From the Air Force Association:

Leaning Forward, but not Overreaching: The Air Force will design its new long-range bomber by leveraging the best of today's technology and not trying to incorporate exceedingly risky approaches, USAF Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Philip Breedlove told lawmakers Wednesday. "One of the cost-savings approaches we have for this bomber is to not lean forward into technology that's not proven, but bring our aircraft up to the current day's standards," he testified before the House Armed Services Committee. For instance, Breedlove said stealth technology has advanced much since the B-2 bomber came along through subsequent work on the F-22 and F-35. "So the new bomber will have better stealth capability, but not [by] making leaps forward that we can't count on," he explained. This same mindset applies for the bomber's avionics, information-gathering systems, and so on. Breedlove said the anticipated cost of the new bomber "is not fleshed out totally yet," but the "distinct goal" is to control cost so that USAF can procure a fleet "that makes us operationally relevant around the world and around the target set." The platform, he continued, will "start out" in a conventional role and then "grow into a nuclear capability" later on.
 
Will the USAF get a new bomber? From Air Force Magazine.com today. -SP

USAF Eyes 80 to 100 New Bombers: The Air Force is requesting nearly $200 million in Fiscal 2012 to launch a new bomber program and plans to spend $3.7 billion on the aircraft across the new five-year defense plan, according to Maj. Gen. Alfred Flowers, USAF’s budget chief. Briefing reporters Monday, Flowers said the new bomber will be optionally manned, be based on mature technologies, and have long range. He and additional USAF budget officials said the service wants to field a force of 80 to 100 airframes, with capability on the ramp in the mid 2020s. Flowers said classification will keep the Air Force from revealing many details, adding that "we won't even know if there is a competition going on." There isn't one at this point, he noted. Moreover, this programmed money would fund development of the "entire family" of long-range strike systems, Flowers said, not just the bomber, but the bomber will be "the centerpiece" of long-range strike.
—John A. Tirpak
 
My prediction is they'll spend a lot of money and buy nothing. Any takers? ;)
 
sferrin said:
My prediction is they'll spend a lot of money and buy nothing. Any takers? ;)
Opionally manned is the key. I feel that if the USAF gets a future new bomber that it will be unmanned. -SP
 
From the Air Force Associations Air Warfare Symposium:

Gen William Fraser, chief of Air Combat Command, talked about some of the existing technologies that would be leveraged by the next generation bomber. These would include the massive ordnance penetrator (MOP), joint air to surface standoff missile (JASSM) and small diameter bomb (SDB) increment 2, he says. New sensors and directed energy systems also would be integrated on the new bomber, Fraser says.
-------------------------------------------
Bolding mine.
 
From Defense News:

USAF to Industry: Bomber Must Be Affordable
By DAVE MAJUMDAR
Published: 16 Feb 2011 22:15

The U.S Air Force will not purchase the Long Range Strike family of systems, which includes a new optionally manned penetrating stealth bomber, if it is not affordable, a senior service official warned industry on Feb. 16. "If it is not affordable, we're not going to buy it, and it's going to just fall off the wayside like it has at a different time two years ago," Maj. Gen. David Scott, director of operational capability requirements, told an aerospace and defense conference hosted by Aviation Week.
What the Air Force is not looking for is a "Battlestar Galactica," of which the service can afford only one, he said. The Air Force needs a plane it can buy in numbers, Scott emphasized. "We can not price ourselves out of a next generation penetrating bomber," he said. The service hopes to purchase between 80 and 100 planes. Further, he added that the service would not explain many of the details of the new program. Those details would remain "highly classified," he said. However, Scott said the aircraft would have "trade space" for future upgrades. Over the course of the production run, the bomber would be incrementally upgraded to keep it on par technologically to defeat emerging threats. Despite this, the aircraft would not be built in Blocks, Scott said. Scott did say the aircraft would offer fused sensors similar in concept to the F-35. It is necessary to the keep the aircraft modern because the jet might remain in service anywhere from between 50 years to 80 years. "So the first one that comes out will be a little different from the last one that comes out," Scott said. By the time the aircraft is in service, the Air Force would likely be looking at a follow-on aircraft, which is why the Air Force is only looking at such a small number of planes, Scott explained.

The Air Force absolutely insists upon a penetrating bomber because the B-2 will eventually be unable to go into certain areas as enemy air defense improve, Scott said. "That's why we're hard and fast about a penetrating bomber in the out years," he said.

Scott added that the Air Force regards the new bomber as a national weapon. Scott also mentioned other components of the "family of systems", one of which would be a long-range standoff weapon. He described the standoff weapon as an air-launched cruise missile, which would replace the nuclear-tipped cruise missile currently used by Air Force Global Strike Command. Other parts of the "family" include communications satellites, electronic attack, and intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance capabilities, Scott said.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bolding mine. In the second area I hope conventional prompt global strike in the form of HTV-2s on Minotaur IV/Peacekeepers still make up part of the family of systems of long range strike.

I wrote too soon, from the Air Force Association (bolding again is all me):

Long-Range Strike Explained: Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Phillip Breedlove on Thursday offered some details on the Pentagon's family of future long-range strike systems. In addition to the Air Force's new long-range, penetrating bomber as its centerpiece, the "family" will include "some sort" of prompt global strike system, a new long-range standoff weapon, and one or two "enabler" systems, he told attendees of AFA's Air Warfare Symposium and Technology Exposition in Orlando, Fla. The bomber will be relevant in multiple theaters, able to penetrate the worst anti-access environments, and be "affordable," he said. The PGS—either a conventionally armed ICBM or SLBM-type missile launched from the continental US or a submarine—will be able to hit any target worldwide in 30 minutes to 40 minutes. The standoff weapon will have to be able to get at hardened, deeply buried targets, he explained. The other two platforms will be "utility infielders," with a modular capacity to carry out "any number of missions" ranging from electronic attack to intelligence-surveillance-reconnaissance, to machine-to-machine cuing, in order "to enable other machines to do their business," he said. They will also be "very stealthy," Breedlove emphasized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So very interesting addition (at least to me) two "super stealthy" "platforms" that will possibly cue other weapon systems to strike targets.
 
No Bomber Requirements Yet:

Requirements for the new penetrating bomber have not actually been set yet, Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Phillip Breedlove told the Daily Report Thursday, following his speech at AFA's Air Warfare Symposium and Technology Exposition in Orlando, Fla. Breedlove said he expects a consensus to be reached in "the near term" that will specifically define what the aircraft will need to do. This consensus will include input from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Air Force, the Navy, and other stakeholders, he said. Although such broad involvement by non-experts is unwieldy, Breedlove said the final result—department-wide "buy in"—is worth it. He said once a consensus is achieved, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley will likely make a public presentation explaining at least some of what the new bomber will be able to do, although Breedlove said much of the program is classified. Even though the aircraft will be based on "proven technologies," he noted that they are technologies that are "decades ahead" of what any other country could field.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Decades ahead" things are getting interesting. A little Chinese competition is, maybe, starting to push the US a little harder ???
 
From Aviation Week:

A Quick Look At The USAF's New Bomber Requirements
Posted by David A. Fulghum at 2/18/2011 1:32 PM CST

The Pentagon’s next bomber will protect itself against enemy aircraft and air- or ground-launched missiles with an electronic attack weapon, probably based on an active, electronically scanned array (AESA) that can produce effects at the speed of light around the battlespace. Moreover, that device or a supplemental AESA will also likely serve as a long-range, anti-electronic weapon and possibly as a network invasion weapon to disable or spook air defense surveillance, network integration and communications systems. Or the bomber could coordinate the use of these capabilities installed on supporting aircraft, unmanned systems or missiles. “The purpose of this aircraft is to survive in an Anti-Access Area Denial [A2AD] environment,” says Maj. Gen. David Scott, U.S. Air Force deputy chief of staff for operations, plans and requirements. “ Part of the requirements will be self defense. Do I think AESA is a valid technology that the Air Force will look at on all offensive platforms? I do. Do I think that airborne electronic attack is a valid defensive system that we will need on all future A2AD platforms? You bet.” The bomber segment of the Long Range Strike family of systems has yet to be defined, much less designed, but clues are accumulating about what the U.S. Air Force is asking for. It needs less than a day’s endurance, it has to be stealthy, it must be able to carry weapons both internally and externally, it will likely have a large active electronically scanned array for radar surveillance and some sort of associated capability for defensive electronic attack of enemy aircraft and air- or ground-launched missiles. There will eventually be 80-100 of them as part of the total of 150 bombers operated by the U.S. Air Force. Of these, 90 will be combat coded. Initial operations of the first unit are slated for 2024-26. The aircraft will be expected to operate for about 50 years. It’s missions will include electronic attack (which means a long-range weapons capability against electronic systems) strike and command and control. Under the Long Range Strike (LRS) program, “You have a platform – the next bomber we’re going to build, a stand off missile that we’re working on right now and Conventional Prompt Global Strike that we’re still trying to figure out,” says Maj. Gen. David Scott, deputy chief of staff for operations, planning and requirements. “It includes the [Navy’s] conventional Trident missile and things that the Air Force is working very closely with such as the hypersonic test vehicle.

A major component of LRS is “some kind of penetrating airborne electronic attack, persistent surveillance and reconnaissance and command and control that works all [those pieces] in an Anti-Access Area Denied [A2AD] environment,” Scott says. “What that gives those of us in the joint world is a national asset to hold any target in the world at risk.” A key part of the bomber's design – that also is expected to keep cost down – is an “open hardware architecture” that will let payloads be slipped in and out of the aircraft to tailor it for various missions. Moreover, “as technology enables it, we will work the maturity level of the bomber,” he says. “F-35 has some outstanding capability that we can leverage with this system [including AESA, electronic attack and infrared or electronic surveillance]. We will have trade space available to let us mature this aircraft because its going to be around for 50 years.

The electronic attack and jamming capability being developed for the new bomber will not be the Navy’s Next Generation Jammer [NGJ], but it will be related to and compatible with it. “We are working with the Navy on NJG,” Scott says. “That doesn’t mean we’re going to employ it on our aircraft.” The services will work together to ensure the electro-magnetic spectrum is covered from the high to low ends. So far, the EC-130 Compass Call and some of the pods on the Predators operate in low-end conflict environments and counter-IED operations. The next generation pods will tackle the mid-level to contested regimes. “The F-22 and F-35 have AESA capability on board [that can be used for electronic attack],” he says. “The miniature air-launched decoy (Mald) and Mald-Jammer are the kind of things that we look at for the high-end [conflict]. “We do some pretty neat [defensive electronic attack] things with the B-2, and we’ll try to improve that as we work it through [new] survivability issues,” Scott says. “We will work distributed electronic attack on this aircraft and Mald and Mald-J are prime examples of that. We’re [already] working through what increment two of Mald-J will be.” The bomber is supposed to use existing technologies so odds are that the aircraft will be subsonic. It also is supposed to be optionally manned. “Today we have remotely manned – Predator and Reaper – and autonomous – Global Hawk,” he says. “ We’re very good in the unmanned world. What we have to figure out is the concept of operations. This is not an aircraft that is going to be persistent for days. We would like it to persist like we currently do with other platforms. It’s going to go in, do the mission and come back out.” The Air Force bomber will be air-refuelable and there is the possibility that the Navy’s planned carrier-capable, unmanned strike aircraft will be as well.
 
sferrin said:
My prediction is they'll spend a lot of money and buy nothing. Any takers? ;)
"buy-nothing" is kinda broad... Sure you want to leave it THAT wide open? :)

Randy
 
I can understand the reasons behind a less stealthy and survivable bomber being optionally manned, but why bother with a VLO stealth aircraft? I can't imagine USAF bomber crews saying "I really don't feel like flying this cutting edge bomber today."

In a fictional scenario where this bomber has to get past an ultra-modern integrated air defense system, I would imagine the aircraft would be at serious risk of losing communications with whoever is operating it. If it autonomously continues it's mission to (for example) drop JDAMs on GPS point A, there isn't a lot of flexibility there.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
I can understand the reasons behind a less stealthy and survivable bomber being optionally manned, but why bother with a VLO stealth aircraft? I can't imagine USAF bomber crews saying "I really don't feel like flying this cutting edge bomber today."

Endurance. If the platform is going to be in the air for long periods, crew endurance becomes an issue. Having the crew on the ground gives you a lot of flexibility. B-2 "global reach" missions are right up to the limit of what's practical with a crew onboard, and those are up to 50 hours.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
I can understand the reasons behind a less stealthy and survivable bomber being optionally manned, but why bother with a VLO stealth aircraft? I can't imagine USAF bomber crews saying "I really don't feel like flying this cutting edge bomber today."

In a fictional scenario where this bomber has to get past an ultra-modern integrated air defense system, I would imagine the aircraft would be at serious risk of losing communications with whoever is operating it. If it autonomously continues it's mission to (for example) drop JDAMs on GPS point A, there isn't a lot of flexibility there.

I think it would be wrong to assume that these platforms would be glorified cruise missiles bombing a preplanned mission. About thirteen years ago I read an article in Dutch science mag "Kijk" about the develoment of "fuzzy logic" systems for the independent use in unmanned systems. This would allow these systems to "decide" independent course of actions based on the input from onboard sensors. Therefore, these platforms could be far more dynamic in their use.
 
From the Air Force Association:

Long-Range-Strike Funding Explained:

The $3.7 billion figure that senior Pentagon officials have been citing as the funding for the future long-range-strike family of systems over the next five fiscal years is actually the amount of funding programmed for the Air Force's Next Generation Bomber over that span. Air Force officials confirmed this. The bomber funding profile is laid out in the justification documents accompanying the service's Fiscal 2012 budget request: Fiscal 2012: $197 million, Fiscal 2013: $294 million, Fiscal 2014: $550 million, Fiscal 2015: $1 billion, and Fiscal 2016: $1.7 billion. The future years defense program does include money for the other LRS elements. For example, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz told House lawmakers last month that there is $800 million earmarked over those five years for development of a new nuclear-capable cruise missile that will replace the Air Launched Cruise Missile.
 
Flattery Will Get You Nowhere:

Pacific Air Forces Commander Gen. Gary North says "other nations are copying" US military capabilities. While copying is the highest form of flattery, it also means the United States needs to work that much harder to maintain its technological superiority. "Some are stealing our capability and then replicating it, or attempting to replicate it, so we just have to stay ahead of the power curve," said North during an Air Force Association-sponsored address Thursday in Arlington, Va. To stay ahead, he said the United States needs a weapons platform in the Pacific that has range, speed, stealth, and carries penetrator munitions, among its attributes; however, he declined to go into detail. "We have to integrate what we believe will . . . help us to be prepared for the threats that our nation may face in the future," he explained. He continued, "We know nations are burying deeper into the ground. We know they are using different methodologies to harden, so we have to be prepared to face those kinds of threats."
---------------
Interesting sentence in bold
 
bobbymike said:
What the Air Force is not looking for is a "Battlestar Galactica," of which the service can afford only one, he said. The Air Force needs a plane it can buy in numbers, Scott emphasized. "We can not price ourselves out of a next generation penetrating bomber," he said. The service hopes to purchase between 80 and 100 planes.

This makes me wonder; to they seek a bomber replacement (think B-1B, B-52), such as a 21st century B-58 Hustler?

Or do they seek a successor for the F-15E Strike Eagle?

Or maybe something that's a new compromise (they were talking much about sensor capabilities of the new bomber a while ago)?
 
an earlier studies

AFRL Long Range Strike (LRS) aircraft is a high speed and long range strike vehicle designed by LM Aeronautics Company in Fort Worth, TX and sponsored by Air Force Research Lab (AFRL) Air Vehicles Directorate.
ca.2002

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA444107
 

Attachments

  • LRSA-2.jpg
    LRSA-2.jpg
    176.7 KB · Views: 348
  • LRSA-1.jpg
    LRSA-1.jpg
    19.6 KB · Views: 102
  • LRSA-7.jpg
    LRSA-7.jpg
    47 KB · Views: 126
  • LRSA-6.jpg
    LRSA-6.jpg
    14.6 KB · Views: 259
  • LRSA-5.jpg
    LRSA-5.jpg
    316.4 KB · Views: 256
  • LRSA-4.jpg
    LRSA-4.jpg
    117.8 KB · Views: 281
  • LRSA-3.jpg
    LRSA-3.jpg
    205.7 KB · Views: 298
flateric - thanks for the AFRL study. I wonder if one day we will be able to visit the Library of Air Force Studies of which half will be LRS and NGB studies. :D
 
Bomber Puzzle Pieces: A concise guide to the next bomber.

—John A. Tirpak

March 9, 2011—While Air Force leaders have announced that the service will develop a new bomber to eventually replace the B-52H, B-1B, and B-2A, and have promised "transparency" about what they will spend in pursuit of that goal, they have also said the program will remain largely classified.

They say the new bomber will be based on "proven" technologies. However, the details of those technologies, as well as the characteristics of the interrelated other members of the "family" of long-range-strike systems, will remain under wraps for now. That's because the technologies are still far ahead of anything potential adversaries are believed to possess, and disclosure could undermine USAF's lead, they say.

Based on the comments of top USAF, Office of the Secretary of Defense, and industry officials in press conferences, speeches, Congressional testimony, and interviews with the Daily Report, here are general descriptive characteristics of the LRS family of systems:

The Bomber: The centerpiece of future long-range strike, the Air Force intends to procure between 80 and 100 of these aircraft at a projected unit flyaway cost of about $500 million, said one senior service official. By the mid-2020s, a flying prototype—if not the first handful of aircraft—should be in flight test.

Pentagon officials have not set specific requirements for the aircraft yet, but there is "consensus" among top Pentagon leaders that the aircraft is required. Cost will be an independent variable; officials may trade off some capabilities to achieve an affordable price. The Air Force may make an "early downselect" to a single contractor or team to reduce cost and development time. The service will make heavy use of technologies and concepts developed for the terminated next generation bomber initiative.

Development funding for the bomber from Fiscal 2012 through Fiscal 2016 will total $3.7 billion. The aircraft will have "global" range, but will be smaller than the B-2—probably of a size similar to the F-111. It will carry munitions weighing no more than about 5,000 pounds each, with a gross payload of less than 28,000 pounds. A principal weapon will be a bomb or missile capable of penetrating hardened, deeply buried targets.

Engines will be a product of Air Force Materiel Command's Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology (ADVENT) demonstrator program, which seeks more powerful and more fuel-efficient powerplants than even those on the F-22 and F-35. Two engines will power each bomber, which will not be hypersonic, but may achieve speeds just slightly above Mach 1, the supersonic threshold. However, the bomber likely will make use of a hypersonic standoff weapon in later iterations.

The aircraft will be highly stealthy, "orders of magnitude" less detectable than the F-35. It will not have defensive missiles, but will use laser and directed-energy defenses. It will have a sophisticated radar able to map the ground in fine detail. The radar will also have simultaneous function in electronic attack/electronic warfare.

The bomber will be an "adaptable" design that is able to incorporate new technologies as they emerge. In addition to an open electronics architecture, it should feature an open hardware architecture, accommodating modular, changeable capabilities depending on the mission.

The aircraft may have a variable geometry of an advanced nature; unlike the "swing wing" of the B-1 and F-111, its shape may seamlessly "morph" in flight to switch from dash speeds to loitering speeds.

Optionally manned, the aircraft in later versions will use offensive directed energy weapons and carry nuclear weapons.

The bomber will be capable of solo attacks against targets that are moderately defended; against more sophisticated air defenses, it will rely on offboard systems to help it penetrate, loiter, if necessary, and exit the battle area. These offboard capabilities will include other aircraft, systems mounted on other aircraft, satellites, and cyber weapons. The use of offboard systems is meant to avoid excessive unit cost and to distribute capabilities such that they can also serve other purposes.

Prompt Global Strike: This element of the family of systems calls for a conventionally armed ballistic missile fitted with any of a number of conventional warheads. This weapon has had difficulty gaining political traction, but if approved should be able to hit any target on Earth within 40 minutes of a launch order.

Payloads will range from penetrating bombs to area weapons, depending on the nature of the target. Launch could be from continental US-based silos or from ballistic missile submarines. The operative notion is to repurpose elements of decommissioned or existing ICBMs or SLBMs for this role, but there has been no decision to proceed yet.

Enablers: One or two unmanned aircraft will be fielded to perform a variety of escort or solo missions, using modular payloads. These missions will include electronic attack/electronic warfare, stealthy communications relay, defense suppression, flying cyber attack, "blinding" of enemy sensors, intelligence-surveillance-reconnaissance, light strike, deployment of decoys, and target designation.

Standoff Weapon/New Cruise Missiles: The Air Force has dedicated $800 million from Fiscal 2012 to Fiscal 2016 for development of a new air-launched cruise missile that will ultimately replace the AGM-86 Air Launched Cruise Missile that the B-52 now exclusively carries.

The new cruise missile will be highly stealthy, use terrain mapping, inertial navigation system/GPS guidance and nanotechnology-enabled guidance systems.

By around 2025, if all goes according to plan, the Air Force will have at least a prototype of the new bomber, said Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz. Additional elements of the family of systems, like the new cruise missile, will also be available by then.

USAF wants to have the new LRS portfolio mature and operational by around 2040, the timeframe for when the current bomber force is expected to age out.
-----------------------------------------------------
Although the "family of systems" seems quite interesting and statements Air Force officials are making like "orders of magnitude better stealth than the F-35" and "decades ahead of anything anyone else can produce" are intriguing, 2040 seems a far way off to say the least.
 
interesting stuff glued above VAATE logo
 

Attachments

  • VAATE-_Logo.jpg
    VAATE-_Logo.jpg
    646.4 KB · Views: 185
and this generic AFRL concept often seen in ADVENT presentations
 

Attachments

  • vaate bomber.jpg
    vaate bomber.jpg
    5.7 KB · Views: 1,761
  • ADVENT-engine-+.jpg
    ADVENT-engine-+.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 538
Air Force Hopes to Buy 80 to 100 Next Gen Bombers
By John Reed Wednesday, March 30th, 2011 1:58 pm

The Air Force will buy between 80 to 100 of its future stealth bombers that are expected to come online in the mid 2020s, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley told lawmakers today.

“Between 80 and 100 is the target, this program is very much focused on affordability and poised for technical success,” said Donley during a Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee hearing this morning. This is a significant reduction from reports earlier this year that hinted at a 175-plane buy.

He then gave a little more insight into how the airplane will develop when he revealed that the tech used in the plane will come largely from other programs. We already knew this was likely true for the aircraft’s engines but there had been speculation as to how much of the existing technology was already developed for a future bomber versus how much had been developed for programs like the F-35 or the various stealthy UAVs that are out there.

“We plan on taking advantage of existing technologies on other programs that are mature, a streamlined management process and a strict limitation on requirements for the system going forward as ways to control cost growth and to keep it on schedule,” said Donley.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz then jumped in and reaffirmed many of the known attributes of the plane: that it will be nuclear-capable (at some point), it will be optionally manned and will work as part of the family of strike and ISR systems rather than being a “lone wolf” capable of doing almost every conceivable high-risk strike mission.

The question that now remains is; will early versions of the jet be built with the ability to deliver nuclear weapons and be flown remotely? All of this will likely depend on technology availability and cost.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bolding mine - I, of course, would like 175 platforms.
 
Boeing/LM NGB showing some internals:
 

Attachments

  • ngb.png
    ngb.png
    316.6 KB · Views: 483
USAF Bomber Gets Tight Numbers

Apr 11, 2011

By Bill Sweetman

Secret and slow could be watchwords for the U.S. Air Force’s new bomber program. Although major spending is getting under way, the service does not expect to see the aircraft in service before the mid-2020s—a longer timescale than the “2018 bomber” discussed in 2008. In addition, Maj. Gen. Dave Scott, USAF director of operations capability requirements, confirmed in February that the aircraft will be “highly classified—we are not going to talk about any of its attributes.” Beyond stating that the aircraft will be optionally piloted and nuclear-capable, the Pentagon has said little.

The magic numbers for the bomber are a fleet size of 80-100 and a flyaway cost of $500 million, both numbers set by Defense Secretary Robert Gates. “The secretary doesn’t want another B-2,” one Air Force leader remarked recently. The extended schedule reduces risk and avoids overlap in funding with the delayed Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). Reports suggest that funding will average under $1 billion a year through fiscal 2016, when JSF funding should tail off. One key capability is almost certainly under development: the combination of extreme low-observable (ELO) technology and unprecedented aerodynamic efficiency. This will not only appear on the bomber but on one of two critical “enablers” for the long-range-strike family of systems: unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) designed for stand-in airborne electronic attack (AEA), and for penetrating, persistent intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR). Both were identified by Scott in a briefing last October.

Stand-in AEA, with jamming effects delivered by an ELO platform, is an important adjunct to stealth. Although networked radar systems are improving their ability to detect stealthy targets in the Lockheed Martin F-22/F-35 class, moderate-power jamming is likely to degrade that capability. It is also expected to defeat efforts to detect ELO targets in the foreseeable future. Lockheed Martin’s RQ-170 Sentinel UAV could be the interim solution to this requirement. Penetrating ISR demands a combination of endurance and ELO, and such a system is probably the goal of the large special access program (SAP) awarded in 2007-08 to Northrop Grumman. One key technology, the subject of a good deal of open-source work, is the ability to sustain laminar airflow on a swept wing: this technology alone could deliver 32 hr. of time-on-station in an all-wing UAV, according to a Northrop Grumman technical report. If such a SAP produces results, in terms of the vehicle and its primary sensors (synthetic aperture radar with ground-moving target indication), it would explain why USAF has been willing to curtail the Global Hawk Block 40 program.

