US Next Generation Bomber Studies

[AAAdrone]

I dont think LRS-B will be a subsonic plane its impossible to be a penetrate bomber with this kind of speed. AA defense will defeat easy a subsonic x-47 type bomber. To be abble to penetrate China defense you must go speed and very high altitude, PAK DA bomber will be a supersonic bomber, so the USAF must have the same thing.

AAA might work...if you're coming in at 10,000 ft or below. LRS-B will surely operate at higher altitudes than that, and speed may be detrimental to stealth as aerodynamic heating from constantly going supersonic might raise your Infrared signature and make you less low observable. Even the F-22 only uses its supercruise abilities when it absolutely needs the kinematic leverage of a missile or bomb launched at supersonic speed.

Besides, by your logic the B-2 should be the LEAST survivable bomber in our inventory if speed is such an important characteristic.

 

[dark sidius]

If you fly subsonic the only way to survive in a high contested battle is to fly at a very high altitude over the sam defense, and if you fall on a J-20 squadron or T-50, the single way is to escape at a high speed supersonic , if you go subsonic no chance to survive with 5th gen fighter.

 

[flateric]

PAK DA bomber will be a supersonic bomber

Tupolev DB still didn't choose final configuration and speed range for PAK DA. So be careful with your statements.

 

[AAAdrone]

If you fly subsonic the only way to survive in a high contested battle is to fly at a very high altitude over the sam defense, and if you fall on a J-20 squadron or T-50, the single way is to escape at a high speed supersonic , if you go subsonic no chance to survive with 5th gen fighter.

Or you could use your VLO airframe to fly between the radar acquisition ranges of the SAM sites and avoid the J-20s and Sukhois by controlling EM emissions and using your in-built ESM suite to tell when there are 5th gen CAP fighters approaching and react accordingly. Think of it this way: If the F-35 can detect an APG-77 then I'm sure this new bomber can do the same thing to an enemy 5th gen fighter.

This bomber is supposed to have a far greater range than your typical fighter, 5th gen or not. Our armed forces could simply gather intelligence on where the fighters are likely to operate from, what on-station assets they are likely to have like tankers, AEW&C, etc. and plan out the ingress route before-hand. Using its superior range and mission radius vis-a-vis a fighter our bomber can simply go around areas defended by predicted CAP routes and go around areas defended by large, cumbersome static radar systems like those VHF Band radars that the Russians claim to have mastered. With a competent Electronic support measures suite the appropriate adjustments to the ingress route can be made accordingly in the event enemy radars are turned on around the bomber. Please note that switching on every radar within a SAM site or CAP is a bad idea as it'll only give away the position of the radars to the stealth bomber and in turn will HELP the bomber with its ingress/egress route planning.

It's good to be subsonic because high mach numbers encourage thicker boundary layer growth that can lead to higher drag and greater kinetic heating which reduces low observability. The B-2 cools its exhaust as well to ensure a minimal IR signature. There is a possibility a similar technique will be employed by this new aircraft. It'll be a lot harder to cool an afterburning turbofan. Even a supercruising turbofan will be harder to cool than a subsonic one. By going supersonic the bomber runs the risk of being registered on IRSTs on enemy sukhois. In a sense it will be counter-productive.

The point of this new bomber is similar to the B-2. It uses its VLO characteristics and advanced avionics to never be detected in the first place.
Also note that no B-2 has ever ran into a CAP. Even with improved radars a 5th gen fighter will have to contend with superior RAM coatings and shaping techniques derived from years of research and experience with the F-22 and F-35.

 

[dark sidius]

Its very difficult to speculate on the new bomber there is no informations available may be it will be subsonic may be it will be a high performance plane, its possible than this plane can supercruise without afterburner or if subsonic can be equipped with directed energy for shooting plane or incomming missile who now?

 

[flateric]

Its very difficult to speculate on the new bomber there is no informations available

if you will spent some hours reading this thread from the beginning you will note that supersonic LRS projects
felt in favor of subsonic in most recent revelations from both contractors, also Pentagon affiliated think tanks came
to the conclusion that subsonic VLO bomber has more sense

 

[Jemiba]

Not to spoil this thread, I really like those fancy CGI of the "FB-23" or the "B-2 successors.
Reminds me a little bit, on what I often said about German designs in 1945 .....
Nevertheless, judging the current financial state not only in the US, but in most countries
(even China !), I'm pretty sure, that most of us won't be able to tell a bomber from a transport
at first glance in , say, 30 years ahead, if it isn't one of those long-cherished B-2s then, that are
kept as "silver bullets", with maybe 10 flight hours every year, to keep them going for the
Stealthy attacks are the domain of the F-35 or F-22 (it probably will still be flying then, under the
same terms, as the B-2), global reach will be obtained by air-to-air refuelling or stationing the aircraft
nearer to the hot spot. And of course, the airforce will desperately demand a new, stealthy and maybe
even supersonic bomber. But I'm pretty sure, they won't get it, no matter, who's at the helm !

Sorry for that, just a short spell of disillusion :-\

 

[bobbymike]

Its very difficult to speculate on the new bomber there is no informations available may be it will be subsonic may be it will be a high performance plane, its possible than this plane can supercruise without afterburner or if subsonic can be equipped with directed energy for shooting plane or incomming missile who now?

What?????? No information actually it is the opposite there is so much information it is hard to disseminate it all. I think I read my first "next generation bomber" paper in the mid 90's. While one could arguably agree we do not know the final form the NGB will take it is NOT from the lack if information on the subject. The information on thread alone could be studied for months and months.


Former ACC Boss Discusses New Bomber: The Air Force's next-generation bomber must be capable of strategic deterrence as well as precision strike, said retired Gen. John Corley, former Air Combat Command boss. Contrasted with historical stealth, "for this bomber to have value, it's got to have a visible deterrent demonstration capacity capability to it," said Corley, speaking on a Washington Security Forum panel discussion on the future bomber on Tuesday in Washington, D.C. "For the US to be able to deter . . . adversaries and also reassure allies around the planet, it's going to demand . . . operational capability," he asserted, stressing that design requirements flow from strategic intent. Equally important is the need for conventional "global precision attack" to be able to "strike rapidly and persistently and create decisive effects," maintaining the advantage that the United States has traditionally enjoyed, added Corley.

 

[dark sidius]

Rapidly strike and a more visible capacity for this aircraft its interesting and I'm impatient to see a day this great plane.

 

[quellish]

Its very difficult to speculate on the new bomber there is no informations available may be it will be subsonic may be it will be a high performance plane, its possible than this plane can supercruise without afterburner or if subsonic can be equipped with directed energy for shooting plane or incomming missile who now?

There is plenty of information out there about it. Next Generation Bomber is one part of the Long Range Strike programs, which have been running for some time. While NGB itself has primarily been funded through PE 0604015F, it only gets part of those funds. Most of the unclassified work done for the NGB program has been for automated inflight refuelling and technologies that allow unmanned and manned aircraft to interoperate better. These have been funded through 0604015F, 0604830F, and 0602201F. The requirements for the broader LRS project as well as NGB have been redefined several times over the course of the programs. As it is now, NGB is to be an affordable, subsonic penetrating bomber (which is now a special access program). LRS encompasses programs ranging from the subsonic NGB to hypersonic prompt global strike programs, as well as other concepts being defined under special access programs.

Searching DTIC for any of those PE codes will yield a lot of answers.

 

[dark sidius]

Its very difficult they mean bomber but this is a familly of system, a party is not classified and another party is special access programm, may be you can find a bomber with drone or supersonic drone or weapon. A subsonic bomber can penetrate only if there is a help with another type of plane i think this is the concept, a subsonic bomber alone can't penetrate a defense like China, you can't just have stealth to protect your attack. New sensor and high performance radar can find a stealth plane, exemple with a french radar who have detected a B-2 formation, in the Serbia conflict.

 

[dark sidius]

Article in aviation week today, Rebecca grant aviation expert say the futur bomber need stealth and supersonic design, and energy diriged weapon as soon they are develloped. I m very impatient to see this new bomber.

 

[Triton]

Press photograph of Boeing stealth bomber concept from April 27, 1980.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Press-Photo-1980-Boeing-Military-Stealth-Concept-Aircraft-Jet-Plane-/160744365089?pt=Art_Photo_Images&hash=item256d1c5c21

 

[bobbymike]

ORLANDO: America's new long-range bomber program is "underway," will involve somewhere between 80 and 100 planes and will be delivered sometime in the mid-2020's.


"And that's about all we're saying," Air Force Secretary Mike Donley told reporters. It's been known for some time that the bombers will not fly alone but will be part of a family of systems that may include UAVs and other systems.


The really interesting part of all this is the secrecy and why it's so dark. It would seem to indicate several things: that the U.S. does not want potential competitors such as China or Russia to know how advanced a system will be delivered or exactly what capabilities it will involve; that the Air Force is still putting the larger architecture together, deciding which capabilities will be available.


The bomber will almost certainly include an unmanned capability, but no one has made a formal decision yet, an Air Force source told me. Many of the important subsystems have not yet been chosen, this source said. Even presuming that the $4 billion for the bomber in the 2013 budget submission spread over five years is supplemented by a few billion more in the black budget that is not much money to build 80 to 100 planes that will cost at least $550 million each. Even if that is flyaway cost -- which excludes research and development costs -- building a bomber able to penetrate denied airspace and fly thousands of miles to do it without refueling has never been cheap.


And then there are the arcane details about just what we're talking about when it comes to the Long Range Strike Bomber, as the Air Force's head of Global Strike, Lt. Gen. James Kowalski, calls it. On the one hand, Kowalksi told reporters today that there is a family comprising: the long-range standoff missile (nuclear warhead for striking targets deep inside a country); conventional Prompt Global Strike, designed to strike any target in the world within one hour; and the ground-based successor to the Minuteman ICBM, which he called the ground-based strategic deterrent..


But the bomber also comprises a family of systems, thought to include an array of highly capable sensors, the long range standoff missile, some sort of stealth approach and the usual communications suites. It is also assumed by many to include a highly capable intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance suite -- something like a successor to those on-board the F-35. There's been persistent talk of UAVs that fly with the bomber or supplement it, but almost no details are known.


And we know the Pratt & Whitney is doing development work -- at least -- on the plane's engines. So, we have a system that's "underway," is secret and about which we know very little other than it will be amazing and be relatively cheap, somehow. Hmmm.

 

[Ian33]

$550 million EACH?!?

I can do math for that 100 plane fleet and see thats never going to happen in a million years!

I just finished reading a book on the F117 and what struck me was how they took bits from one plane, parts from another and made an awesome airplane.

Why couldn't they do this with the bomber and say take the F35 skins and sensors, the X47s shape and characteristics and make a decent craft that way?

Just my two thoughts but finally I'll say 'Best of Luck fellas!'

 

[bobbymike]

Source for that one Bobby?

Sorry, AOL Defense

 

[quellish]

Why couldn't they do this with the bomber and say take the F35 skins and sensors, the X47s shape and characteristics and make a decent craft that way?

That is what they are doing.
This:
http://www.csbaonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/2010.09.14-Sustaining-Americas-Strategic-Advantage-in-Long-Range-Strike.pdf
Is relatively close in detail to current planning.

 

[Ian33]

@ Quellish.

Hat truely doffed Sir! Thank you for the download.

I have to ask this though: do you have a Robert Anderson style internet hoover upper for all of this information? as for those codes you listed in the thread, how in the devils name do you find those let alone know things about them?

 

[flateric]

 

[quellish]

@ Quellish.

Hat truely doffed Sir! Thank you for the download.

I have to ask this though: do you have a Robert Anderson style internet hoover upper for all of this information? as for those codes you listed in the thread, how in the devils name do you find those let alone know things about them?

Interns. Ugly interns.

 

[sublight]

A couple questions. Why the need for a bomber if you have prompt global strike? Wouldn't a nice tiny ISR Drone with a super low RCS be able to tell you where to hit, and then we lob a PGS weapon at the target?

And wouldn't a couple of B52's with some kind of new extended range low RCS JASSM weapons also be a good solution? The tiny drone gives directions and the B52 ejects them as needed.

It seems like a B2 successor would still have all its limitations. It has to fly all the way from CONUS to the target. It will be extremely expensive to lose one therefore increasing the hesitance to use it. AND we'll have the same problem of having to bomb the hell out of it should we lose one behind enemy lines.

 

[dark sidius]

This bomber is very secret and there is few specifications . What we know is that it would'nt fly alone. What kind of drone it can be? surely this new bomber will have new capacity than we know nothing.

 

[Dragon029]

I think the point of having a bomber like the NGB is simply that it doesn't have to just be a bomber:

The Next Generation Jammer is meant to be integrated with, or be available for, the NGB, allowing it to operate as a powerful EW system. Chuck in some advanced AESA arrays along the leading edges, etc and you could have a semi-automated AWACs aircraft as well. Add AAM-launch capabilities and even perhaps directed energy weapons and it could operate as an A2A vehicle for not highly contested airspace.

I guess what I'm saying is just that by developing the NGB as an (at least) optionally manned stealth platform, you have something that can be further refined and developed into whatever role is required.

Obviously politics and doctrine will dictate whether or not this happens, but basically what it means is that the NGB has the potential to be the tiny drone and the B-52, while then providing extra EW support - aircraft stealth, while it'll always give an upper edge, could be seriously challenged in the coming decades or years with advances in sensor technology.

Heck, I even had a comment on a forum that gave an interesting concept - using multiple passive sensors connected to enough processing power to basically gather returns of civilian telecommunications, etc emissions off aircraft - a system that could operate with complete silence and stealth, yet be able to identify stealth aircraft by working the various wavelengths used by different technologies and networks.

 

[sublight]

[quote author=Dragon029]
I think the point of having a bomber like the NGB is simply that it doesn't have to just be a bomber:

The Next Generation Jammer is meant to be integrated with, or be available for, the NGB, allowing it to operate as a powerful EW system. Chuck in some advanced AESA arrays along the leading edges, etc and you could have a semi-automated AWACs aircraft as well. Add AAM-launch capabilities and even perhaps directed energy weapons and it could operate as an A2A vehicle for not highly contested airspace.
[/quote]
That's problem #1. Adding too much EW/ECM exponentially raises the cost and makes it too high risk to use in enemy territory. The other problem with EW is that the Chinese and Russians are getting very smart about air defense. When the opposition decouples emitters from the receivers then it suddenly makes your EW platforms sitting ducks. Say you are blasting ECM RF at an emitter, if they have a grid of passive receivers then all you're doing is screaming your position out to their AA system.

[quote author=Dragon029]
Heck, I even had a comment on a forum that gave an interesting concept - using multiple passive sensors connected to enough processing power to basically gather returns of civilian telecommunications, etc emissions off aircraft - a system that could operate with complete silence and stealth, yet be able to identify stealth aircraft by working the various wavelengths used by different technologies and networks.
[/quote]
The problem with this is that most objectives are going to be on the other side of a desert or a jungle that wont have enough usable 3g/4g energy bouncing around to use for object detection.

 

[Sea Skimmer]

Passive intercepts wont work nearly so well against an AESA jammer because the jamming beam is much more directional. Its also worth remembering that all those passive locating systems rely on talking to each other with radio datalinks to function, making them vulnerable to jamming and attack in return. They can get around that by using fixed landlines from prepared positions, but that has its own limitations.

 

[sublight]

Passive intercepts wont work nearly so well against an AESA jammer because the jamming beam is much more directional. Its also worth remembering that all those passive locating systems rely on talking to each other with radio datalinks to function, making them vulnerable to jamming and attack in return. They can get around that by using fixed landlines from prepared positions, but that has its own limitations.

That is completely wrong. If the jamming beam is directed back to the source then its preventing the source from picking up the transmitted waves but does absolutely nothing to prevent the passive receivers from picking up the waves.

 

[royalistflyer]

Given Barry Watts predictions about the essential pointlessness of LO technology, what would be the point of a B-2 development? Might the USAF not be better off using some existing commercial stuff (wings, highly fuel-efficient engines) married to a specialist fuselage and capable of very high altitude, sustained speed, extremely long range. Relying on the advantage of extreme height and countermeasures for survivability.

 

[Sea Skimmer]

That is completely wrong. If the jamming beam is directed back to the source then its preventing the source from picking up the transmitted waves but does absolutely nothing to prevent the passive receivers from picking up the waves.

It is only wrong in the even the enemy has located his passive and active systems on top of each other, which would mean the performance of the passive system is constantly being degraded by having a friendly emitter pouring radiation into it. In real life you want passive ELINT gear as far away from your own emissions as possible both to improve clarity and protect them from being easily located and destroyed when the enemy comes looking for the active source.

 

[quellish]

Given Barry Watts predictions about the essential pointlessness of LO technology, what would be the point of a B-2 development? Might the USAF not be better off using some existing commercial stuff (wings, highly fuel-efficient engines) married to a specialist fuselage and capable of very high altitude, sustained speed, extremely long range. Relying on the advantage of extreme height and countermeasures for survivability.

I assume you mean this report:
http://www.csbaonline.org/publications/2011/06/the-maturing-revolution-in-military-affairs/

The report itself says that stealth is probably not pointless:
"Is this forecast accurate? A definitive answer to this question would obviously require access to data on current and projected capabilities for reducing radar signatures and countering advanced SAMs that are highly classified (and rightly so). Nevertheless, there are substantial reasons to doubt this conclusion."

The point it ends up making is more that the employment of stealth platforms will probably change with changing threats.
For example:
"Third, unlike the F-117 and B-2 that operated singly (and only at night), the F-35, like the F-22, has the sur- vivability for daytime operations and will probably operate in networked groups of four or eight aircraft, thereby greatly multiplying their capacity to overcome enemy air defenses, to include destroying S-300/400/500 class SAMs."

There has been substantial work done on counter-low observables and counter-counter low observables since the 1960s. The report mentions at least one example (active stealth), it would be safe to assume that the state of the art in these areas is well beyond what is known in the public domain.

 

[bobbymike]

New U.S. Strategic Bomber May be Axed if Costs Exceed Limits

March 1, 2012

The U.S. Air Force's planned next-generation strategic bomber might never become a reality if the service is unable to keep costs down, Wired magazine reported on Wednesday (see GSN, Feb. 28). The Defense Department has told the Air Force that the price tag of the envisioned nuclear-capable Long Range Strike Aircraft must be kept at $550 million per bomber. Should the unit cost rise above that amount, "we don't get a program," Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz told journalists on Wednesday. "Either deliver or, you know, you're outta there, essentially, was [former Defense Secretary] Bob Gates' guidance. I get it. Loud and clear."


The long-range bomber is intended to take the place of the Air Force's aging B-1 and B-2 planes. The Pentagon's fiscal 2013 budget request has allocated funds to advance efforts to design and build between 80 and 100 of the strategic aircraft. The Air Force presently anticipates receiving the new bombers beginning in the mid-2020s (see GSN, June 1, 2011). The new stealth aircraft is envisioned to have the capacity to carry nuclear weapons, be piloted both remotely or from the cockpit, defeat enemy radar systems, and destroy approaching missiles with lasers, among other capabilities. Historically, the Air Force has had considerable difficulty keeping warcraft development costs down. Gates in 2009 pushed back the effort to develop the next stealth bomber, in part over concerns that the next-generation manned bomber would be too pricey (see GSN, April 22, 2009). Schwartz did not detail for journalists exactly how the Air Force intended to keep unit costs for the Long Range Strike Aircraft down. He said, though, it was imperative the service acquire the new strategic bomber or face the loss of its ability to mount air attacks at great distances.


"Do you think that the Chinese have established one of the world's best air defense environments, in their eastern provinces, just to invest their national treasure," Schwartz said. "Or for that matter, that the Iranians have established integrated air defenses in their country?" the general said. "I would say that they're not doing this, you know for the fun of it. They're doing this because they have a sense of vulnerability. And I ask you, what is it that conveys this sense of vulnerability to others? One of those is long-range strike. And that is an asset that the United States of America should not concede" (Spencer Ackerman, Wired, Feb. 29).

 

[tacitblue]

This thread has been quite for a while. Soooo, personally, I'm thinking that the new "bomber" is going to be a low altitudeand high subsonic penetrator, and be quite a departure from the flying wing designs tossed about. Even in the 1990s there was a study done on the B-2 (USAF/DoD) that the B-2 was vulnerable to modern air defenses of the time.
Therefore, what I believe we'll see is something akin to a extremely low oberservable B-1, albiet with fixed wings and a 2-3 man crew (I don't buy into this unmanned hogwash, especially for a billion dollar per airframe national asset). A plane with a very low radar signature, on par with a B-2 or better, flying at tree top level, simply seems more survivable than a high flying big bomber that once spotted is dead meat. If its VLO, flying at mach .85 and 200 feet, with maneuverability as good as a B-1 or better, enemy aircraft will have a hard time detecting it, and should a lucky pilot find himself withing visual range of it, wouldn't likely pick it up as easily with his eyes as he would a 200ft wide flying wing at 55000ft with nothing "hiding" it.

I hope the DoD has sense enough to not just roll out another slow moving high altitude (non-maneuvering) giant wing with poor visability for the crew. Stealth is fine, until you're spotted, then its game over. Low altitude, LO, and fast is the way to go, I hope.

 

[sublight]

If its VLO, flying at mach .85 and 200 feet

That would be the worst gas mileage imaginable. Cant do "deep" strike.

 

[earlm]

Why bring a half billion dollar platform into the trashfire envelope?

How is the platform supposed to see anything?

How is is supposed to deliver PGM's?

Why deprive the PGM's of ten miles of altitude to glide from outside the envelope of SAM's?

They're going high altitude.

 

[bobbymike]

Remember also the the NGB is going to be a part of a family of systems, the Air Force has made it quite clear it will not be a lone wolf. You might have an area saturated with MALD's and stealthy long range cruise missiles or even have a bomb run preceded by a Prompt Global Missile strike on key air defense nodes like what is being developed for future Virginia's.

When the other sides air defenses are damaged and/or overwhelmed then the B-3 might sneak in the back door mainly to guarantee the most important targets get hit.

 

[tacitblue]

If its VLO, flying at mach .85 and 200 feet

That would be the worst gas mileage imaginable. Cant do "deep" strike.

Yeah, but the ability to fly low-fast doesn't mean that is the entire mission profile, and there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. It's always a trade for "this" to get "that" with aircraft. If it's a very low oberservable a/c, better than a B-2, then it can certainly fly the 40,000ft donuts in the sky to support ground troops in Kerdzpakistacroatia or where the next battle is.

I'm also am thinking a little further in the future in terms of anti-aircraft weapons. For example, high energy lasers. A slow moving, or even fast moving, high altitiude aircraft once spotted, is simply DOA if its spotted. There's the trigonometry of the situation... think about how long you can visually track a 747 at 40,000ft in the sky. Low altitude does away with that sitting duck scenario. Then with high altitude, you've got to have contrail suppression as well.... And anything, any airplane, is going to have a heat signature to spot passively. Even with active skin cooling, its a fact of physics. Its far safer to be low, fast, and stealthy, than it is to be a stealthy 747 that can't do anything but cruise efficiently at altitude and hope you're not spotted - even visually.
What's needed is something about 80% the size/payload of a B-1, with it's low level nap of the Earth road running abilities, with B-2 class LO. I think within reason, anyone can conclude than a Bone can fly (approximately) the same mission profile as a B-2 (cruise at mach .85 making large radius turns at constant altitude), but a B-2 cannot come close to the low level abilities of the Bomber-One.

Prompt Global Strike is still a dream... It'll be a long time before we have mach 6 cruise missiles. Its insanity to put small conventional warheads on ICBMS - the cost alone is enough to make Congress choke. Let alone, the idea of firing ICBMs which no one knows (the watching world powers) if they're tipped with nukes.

Flexibility and affordability lead me to conclude we'll see something about 80% the size of the Bone, with off the shelf technology, in the form of a low altitude penetrator that can double as a long loiter time mid-high altitude cruiser.

 

[Sea Skimmer]

Flying low means instead of worrying about solid state lasers, fighters and massive surface to air missile complexes you can now be shot down by machine guns and shoulder fired missiles in the hands of the weakest military forces, as well as all those other threats. Stealth becomes totally impossible because the enemy can find you with advanced sound locators known as human ears, and actually be able to do something about it. Low is a complete non starter for a modern bomber. Flying somewhat low over water approaching an enemy coastline may have its uses, going 200 feet over land is not going to happen. The horrible fuel economy of low level flight is just icing on the cake for what a bad idea it would be.

 

[dark sidius]

In the last itérations of the air force scientis,t speak the speed is the key to be survivable in modern air defense, i think USAF want a bomber that can threat target rapidly, in th sense of in the Pacific the distant are very great you must go rapidly on the objectif. May be we will see a supersonic stealth bomber instead of low speed, you can't survive in a high defense with a low speed aircraft, stealth is not enough now. After that soon we can see a sort of prompt global strike system to help the bomber on the attacks, its my opinion.

 

[tacitblue]

Exactly!!
Stealth is not enough, and I do expect the new bomber to have supersonic dash capability. Also, with regards to machine gun fire from low altitude strike missions; I don't know about you, but unless you live in the desert and have a "horizon-to-horizon" field of view, then good luck in firing your AK47 at an aircraft that you don't spot until its overhead of you. Its going to be the luckiest SOB terrorist alive that can bring down a B-1B with an AK47. That's daylight, desert (no trees, hills, buildings, mountians, valleys, and only *IF* the bomber happens to fly within stones throw of the terrorist.
A low speed flying wing cruising at 55,000ft is the vintage 1980s strategy (with a 100+ fleet) for confounding Soviet air defenses and providing a probability that at least some of the aircraft will deliver weapons. With advances is passive sensors, that strategy is doomed from the begining of the first sketch of the aircraft on a knapkin. Flying low and fast, by pure mathematics, is far superior in minimizing the time that a lucky.... key word "lucky" sam/aaa site that momentarily spots the aircrafy. Flying high and slow is... it may as well be towing a banner "Catch me if you can". Again, its dead meat once spotted. This limits sorties to night time missions only, and with a lot of support aircraft such as F-35 escorts, jammers, SEAD aircraft. I know stealth was supposed to do away with that concept, but in the real world, it just ain't so. Maybe B-2s overflew Serbia/Croatia, but I guaranty that there there plenty of F-15s and F-16s in the area of the B-2s.
We simply need to have a VLO, high speed, low altitude penetrating capability to survive. Those SAMs with 120k-ft cabaility will be rendered useless, or at least reduce their effectiveness, exponentially, Being VLO, radar guided AAA will be useless for the few seconds its "in the open", and guys with AK-47s, they can bring down an F-22 with a luck shot... There is and always will be a few golden bb's on the battlefield.
To the above, yes, the new bomber will definately have supersonic dash capability. The strategy that lead to the development of the B-2 into a giant flying wing no longer exists. There are no longer Bones and Buffs and 100+ B-2s to overwhelm the enmeny - there will only be the B-3. Bones are down to 60 with the rest in long term storage; B-2s are so few they're only a purey token silver bullet force; Buffs have been around so long they don't stand a chance in a modern battlefield. Unless they are secretly equipped with defense lasers to defeat SAMS (pure sci-fi).... The new bomber needs to be a stand alone type aircraft. High slow flying wings ain't it.

 

[firepilot]

Going low is not going to happen, because then range disappears. If all one had to do was go low, we could just use B-1Bs and B-52s for low altitude penetration.


Nor is it about speed. A bomber going supersonic, for example Mach 2, is not going to be all that much more immune from a SAM launch that one going 450 knots. An SR-71, if it was still around, could be doing M3 at 80,000 ft, and is still vulnerable to surface to air missiles if it overflew enemy territory. It would be a harder target, but not an impossible one by any means.


All indications are that the next generation bomber will be a high altitude subsonic penetrator, with loiter capability. Its role is not going to be just to dash in and destroy a known target, but to loiter at high altitude for hours, look for more targets, and have an extensive sensor/EW capability to attack electronically also.


Its an old concept, that does not fit well into modern conflights, for a strategic bomber to dash low to a pre-defined target, take it out and get the heck out. This aircraft will have a much broader role, to include intel, EW, recon, etc in addition to destroying targets. And to do that, it needs to be up high and to stay there for awhile.

 

[dark sidius]

There is a need for speed to travel in the Pacific area the distance are very long at subsonic speed, a bomber with at least a supercruise capability must be very important to fight with China (for exemple), if you take a lot of hours to go you lose the capacity to shoot the mobile missile target, or plane on the runway.