US Next Generation Bomber Studies

[mkellytx]

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...

Nothing fishy here at all. Just a case of some journalist who doesn't know the airplane. Back in the day I used to work the Bone (sts), the only 1760 racks that could take a 500lb JDAM were the 10 carries. These were the racks originally for the CBU's which got 1760'd for WCMD. Due to the longer fins you could only fit 7 Mk82 types per 10 carry. The other piece of this is that the rotaries were built for heavy weapons and have 30" lugs, the 1000lb and below (CBU, Mk82) have 15" lugs. So, the rotaries couldn't take 500lb JDAM. This new rack lets you put 500lb JDAM now on a rotary, a big improvement in flexibility (the other racks were pains).

Cheers

 

[RyanC]

Here's an absolutely evil idea (i don't know if I've mentioned it before....)

The circa 1958 1.5 kiloton W25 warhead on the AIR-2 GENIE weighed 225~ lbs and was 17.5" in diameter.

This diameter compares to 10.75" for a Mk 82, 14.06" for a Mk 83, and 18" for a Mk 84...

So imagine a future next generation bomber with 50+ nuclear weapons on board, each with an accuracy of 25 meters or better. ;D

 

[bobbymike]

Here's an absolutely evil idea (i don't know if I've mentioned it before....)

The circa 1958 1.5 kiloton W25 warhead on the AIR-2 GENIE weighed 225~ lbs and was 17.5" in diameter.

This diameter compares to 10.75" for a Mk 82, 14.06" for a Mk 83, and 18" for a Mk 84...

So imagine a future next generation bomber with 50+ nuclear weapons on board, each with an accuracy of 25 meters or better. ;D

I like the idea, assuming we have any nukes when the NGB is flying.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Didn't the SRAM II only have a diameter of some 16", a modern version might be nice to have.

 

[bobbymike]

From Ares Defense Blog - Long Range Strike

Long-Range Strike Puzzle Pieces

Posted by Bill Sweetman at 5/5/2011 6:15 AM CDT

If there is such a thing as a "bomber mafia" in US defense circles, Northrop Grumman's Robert Haffa, recently retired director of the company's Analysis Center, is one of its ruling dons. Together with NGAC colleague Michael Isherwood, Haffa has a new article in Joint Forces Quarterly talking about the "family of systems" approach to long-range strike. It's worth reading in full, but here are some highlights. Like every other document that refers to LRS, the Northrop Grumman piece mentions the "central" role of "enablers" such as "survivable airborne ISR assets." It goes on to list eight principal characteristics by which the other LRS systems are assessed.

* promptness: reach any target worldwide within 1 hour
* persistence: maintain on station/position for ISR and time-sensitive targeting for more than 4 hours
* time-sensitive: possess organic as well as integrated “find, fix, and track” capabilities to engage fixed or highly mobile targets
* multitarget: engage more than one target nearly simultaneously
* command and control: retasking assets to meet the commander’s intent in a denied communications environment
* standoff: achieve desired effects from a range of 1,000 nautical miles or more
* penetration: operate, succeed, and survive within a high threat environment
* nonkinetic: provide options such as electronic attack and cyber capabilities.

Haffa and Isherwood identify five distinct classes of LRS weapons. Interestingly, they include the Virginia-class nuclear attack submarine (SSN) as a platform for cruise and ballistic missiles -- possibly because the Block 3 will carry a wider range of missiles, and because surface ship VLS tubes will be largely filled with SM-3-class weapons for missile defense. This is how the authors see the systems stacking up against the eight requirements: The authors drive a clear distinction between the Next Generation Bomber and the smaller Unmanned Combat Air System. The UCAS is important because of its "ability to engage and defeat a time-sensitive target in a matter of minutes owing to its persistence, sensor suite ... and kinetic or nonkinetic weapons systems". However, the bomber can carry more and heavier weapons and "perhaps more important" provide an airborne command and control capability to knit all the systems together even if communications into and out of the theater are jammed. The essay stresses the value of supersonic speed to future cruise missiles -- and notes that although the conventional prompt global strike (CPGS) weapon scores well against only three of the eight metrics listed above, it has an advantage in that it can be fielded soon.
----------------------------------------------------------
Still hoping for a big heavy lift (able to carry a few HTV-2s or MaRVs) conventional ICBM for coastal launch prompt global strike that eventually becomes a MMIII replacement, no not holding my breath.

 

[stew3]

Here's an absolutely evil idea (i don't know if I've mentioned it before....)

The circa 1958 1.5 kiloton W25 warhead on the AIR-2 GENIE weighed 225~ lbs and was 17.5" in diameter.

This diameter compares to 10.75" for a Mk 82, 14.06" for a Mk 83, and 18" for a Mk 84...

So imagine a future next generation bomber with 50+ nuclear weapons on board, each with an accuracy of 25 meters or better. ;D

A B-61 has a diameter of only 13".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb

 

[sferrin]

They've made nuclear shells for 155mm howitzers.

 

[flateric]

Long-range Conventional Strike: A Joint Family of Systems
By Robert P. Haffa, Jr., and Michael W. Isherwood
Dr. Robert P. Haffa, Jr., is Director of the Northrop Grumman Analysis Center. Colonel Michael W. Isherwood, USAF (Ret.), is a Senior Analyst in the Northrop Grumman Analysis Center

http://www.ndu.edu/press/long-range-conventional-strike.html

 

[RyanC]

They've made nuclear shells for 155mm howitzers.

That's about 6.1" in diameter. But those types of devices are awfully inefficient regarding fissile material/yield, and very tricky to design. It's why I prefer 10-12" diameter.

One of the reasons I used the W25 as an example is that I was able to get an exact *weight* for the warhead assembly on the GENIE due to a Standard Aircraft Characteristics sheet on it.

 

[sferrin]

They've made nuclear shells for 155mm howitzers.

That's about 6.1" in diameter. But those types of devices are awfully inefficient regarding fissile material/yield, and very tricky to design. It's why I prefer 10-12" diameter.

One of the reasons I used the W25 as an example is that I was able to get an exact *weight* for the warhead assembly on the GENIE due to a Standard Aircraft Characteristics sheet on it.

Ineffcient use of material true, but for a given depth of penetration your 10-12" diameter warhead is going to require a much larger (heavier) bomb.

 

[bobbymike]

They've made nuclear shells for 155mm howitzers.

That's about 6.1" in diameter. But those types of devices are awfully inefficient regarding fissile material/yield, and very tricky to design. It's why I prefer 10-12" diameter.

One of the reasons I used the W25 as an example is that I was able to get an exact *weight* for the warhead assembly on the GENIE due to a Standard Aircraft Characteristics sheet on it.

Ineffcient use of material true, but for a given depth of penetration your 10-12" diameter warhead is going to require a much larger (heavier) bomb.

I like the W80 - The W80 is physically quite small, the "physics package" itself is about the size of a conventional Mk.81 250 pounds (110 kg) bomb, 11.8 inches (30 cm) in diameter and 31.4 inches (80 cm) long, and only slightly heavier at about 290 pounds (130 kg).

Armorers have the ability to select the yield of the resulting explosion in-flight, a capability sometimes referred to as "dial-a-yield" but more properly variable yield. At one end of the scale, perhaps using just the boosted fission primary, the W80 has destructive power equivalent to around 5 kilotons of TNT; at the other end, the yield is equivalent to around 150 kt.

 

[bobbymike]

DoD OKs USAF Bomber Program Office
By DAVE MAJUMDAR
Published: 11 May 2011 12:57

The U.S. Air Force is creating an office for its new bomber program, a top service official said. "We've got a general mandate from the Secretary of Defense to go forward with standing up the program office, so we're just at the beginning of that work," said Air Force undersecretary Erin Conaton at a May 11 breakfast sponsored by the Air Force Association. Still to come: detailed requirements, a firmer production plan than the 80- to 100-plane estimate, and more. "We don't have a full life-cycle cost yet," Conaton said. "That's the work that'll be done now by the program office as they stand up," Conaton said. The number of aircraft to be purchased will be refined as the service gets a better idea of the capabilities offered by the under-development bomber, Conaton said. "Eighty to 100 is our current best estimate of what we think we'll need, but that estimate will be refined over time as we see the capability and what we think we can afford," she said. Most important to the Air Force is that the fleet be much larger than the force of 20 B-2 stealth bombers, whose small numbers make them more troublesome and expensive to maintain, she said.

The Air Force plans to manage the program under the auspices of the Rapid Capabilities Office because it offers more streamlined acquisitions than the regular channels, Conaton said. "The idea is to try to get capability as quickly as possible, leveraging as many existing technologies as possible," she said. Conaton acknowledged that the bomber isn't being fielded under what is usually thought of as a rapid capability, but she said the process is faster and simpler than the traditional process.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Conaton acknowledged that the bomber isn't being fielded under what is usually thought of as a rapid capability, but she said the process is faster and simpler than the traditional process.

Famous last words?

 

[bobbymike]

Next-Generation Bomber Unit Cost Target Set At $550 Million

The Air Force's next-generation bomber is expected to have a unit cost of about $550 million, giving the fleet a price tag of roughly $50 billion, according to the Defense Department's 30-year aviation plan submitted to Congress in March.

 

[John21]

For that price and from what I have read this seems like it is going to end up being something like a stealthy version of the B-1B or FB-111.

 

[Grey Havoc]

For that price and from what I have read this seems like it is going to end up being something like a stealthy version of the B-1B or FB-111.

At the moment, what the USAF really needs is something like the B-1A. Or even a modern Valkyrie.

 

[bobbymike]

For that price and from what I have read this seems like it is going to end up being something like a stealthy version of the B-1B or FB-111.

At the moment, what the USAF really needs is something like the B-1A. Or even a modern Valkyrie.

Makes me wonder what the world would look like with 132 B-2s (and 750 F-22s for that matter)

 

[quellish]

For that price and from what I have read this seems like it is going to end up being something like a stealthy version of the B-1B or FB-111.

Over the last 10-15 years there has been considerable work in "scalable low observables" - controlling signature to meet the realities of a given threat environment. B-1-like signatures for Afghanistan that can be upgraded to B-2-like signatures for denied environments. VLO components and coatings are very expensive to maintain day in, day out, and may not be required after the first few days of a conflict when an enemy IADS would be dismantled. Some of this work in reflected in the F-35.

So you may end up with a bomb truck that can be brought to a VLO state very quickly and kept there indefinitely, but spends most of its time LO or RO.

 

[bobbymike]

Pentagon Moves on New Long-Range Bomber
Monday, May 23, 2011

The U.S. Defense Department has discreetly been discussing with major military contractors plans to develop a new generation of long-range nuclear bomber aircraft, the Los Angeles Times reported on Sunday (see GSN, Nov. 5, 2010). The Pentagon would like to see the new fleet of nuclear-capable bombers in place no later than the middle of the next decade. The sought-after fleet would number between 80 to 100 aircraft that could be flown remotely or by a human pilot. Currently, the youngest long-range bombers in the U.S. nuclear arsenal are more than 10 years old. Defense Department acquisition head Ashton Carter has spoken individually with officials from Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Boeing, department spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin said. The three defense contractors are anticipated to compete to win the $55 billion bomber order. "Northrop Grumman employees in California designed, produced and currently maintain the nation's newest bomber in the U.S. Air Force fleet, the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber," Northrop spokesman Randy Belote said. "Our people and capabilities ... stand ready to assist the Defense Department and the U.S. Air Force in meeting the nation's future requirements for the long-range-strike mission."

A Boeing representative said the aerospace giant "will compete in the bomber competition," while Lockheed Martin declined a request for comment. Plans to fund a new generation of long-range strike aircraft are developing amid a cost-slashing mood in Washington, where lawmakers are likely to closely study the anticipated project. Outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates, while calling for the Pentagon to rein in expenses, has on several occasions called for a new generation of nuclear-ready aircraft. "It is important that we begin this project now to ensure that a new bomber can be ready before the current aging fleet goes out of service," Gates said to journalists in 2010. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard McKeon (R-Calif.) favors the bomber initiative. "The Air Force and the Defense Department have made clear that replacements are needed for America's aging bomber fleet and that long-range strike should be a priority," McKeon staffer John Noonan said. "The chairman concurs with their assessment."

The Obama administration's fiscal 2012 budget request includes $197 million to support development operations for the new system. A total of $3.7 billion is to be spent over the next half decade, according to Air Force spokesman Maj. Chad Steffey. "The Defense Department is serious about doing this program," Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments defense analyst Todd Harrison said. "The last time they tried to upgrade their bomber force, they bought 21 B-2s. That's not nearly enough to modernize the fleet."

The Air Force today has only 20 B-2 bombers as well as 66 B-1 bombers manufactured in the 1980s and 85 B-52 bombers that date back to the 1960s and have been refurbished. "The Air Force believes it's overdue for an upgrade," Harrison said, asserting the service could already quietly be paying for the aircraft's development through its secret $12.6 billion "black" budget for the creation of new weapons. Gates has stated the new aircraft would employ "proven technologies, an approach that should make it possible to deliver this capability on schedule and in quantity." Statements such as these have led numerous military observers to speculate the next-generation aircraft would have physical similarities to the radar-evading, remotely-piloted aircraft that are already in use (W.J. Hennigan, Los Angeles Times, May 22).

 

[bobbymike]

Experts discuss future long-range strike bomber requirements

Posted 5/25/2011

by Staff Sgt. Brian Stives
8th Air Force Public Affairs

5/25/2011 - BOSSIER CITY, La. (AFNS) -- More than 30 military and civilian strategic air power experts gathered here May 5 to discuss ideas for a new long-range strike bomber. The Bomber Advisory Group examined past and current global strike success stories and strategic air power's role in the 21st century. The group also brainstormed ways to bring Barksdale Air Force Base's surrounding Shreveport-Bossier City community into the thinking about the future of strategic air power. Dr. Rebecca Grant, the director of the Gen. William Mitchell Institute for Airpower Studies, and Lt. Gen. James Kowalski, the commander of Air Force Global Strike Command, attended the conference. Past 8th Air Force commanders, Lt. Gens. Phillip Ford, Thomas Keck and Robert Elder also attended.

Not all the nation's decision-makers understand why America must build a new bomber right now, Dr. Grant said, "and it is up to the practitioners of strategic air power to help us frame that answer: why does America need a new bomber right now, what are these missions?" "This group is quite a distinguished group of people," said Maj. Gen. Floyd Carpenter, the 8th Air Force commander and the commander of Strategic Command's Air Forces Strategic. "We need advocates for these types of capabilities," he said.

The general pointed out the prior 8th Air Force commanders and industry leaders who know from experience how to articulate the nation's need for long-range bombers. During her overview of strategic airpower, Dr. Grant discussed the evolution of bombers from 1917 on, as they addressed national strategy and security needs. "Air power is key to our foreign policy," she said. "Look what we did with Libya," referring to Operation Odyssey Dawn. "Air power was key to the ability to have that response." In the Air Force Posture Statement for 2011, Michael B. Donley, the secretary of the Air Force, discusses the need for a new long-rang strike bomber. "We must sustain our ability to consistently hold any target on the planet at risk with the development of a long-range strike family of systems capability, including a new penetrating bomber, to create desired effects across the full range of military operations in both permissive and contested environments," Secretary Donley said. In January, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced plans for the Air Force to invest in a new long-range, penetrating, and nuclear-capable bomber capable of either manned or unmanned operations, according to the Posture Statement.

"A major focus of this program is to develop an affordable, long-range penetrating strike capability that delivers on schedule and in quantity," Secretary Donley said. "This aircraft will be designed and built using proven technologies, will leverage existing systems to provide sufficient capability, and allow growth to improve the system as technology matures and threats evolve."

 

[bobbymike]

Pentagon Details Plan for New Nuclear Bomber
Wednesday, June 1, 2011

By Diane Barnes

Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Defense Department in a new acquisition document laid out preliminary plans to develop a fleet of next-generation nuclear bombers capable of carrying out long-range missions with or without onboard pilots (see GSN, May 23).

A "new penetrating, nuclear-capable bomber program" would form the "centerpiece" of a broader suite of U.S. long-range strike aircraft intended to eliminate and discourage the development of barriers to military operations, the Pentagon said in a legally required aircraft procurement plan spanning the next three decades. Meanwhile, the nation's existing B-1, B-2 and B-52 bombers would continue undergoing updates to ensure their readiness to carry out long-range missions until 2040, the document states.

The department envisions preparing a fleet of between 80 and 100 of the new bombers at a cost of $550 million for each aircraft. The proposed quantity, the report says, would allow for Air Force "capabilities required to operate in an anti-access, area denial environment and ensure a sustainable inventory over the long term." The Pentagon's 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review established broad objectives that guided the latest acquisition plan covering bombers, fighter jets and other aircraft. Those four "strategic priorities" are: achieving victory in present conflicts and staving off new conflicts; laying the groundwork for success against hostile forces in a variety of scenarios; and maintaining and bolstering the nation's military as an organization comprised solely of volunteers.

The Defense Department projected a slight decline in its overall aircraft holdings between fiscal years 2012 and 2021; aviation force levels are slated to jump from 5,555 in the next budget period to 5,626 in fiscal 2016, before falling to 5,467 a decade from now. The military expects to maintain 156 long-range bombers for most of the next decade, before the total inventory declines by a single plane in fiscal 2021, according to the report. Modernization efforts would be funded to augment the "effectiveness and survivability" of the B-2 bomber, the document states. Meanwhile, the Air Force would cull six of its B-1 aircraft between fiscal 2012 and 2016 to finance updates to the remaining bombers from that fleet, it adds. The bombers and the rest of the updated fleet of fixed-wing aircraft are expected to support or conduct six crucial military mission areas, according to the Pentagon. These include countering the spread and use of weapons of mass destruction, battling terrorists, protecting the United States and supporting allied nations.

"The aviation plan provides the aircraft needed to cover the full complement of operations that U.S. military forces could undertake in the decades ahead, and it will evolve as security needs change," the report says. "As [Defense Secretary Robert] Gates has stated, 'What is needed is a portfolio of military capabilities with maximum versatility across the widest possible spectrum of conflict.'"

 

[bobbymike]

House Panel Adds $100M For Future Bomber

Jun 13, 2011

By Jen DiMascio

The House Appropriations Committee is set to debate a draft version of the fiscal 2012 defense spending bill on June 14 that adds $100 million to encourage more competition on development of the future bomber. A report on the bill providing details of how the $649 billion total should be spent in the eyes of the defense subcommittee began circulating on June 9. Aviation Week obtained portions. The bill also adds $225 million to purchase a Boeing C-17A aircraft to replace one that crashed last year at Elmendorf AFB in Alaska, according to the report. The bill would make steep cuts as well, trimming $1.4 billion from U.S. Air Force research accounts, on the basis that programs had requested more money than was needed or provided poor justification for the request, the report says.

That includes chopping $219.9 million out of the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System, $124.5 million from the Rocket Systems Launch Program and $67.2 million from President Barack Obama’s request for the Advanced Extremely High Frequency satellite program. The defense panel included language in the bill governing the Boeing KC-46A tanker program, requiring the Air Force to notify Congress of any changes to the program exceeding $5 million no later than 30 days after making the change. Rep. Jo Bonner (R-Ala.), who represents the district where the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. would have made U.S. tankers had it won the competition, pushed for the provision. The language moves one step beyond a similar reporting requirement in the House version of the defense authorization bill sponsored by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) that gave the Air Force more time to report the changes. The bill has many more hurdles to cross before becoming law. The Senate has yet to decide on a budget, and insiders predict the appropriations process there will start late, possibly in September.

 

[mithril]

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

looks like the early lockheed ATF proposal, which was SR-71 based..

 

[bobbymike]

Brochure for Long Range Strike Conference would love to attend. Anyway nice cover art of a nominal Next Generation Bomber. But read the inside some very interesting topics.

http://www.iqpc.com/uploadedfiles/EventRedesign/USA/2011/September/20393001/assets/brochure.pdf

 

[bobbymike]

Some BUFF news:

B-52H—True Sons of "Big Belly": The Air Force is currently upgrading the B-52's internal weapons bay to expand the aircraft's payload by roughly two-thirds, according to Lt. Gen. James Kowalski, commander of Air Force Global Strike Command. "The B-52 delivers the widest variety of stand-off, direct-attack nuclear and conventional weapons in the Air Force and we have been investing in multiple improvements," Kowalski told an audience Wednesday during a National Defense University Foundation-sponsored address in Washington, D.C. This effort represents the "most significant B-52 modernization since the [1980s] and will add 21st century capability to the aircraft," stated Kowalski unequivocally. Major improvements include new flight control software to enhance targeting pod capabilities and incorporate miniature air launched decoys onto the B-52, as well as a modern digital communications system. With progress thus far, Kowalski said he expects the B-52's combat network communications technology upgrade to enter low-rate production by 2013.
---------------------------------------
Expand internal weapons bay by 2/3rds wow. Is this going to be the flying arsenal ship from the Dale Brown novels

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

^you mean the flying hornet's nest? well... drones actually

 

[flateric]

...more than just patent drawing
Configuration Research Activities at AFRL/RBAA

 

[InvisibleDefender]

Reported by Amy Butler at the ARES Blog

Unclassified Facts on the Air Force Penetrating Bomber

PURPOSE:
Provide industry executives the unclassified facts on the new penetrating bomber program.

FACTS:
- Based on Secretary of Defense direction, the Air Force (AF) is developing a new penetrating bomber.
- The new penetrating bomber will be a component of the joint portfolio of conventional deep-strike capabilities.
- The new penetrating bomber will be highly survivable, nuclear capable, and designed to accommodate manned or unmanned operations
- The new penetrating bomber will be able to employ a broad mix of stand-off and direct-attack munitions.
- The total annual budget by appropriation (i.e., RDT&E, Production) is unclassified.
- The Air Force plans to deliver the initial capability in the mid-2020s.
- The new program will leverage mature technologies and constrain requirements based on affordability
- The new program will focus on affordability: unit cost target set to inform design/requirement trades and ensure sufficient inventory.
- The Air Force is projecting to build a fleet of 80-100 aircraft.
- The new program will employ enhanced security measures and be protected by a Special Access Program.
- All other details are classified to protect operational advantages and the nation's investment in critical technologies and capabilities.
- For further information, contact the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) or the Program Security Officer (PSO)

 

[flateric]

Boeing/LM NGB showing some internals:

moar, wing consoles seem to be shorter here though

 

[sferrin]

Looks like the original B-2 configuration.

 

[Steve Pace]

It sure does. -SP

 

[BAROBA]

- The Air Force plans to deliver the initial capability in the mid-2020s.
- The new program will leverage mature technologies and constrain requirements based on affordability
- The new program will focus on affordability: unit cost target set to inform design/requirement trades and ensure sufficient inventory.
- The Air Force is projecting to build a fleet of 80-100 aircraft.

In understandable human talk that translate into :
- We hope to have it before 2040...
- that has way to many untested systems that atleast take 2 upgrades and 50 years to mature...
-the cost of a unit will be at least double that of everything we have in stock....
-so we need to reduce the fleet to 20-25

I wish them all the best in reaching those objectives

 

[flateric]

Looks like the original B-2 configuration.

hardly original B-2 would would find its way in recent AFRL Air Vehicles Directorate presentation (I think)

 

[sferrin]

Looks like the original B-2 configuration.

hardly original B-2 would would find its way in recent AFRL Air Vehicles Directorate presentation (I think)

???

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

It can still look like the original B-2, even if its a new design.

 

[AeroFranz]

There are only so many ways you can make a flying wing with planform alignment!

 

[LowObservable]

AF - And most of 'em don't work on anything smaller than a B-2.

 

[bobbymike]

FY2012 Defense Budget passes a couple of interesting paragraphs for the members of SP.

The legislation includes a nearly 50 percent reduction for development of so-called "prompt global strike" weapons, conventionally armed systems intended to be capable of destroying a target halfway around the world within an hour of launch (see GSN, June 16). The White House sought roughly $205 million for the effort but the House Appropriations Committee last month cut the program to just shy of $105 million. No amendments were offered during the floor debate on Friday to reverse that action.


Lawmakers voted 322-98 against an amendment offered by Representatives Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) to eliminate the full $297 million designated in the bill for development of a new, penetrating nuclear bomber. The final figure is $100 million more than the administration's request, according to the bill's accompanying report.
The legislation also meets the administration's request for $1.3 billion for ongoing development of next-generation ballistic missile submarines,

 

[bobbymike]

Confessions of a "Bomber Hater" The Joint Chiefs vice chairman still isn't sold on the Air Force's future bomber plan.
—John A. Tirpak
July 15, 2011—Marine Corps Gen. James Cartwright, Joint Chiefs vice chairman, remains "not . . . convinced" that the Air Force's approach to long-range strike is the right one, indicating that requirements for the next bomber are still the subject of intense Pentagon debate.

"I think you have to have a bomber," he told defense reporters Thursday in Washington, D.C. "I'm questioning what it is we're building, and what attributes" it should have. Cartwright, who chairs the Pentagon's joint requirements oversight council that validates weapon systems requirements, acknowledged that he's known as a "bomber hater." He admitted that he's "throwing the gauntlet down" to get the Air Force to prove that even an optionally manned bomber is necessary. "Nobody has shown me anything that requires a person in the airplane. Nobody," he said. That applies, too, if the future bomber carries out the nuclear mission, he said.

"I don't remember the last time I manned an ICBM or SLBM or a cruise missile, so I'm not sure I understand that logic," he said.

Although including a cockpit in the aircraft won't, by itself, drive costs out of sight, Cartwright said, planning for a crew "takes you to a design and survivability characteristics . . . that are significantly better." He said he fears that pursuing such "exquisite" technology will make the airplane too expensive. "Building five or 10 of something isn't going to do it for us," he said, adding that if that's the likely result, "then I question the investment." Cartwright said he thinks the bomber ought to be like the Predator drone: "something that's more oriented toward a truck that's adaptable to the conflicts we may have in the future." If that approach is taken—"a truck that has today's state-of-the-art survivability attributes, can incorporate the next-generation attributes in a way that makes sense and . . . carry reasonable payloads"—"then a long-range, long-endurance asset that's an air-breather makes a lot of sense," he said.

Cartwright also wants the Air Force to think "in terms of hundreds again" rather than a handful of super-sophisticated and expensive aircraft. He pointed out that if the 50-year old B-52 is withdrawn from service, "you don't really have much left" with B-1s and B-2s in terms of numbers. An Air Force spokesman said Thursday USAF is planning to pursue a fleet of 80 to 100 bombers, and that while some requirements have been set, "there is no program office, yet." Most of the long-range strike effort is classified and USAF can't speak to it, he said.

The service is committed to restraining requirements on the bomber so cost and complexity don't render it unaffordable in sufficient numbers, noted the spokesman.

 

[bobbymike]

Bombers aren't Quick Enough:

Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman Marine Corps Gen. James Cartwright is a big fan of the prompt global strike concept. Speaking with reporters Thursday in Washington, D.C., Cartwright said he believes that if the United States were to convert some of its ICBMs or SLBMs to carry conventional warheads, that would provide a capability with a greater deterrent effect. That's because a PGS system would have a much lower threshold of use than a nuclear weapon. It would also reduce the needed inventory of nukes, said Cartwright. He said the PGS system's warhead would be in a hypersonic body that would not exit the atmosphere, giving observers a clear indication of what it was—to prevent other nations from misidentifying it as a nuclear-tipped ballistic missile. Bombers are "pretty quick, but not quick enough," said Cartwright of alternatives to PGS. "There are places on the face of the Earth where bombers can't reach," he said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Need a heavy lift conventional ICBM carrying multiple HTV-2s