Penetrating, persistent ISR is vital for the long-range strike family of systems because it provides targeting for other weapons: a Conventional Prompt Global Strike missile, new subsonic cruise missile launched from aircraft or submarines, or a hypersonic missile. In turn, that capability allows USAF to focus the new bomber requirement more narrowly and avoid mission and cost creep that apparently affected the earlier Next Generation Bomber (NGB). For example, the new bomber could be smaller than the NGB was envisioned to be, because it could also provide targeting for offboard weapons, with less need for a “deep magazine” of onboard weapons. Offboard sensors would also reduce demand for simultaneous long range and high resolution for onboard sensors, reducing aperture size. Overall, the new bomber may emerge smaller than medium bombers of the past, and well under half the size of the B-2.

The Air Force is also leaning toward the adoption of features developed in Advent (Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology) and Heete (Highly Efficient Embedded Turbofan Engine) in the new bomber. Heete is aimed at cruise efficiency and delivering electrical power, necessary to support directed-energy weapons, and is expected to yield a fuel-burn improvement of 35% over current low observable-compatible subsonic engines. One factor will drive up the cost of the bomber’s R&D: its status as a SAP. SAP status—whether the program is an acknowledged SAP, as the bomber is likely to be, or completely black—incurs large costs. All personnel have to be vetted before they are read into the program. Information within the program is compartmentalized, reducing efficiency. SAP status has been estimated to add 20% to a program’s cost.

The most likely reason for this measure is the sensitivity of ELO technology, combined with the fact that the U.S. is the target of what may be the most extensive and successful espionage program in history—China’s Advanced Persistent Threat.
 
Flicking through an aircraft magazine today in the shop there was a back page piece on the NGB. What raised my eyebrow was that they said that they have rumours from industry sources that its a no contest airframe and the demonstrator is already flying from the Northrop Grumman stable.

:eek:
 
Ian33 said:
Flicking through an aircraft magazine today in the shop there was a back page piece on the NGB. What raised my eyebrow was that they said that they have rumours from industry sources that its a no contest airframe and the demonstrator is already flying from the Northrop Grumman stable.

I suspect this is just that magazine repeating:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=dti&id=news/DTI-Bomber.xml
 
quellish said:
Boeing/LM NGB showing some internals:

From:

"Sustaining America’s Strategic Advantage in Long-Range Strike"

http://www.csbaonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/2010.09.14-Sustaining-Americas-Strategic-Advantage-in-Long-Range-Strike.pdf

Worth reading
 
GeorgeA said:
Next you'll be telling me they want to resurrect the Saturn V . . . .

No, only parts of it. Not ambitious enough to resurrect the whole thing. :(
 
Can I get Van Halen, Ozzy, early Metallica, and tight pants on longhaired doodz back? That'd be awesome bro! :D
 
In the meantime LONG LIVE THE BONE :eek:

B-1B Lancer Upgrade Will Triple Payload

Dyess AFB, Texas - Airmen from the 337th Test and Evaluation Squadron began their first phase of demonstrations of a multiple ejector rack on a B-1B Lancer here March 22. If fielded, 16-carry modified rotary launchers will increase the number of 500-pound joint direct attack munitions and laser-guided JDAMs carried by the B-1B from 15 to 48, a 320 percent increase in capability.

"Currently a B-1 can deliver twice the payload of a B-52 (Stratofortress), meaning, theoretically, with the MER upgrade, one B-1 will be able to deliver the same amount of payload as four B-52s," said Col. Gerald Goodfellow, the 7th Operations Group commander.

Also, the MER has a mixed-load capability, meaning each bomb bay can hold an assortment of joint air-to-surface stand-off missiles, and both 2,000-pound and 500-pound JDAMs, giving the aircrew much greater flexibility during combat missions. "The war we are in requires target specific weaponry that is capable of destroying a single room of a building," said Tech Sgt. David Koscienski, the 337th TES weapons suitability NCO in charge. "With the addition of the MER, B-1 operators have the ability to conduct numerous individual attacks and massive air-strikes as needed, without needing to stop to reload." Aircrews from the 337th TES and 419th Flight Test Squadron from Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., flew a Dyess AFB B-1B equipped with a MER and successfully released two inert 500-pound JDAMs over China Lake Missile Range, Calif, March 22. An additional mission was also successfully flown March 24 to test drop the weapons again.

"The B-1 is absolutely a choice war-fighting platform considering it can carry multiple weapons, each with specific capabilities, and deploy those weapons at a moment's notice," Sergeant Koscienski said. "The adaptation of the MER, along with the sniper pod and laser-guided JDAMS, will only increase that same lethal capability to an even greater level." The purpose of the 16-carry demonstration program is to validate the release and safe separation of 500-pound class weapons from a modified B-1B rotary launcher. "This upgrade will not only save the Air Force money, but will also put less of our Airmen at risk; and that is our main priority," Colonel Goodfellow said.

Source : US Air Force
 
"Currently a B-1 can deliver twice the payload of a B-52 (Stratofortress), meaning, theoretically, with the MER upgrade, one B-1 will be able to deliver the same amount of payload as four B-52s,"

:eek:

Four? that is absolute insanity! Sounds very logical though if they are smacking down on low / poor defended targets in CAS role.
 
pardon my ignorance, but are they talking about total number of bombs or total weight? when I hear the term payload, to me it implies a mass. Are they saying the B-1 will all of the sudden triplicate the payload mass it can lift, or rather the number of (smaller) bombs it can deliver?
 
AeroFranz said:
pardon my ignorance, but are they talking about total number of bombs or total weight? when I hear the term payload, to me it implies a mass. Are they saying the B-1 will all of the sudden triplicate the payload mass it can lift, or rather the number of (smaller) bombs it can deliver?

The number. The B-1 can already carry a lot of mass, but it doesn't have enough stations to hold it all. On the internal bays (this is from memory) the B-1B can carry 75k. If the external hardpoints were available, the B-1B could carry an *additional* 60k. So the problem this solves is that it allows greater utilization of the internal bays.
 
bobbymike said:
In the meantime LONG LIVE THE BONE :eek:

B-1B Lancer Upgrade Will Triple Payload
Dyess AFB, Texas [...]
Source : US Air Force

Link and some pictures:
Dyess.af.mil - 337 TES demonstrates ability to triple B-1 payload
An illustration of what a full load of 500-pound Joint Direct Attack Munitions would look like on the Multiple Ejector Rack upgrade. If fielded, a 16-carry modified rotary launcher will increase the number of 500-pound Joint Direct Attack Munitions and Laser Guided JDAMS carried by the B-1 from 15 to 48, a 320 percent increase in capability.
 

Attachments

  • AFG-110404-011.jpg
    AFG-110404-011.jpg
    16.9 KB · Views: 1,472
Wait a minute, something fishy here. 15 to 48 = 3x 16 weapon rack. The better question is why is JDAM limited to 6+6+3 currently, considering the rotary rack has 8 positions normally, and with the MER can suddenly do 16 per rack?

Interesting they are doing precision bomb truck work now, though admittedly this is a "cheap" upgrade to execute, after committing to Sniper pods. Offset tandem adapters seems like a good generic solution to a mixed load. It's hard to tell from the images, but are these simple tandem adapters to existing rotary racks? Though the bomb truck purists would have probably wanted quad or sextuple SDB capable adapters...
 
I'd imagine the it's a Mil-Std-1553 databus limitation - with a 5-bit address, you can only can only talk to 32 devices and two addresses are reserved per specification. (You have to talk to each bomb over the databus - how else does it get smart?) Each GPS Guided Weapon also requires a decoder (stores station interface unit) on the airplane side (to supply powerforms and other discrete signals) - so with all the weapons (in all three weapons bays) on one Bus Controller (databus [pair]) you can talk to: 15 x ( weapon + decoder) == all 30 addresses used up.

If you change the architecture (i.e. - spend the bucks) to have one Bus Controller per weapons bay plus software and possibly hardware changes upstream, you can can now talk to 15 decoder/weapon sets per bay. If you have two Bus Controllers per bay, you can talk to 30 decoder/weapon sets per bay - that gives you the 16 weapon capability now, and room to grow if the SDB is to be integrated.

This does not address the physical issues of fitting all the weapons (and suspension gear and adapters) on the rotary launcher, we'll leave that fun for the mechanical engineers.

If you want to be bored to tears, google up and read Mil-Std-1553B (the databus standard) and Mil-Std-1760D which is the interface standard for talking to GPS-guided weapons and other things (and then go and watch Dark Star!). In fact, here is a very good, very comprehensive and very eye-glazing paper addressing the subject: http://crpit.com/confpapers/CRPITV69Squair.pdf

Employing GPS Guided Weapons adds incredible capability, but integrating (shoehorning) the capability into a legacy airframe and avionics architecture is, well, a non-trivial exercise.

HTH!
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom