value platform like that be doing that? Obviously the designers think so!
Click to expand...


Bombers clearly won't be trolling for Migs, with out going into too much detail, still those AMRAAMS can be quite useful. Knew several B-1 aircrew who discussed at length how carrying a couple on the external pylons would really increase the Bone's survival in the face of certain threats. You don't have to shoot the defender down for the AMRAAM to be useful...
 
kcran567 said:
2. The overall layout is reminiscent of the SR-71. Long slender fore-body, delta placed far back.
Click to expand...

A high fineness ratio and a delta type wing are good for supersonic performance. That's why the Concorde also had the same layout.

In fact, the main reason the wing is so far back on this design is it's also a low boom configuration. But, not necessarily to reduce the acoustic signature, but to increase it's efficiency. A low sonic boom configuration means lower wave drag than a more standard configuration.
 
RFP has been issued

http://aviationweek.com/awin-only/rfps-issued-usaf-bomber-competition
 
AeroFranz said:
Orionblamblam said:
AeroFranz said:
Is that me or the weapons bay seems to contain AMRAAMs? unless they're AGM-88s...still, weird loadout.
Click to expand...

The *forward* weapons bay(s) contain AMRAAMs. You can see the noses of regular bombs aft of the cockpit.
Click to expand...


Thanks for clarifying on AMRAAMs. I was thinking AGMs because it fits more (at least in my view) with what I thought the airplane did.
AAMs on long-range strike platforms, while not unheard of, imply a rather curious CONOPs. I mean, either they're for self-defense, in which case four seems like a big loadout, or you are using them when you are actively looking for trouble, which is more like the mission set of an interceptor. Should a high-value platform like that be doing that? Obviously the designers think so!
Click to expand...


A very fast long-range stealth platform would probably have a decent secondary mission of a high-value asset killer for AWACS and tankers that might be on the way to the primary surface target. A loadout of AMRAAMs in an otherwise less-than-usable space is a relatively small investment in the overall design and if they never get fired, that's OK, but they'd be a damn useful secondary.
 
"A loadout of AMRAAMs in an otherwise less-than-usable space is a relatively small investment in the overall design and if they never get fired, that's OK, but they'd be a damn useful secondary."

I understand where you are coming from, but there is no such thing as "less-than-usable space" in modern aircraft design, especially one that fits a "box" more than 12 feet long and probably a third as wide and tall.
Take any cutaway of modern combat aircraft from 1950 onwards and there is no "empty space" anywhere. If you have a cubic foot available, someone will cram in avionics or systems.
Having to cater for an additional weapons bay, door actuators, extender trapeze, power, heavier empty weight (weapons bays are giant holes in your structures, which structural designers abhor) , plus making sure you have enough cg range, to live with and without the weapons aboard in every corner of the flight envelope and combination of remaining fuel/bombs, is a major PITA. If you get to the point where you have empty space, it's because you could have made the vehicle smaller/lighter/cheaper in the first place.
 
AeroFranz said:
"A loadout of AMRAAMs in an otherwise less-than-usable space is a relatively small investment in the overall design and if they never get fired, that's OK, but they'd be a damn useful secondary."

I understand where you are coming from, but there is no such thing as "less-than-usable space" in modern aircraft design, especially one that fits a "box" more than 12 feet long and probably a third as wide and tall.
Take any cutaway of modern combat aircraft from 1950 onwards and there is no "empty space" anywhere. If you have a cubic foot available, someone will cram in avionics or systems.
Having to cater for an additional weapons bay, door actuators, extender trapeze, power, heavier empty weight (weapons bays are giant holes in your structures, which structural designers abhor) , plus making sure you have enough cg range, to live with and without the weapons aboard in every corner of the flight envelope and combination of remaining fuel/bombs, is a major PITA. If you get to the point where you have empty space, it's because you could have made the vehicle smaller/lighter/cheaper in the first place.
Click to expand...

As mentioned it makes one opine about CONOPS. Does the Air Force envision some off board cueing systems (AWACS, networked F-35s, F-22s, stealthy UAVs) allowing the NGB to sneak close to the enemies CAP and 'surprise' launch a bunch of AMRAAMs?
 
bobbymike said:
As mentioned it makes one opine about CONOPS. Does the Air Force envision some off board cueing systems (AWACS, networked F-35s, F-22s, stealthy UAVs) allowing the NGB to sneak close to the enemies CAP and 'surprise' launch a bunch of AMRAAMs?
Click to expand...

I think the best answer to that is the one Donnage gave up thread. The vehicle cruises at Mach 2.5 for 4000nm. (2000n.m. radius). There isn't anything available that can escort it over the entire mission so it needs to have a self defense capability. It could also double as an excellent long range interceptor.
 
AeroFranz said:
"A loadout of AMRAAMs in an otherwise less-than-usable space is a relatively small investment in the overall design and if they never get fired, that's OK, but they'd be a damn useful secondary."

I understand where you are coming from, but there is no such thing as "less-than-usable space" in modern aircraft design, especially one that fits a "box" more than 12 feet long and probably a third as wide and tall.
Take any cutaway of modern combat aircraft from 1950 onwards and there is no "empty space" anywhere. If you have a cubic foot available, someone will cram in avionics or systems.
Having to cater for an additional weapons bay, door actuators, extender trapeze, power, heavier empty weight (weapons bays are giant holes in your structures, which structural designers abhor) , plus making sure you have enough cg range, to live with and without the weapons aboard in every corner of the flight envelope and combination of remaining fuel/bombs, is a major PITA. If you get to the point where you have empty space, it's because you could have made the vehicle smaller/lighter/cheaper in the first place.
Click to expand...


Yeah, poor choice of words on my part. What I was getting at was more that if they want to have the secondary role, this forward space is ideal for the missile loadout. It could even possibly be used for an alternative load...SDBs or something.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom