Excellent find. So, could this be related to the Northrop black program (that was thought to be NGB) Bill Sweetman is referring to in this recent Av Week article?

Reading Secret USAF Bomber, ISR Plans
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_12_03_2012_p04-520329.xml
 
The configuration shown is the HAWSTOL / speed agile one with blown flaps, tested already in the wind tunnel (should be in a different thread). In the later published stuff this configuration has now a tail!
 
hmmm...somebody must have figured out, following wind tunnel tets, that few things work as well as a tail to tame low speed, high lift coefficient, pitching moments. Too bad it's bad for LO.
 
If LRS-B is a very classified plane I doubt we find patent on the net, this Northrop concept is very well known since 2008, I can't imagine the new bomber looking this design. This design is for a transport aircraft, but not a penetrating bomber, it look very ugly and not a plane having speed reactions for penetrating anti access denial.
 
I believe that a careful reading of the patent will show that the handlebar mustache and the rest of the highlift folderol are absent from the bomber variant.


Mind you, I suspect that anyone walking into a Pentagon briefing room today and outlining a wonderful cost-saving plan to build a whole bunch of stealth aircraft for different missions "which are only different in the way that they take off and land" would leave with his head held high...








... and his feet held somewhat higher. :)
 
LowObservable said:
I believe that a careful reading of the patent will show that the handlebar mustache and the rest of the highlift folderol are absent from the bomber variant.


Mind you, I suspect that anyone walking into a Pentagon briefing room today and outlining a wonderful cost-saving plan to build a whole bunch of stealth aircraft for different missions "which are only different in the way that they take off and land" would leave with his head held high...

... and his feet held somewhat higher. :)
Aaaaand that's why no one in the industry gives you the good oil on their more interesting projects anymore.
 
LowObservable said:
I believe that a careful reading of the patent will show that the handlebar mustache and the rest of the highlift folderol are absent from the bomber variant.


Mind you, I suspect that anyone walking into a Pentagon briefing room today and outlining a wonderful cost-saving plan to build a whole bunch of stealth aircraft for different missions "which are only different in the way that they take off and land" would leave with his head held high...








... and his feet held somewhat higher. :)
Can't resist can you? ::)
 
Reaper said:
The configuration shown is the HAWSTOL / speed agile one with blown flaps, tested already in the wind tunnel (should be in a different thread). In the later published stuff this configuration has now a tail!
you are confusing this one with LM and Boeing Speed Agile concepts
 
May be Northrop will made a big stealth uav, and rumors on the forum in the past see Boeing working on a secret strike aircraft.
 
may be you will read Sweetman's article in AWST first, mentioned on this page, Cap?
 
Yes in this article, Sweetman speak about a stealth drone made by Northrop but there is nothing on the LRS-B. Just a rumor about a 2009 concept of prototype for NGB made "may be "by Lockheed.
 
dark sidius said:
Yes in this article, Sweetman speak about a stealth drone made by Northrop but there is nothing on the LRS-B. Just a rumor about a 2009 concept of prototype for NGB made "may be "by Lockheed.

No, the article was about Northrop possibly having won a contract for a classified NGB demonstrator:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%253a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%253a2f4a1894-3135-4a4f-8514-efa533612bc9
And
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/aw/dti0608/

From the first paragraph:
"[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]DTI [/font][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]reports this month[/font][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif] that Northrop Grumman has won a classified Air Force contract to develop a secret bomber prototype."

Northrop, Lockheed, Boeing and others all have concepts for LRS-B/NGB, as described in this very thread.
[/font]
 
It now appears that the large contract awarded to Northrop Grumman in early 2008, which seemed at the time to cover a demonstrator for the Next Generation Bomber (NGB), was a development contract for the armed ISR aircraft. It is believed to be a single-engine aircraft with a wingspan similar to a Global Hawk, and (given Northrop Grumman's enthusiasm for the cranked-kite configuration) it most likely resembles the X-47B, but with larger, more slender outer wings. It has radar, electronic surveillance systems and active electronic warfare equipment and, quite possibly, a weapon bay for SDBs and Miniature Air Launched Decoy-Jammer (MALD-J) expendable jamming vehicles. It may also be equipped to act as a communications gateway for other aircraft, using either satcoms or high-frequency radio.
 
Regarding possible testing sites for the vehicle described by Bill Sweetman such as Groom Lake, a blog post I read elsewhere said to check out 36.926620, -116.007206 on google maps. Nevada test site, interesting site configuration, approximately 5000 foot runway with a 100x200 hangar with clamshell doors. Sitting out there all by it's lonesome...
 
ouroboros said:
Regarding possible testing sites for the vehicle described by Bill Sweetman such as Groom Lake, a blog post I read elsewhere said to check out 36.926620, -116.007206 on google maps. Nevada test site, interesting site configuration, approximately 5000 foot runway with a 100x200 hangar with clamshell doors. Sitting out there all by it's lonesome...

IIRC, that is the Lockheed Martin Test site, so I doubt Northrop's ISR-UAV would be tested there.
 
ouroboros said:
Regarding possible testing sites for the vehicle described by Bill Sweetman such as Groom Lake, a blog post I read elsewhere said to check out 36.926620, -116.007206 on google maps. Nevada test site, interesting site configuration, approximately 5000 foot runway with a 100x200 hangar with clamshell doors. Sitting out there all by it's lonesome...

That is the Yucca Lake Aerial Operations Facility. It is used only for light aircraft and UAVs, and cannot handle anything much larger. A number of detailed documents concerning the facility are in the public domain. DOE's description of the facility is accurate:

"An Aerial Operations Facility has been constructed on the southeast side of Yucca Lake in Area 6 (Figure 1). The purpose of this facility is to construct, operate, and test a variety of unmanned aerial vehicles. Tests include, but are not limited to, airframe modifications, sensor operation, and onboard computer development. A small, manned chase plane is used to track the unmanned aerial vehicles. The facility includes an asphalt runway that is approximately 5,200 ft long. Commercial aviation fuel is used in the test vehicles (Ref. 2.2.29, Section 2.1 [DIRS 173221])."

A different part of Yucca Lake was used for flight testing P-175.
 
YL is interesting. It's not a super-classified site per se, but it's deep enough inside the range to test "sight-sensitive" vehicles and close enough to Groom to have to comply with their restrictions, chiefly of the "anyone outside between XXXX and YYYY PST will turn into a pumpkin" variety.
 
LowObservable said:
"anyone outside between XXXX and YYYY PST will turn into a Chengdu"


Fixed that for ya ;)


I thought all the tinfoil hats moved to Dugway Proving Grounds, are you trying to get them back to Yucca?
 
LowObservable said:
YL is interesting. It's not a super-classified site per se, but it's deep enough inside the range to test "sight-sensitive" vehicles and close enough to Groom to have to comply with their restrictions, chiefly of the "anyone outside between XXXX and YYYY PST will turn into a pumpkin" variety.

Oh, they do interesting stuff there. Some sight sensitive stuff, but more electro-sensitive stuff. Some things were not appropriate for other locations and were taxing resources there, and drawing in ornithologists. Creepy, those guys. Worse than the ATS crowd and even sneakier.

But, sadly, no big bomber stuff. That is in the usual places, but managed right now by at least one slightly unusual office.
 
In my opinion the new bomber must be in a place like Groom Lake there is a lot of big hangar to do this kind of plane.
 
Empire said:
Heres the link from TagBoard I,m sure most of you have seen it but just in case.

Thanks for the note Empire. I'm not sure why few folks read referenced articles. So, does anyone want to take a first order cut at the geometry of the speculated RCO-run CIA/NRO Northrop or Lockheed/Boeing 2018 IOC programs? I can provide back of the envelope numbers if someone wants to run a CAD model(s).
 
Air Force: Bomber Program 'On Track' Despite FY-14 Funding Reduction Posted: Apr. 12, 2013 The Air Force says the classified program to build a new Long-Range Strike Bomber -- estimated to cost at least $55 billion -- remains "on track" despite the Pentagon seeking nearly a third less than expected for the top-priority project in fiscal year 2014. The FY-14 budget request sent to Congress this week includes $379 million for the new bomber effort, $171 million less than the $550 million the Air Force last year projected the project would need in FY-14. "Development activities for the Long Range Strike Bomber program continue to proceed on track without issue," said Air Force spokesman Maj. Matt Hasson in a statement to InsideDefense.com. Air Force officials have previously said a goal of the program is to reach initial operational capability in the mid-2020s. Resources the Air Force previously planned to seek in FY-14 are being "re-phased" to later years in order to "properly align funding requirements with the development schedule," according to Hasson.

Of the $170.9 million pulled from FY-14, $90.9 million is being moved to FY-16 and another $80 million to FY-18, he said. Despite the dip in FY-14, funding for the program in the Air Force's new five-year spending plan -- which includes $2.8 billion in FY-18 -- totals $8.7 billion; that is 40 percent higher than the Pentagon's previous five-year plan which ended in FY-17 and totaled $6.2 billion. Col. Timothy Woods, senior material leader for the Long Range Strike Bomber and system program manager in the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office, is scheduled to testify before the Senate Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee in a closed hearing on April 21. DOD has set a "fly-away" cost for the nuclear-capable bomber of $550 million -- an estimate that does not account for development costs -- and plans to buy between 80 and 100 aircraft. "The Air Force is committed to modernizing bomber capacity and capabilities to support LRS military options," an overview of the Air Force's 2014 budget request states. "Development of the next steps to advance the family of systems critical to the LRS capability is ongoing. These steps include the platforms, ISR, electronic warfare, communications and weapons that make up this critical national capability."

The Air Force wants the LRS-B to be capable of penetrating "dense anti-access/area denial environments" -- such as those the Pentagon says are developing in Iran and China. "To this end, the Air Force FY 2014 Budget Request includes funding to continue the development of an affordable, long-range, and penetrating aircraft that incorporates proven technologies," the Air Force budget summary states. "This follow-on bomber represents a key component to the joint portfolio of conventional and nuclear deep-strike capabilities." The Air Force intends the bomber to be part of a broader set of new long-range strike capabilities, including electronic attack, intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance. Most details of the bomber acquisition are classified. Air Force officials have previously said the service would use "streamlined management" and make capability tradeoffs to hold procurement unit costs at estimated targets. -- Jason Sherman and Gabe Starosta
 
Despite less than anticipated funding for fiscal year 2014, Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley insisted that the new long-range bomber program is on track for the mid-2020s. The service’s senior civilian leader was reluctant to share any further program details when pressed by Washington, D.C.-based defense reporters April 23. Contract details are under review between Air Force and the Defense Department’s office of acquisition, technology and logistics, he said. The Air Force is “still a year or two away” from a down-select decision in the classified program, he said when asked if he could reveal more about the acquisition strategy and timetable. “On the acquisition strategy, I am not sure what we are going to say and when,” he said.

“There is no major message in the minor movement of dollars in FY 14. We are still committed to the program." The Obama administration has proposed $380 million for 2014, which is more than the $292 million in the 2013 budget, but less growth than anticipated, he acknowledged. “It grows in the out years and it remains one of our most important priorities. We need to get on with bomber modernization. It gets good and appropriate attention in the strategic guidance,” Donley said. As for what the aircraft’s capabilities will be, the service sees no reason to tip off potential adversaries. The public may never know. “We have not talked about B-2 capabilities in great depth. We did not reveal the existence of the B-2 program until it rolled out of the hangar,” he noted. The existence of the long-range bomber program is not shrouded in such secrecy, and its budget is not classified, he noted. “We are stable in terms of how we are approaching this project. There are no major changes in design or requirements,” he added. The Air Force wants a flexible bomber than can be used for other purposes such as communications, intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance, electronic warfare and with different weapon systems other than nuclear. The bomber’s first iterations will be manned, but the Air Force may move toward optionally manned as the program moves forward building 80 to 100 aircraft, he said. As the long-range bomber program moves forward, the Air Force will have another senior executive to keep tabs on it. After nearly one year, the service has filled the principal deputy secretary for acquisition position. William LaPlante, who has worked for Mitre Corp., the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory and served on the Defense Science Board will be nominated, Donley announced.


The position has been vacant for a year after the departure of David M. Van Buren, who held the position from April 2009 to March 2012. Sequestration, which will affect Air Force readiness later this year and into next, continues to be a concern as the Defense Department struggles with $50 billion in cuts this year however, modernization is still the “overarching challenge in our Air Force” for the next decade, Donley said. Just about every aircraft, mission area and weapon system needs upgrades. The Joint Surveillance and Target Attack System, or JSTARs, and a new jet fighter trainer to replace the T-38 Talon are not funded. “We know we need a replacement for the T-38, but the funds aren’t available to do that … We actually are not able to do what we know needs to be done,” Donley said.
 
Driving the Reaction The Long Range Strike Bomber is "absolutely critical" to the Air Force's future ability to project power, said Lt. Gen. Charles Davis, military deputy in the Air Force's acquisition office, on Wednesday. Despite significant investment in today's fleet of B-1s, B-2s, and B-52s, "all we have been able to do is react to what the threat is," Davis told the House Armed Services Committee's seapower and projection forces panel in testimony on April 24. "It is money that doesn't provide a new capability," he explained. "We are just surviving diminishing parts, we are surviving new threat radar modes, we are surviving missile technology," with the bomber upgrades, said Davis. "I do not know how we do that for another three decades," he added. Enter LRS-B. Scheduled for initial operations in the mid-2020s, and leveraging more than 20 years of technology development on other sophisticated airframes, the new bomber will enable the Air Force to operate in "areas of the world where we can't necessarily survive for lengthy periods of time today," he said. "It will make us be the one who is driving the threat reaction."
 
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-leader-confirms-manned-decision-for-new-bomber-385037/

The US Air Force has confirmed for the first time that the Long Range Strike-Bomber (LRS-B) will be manned on entry-into-service, one of a few new details revealed about the classified programme.Several military experts have predicted the LRS-B programme would eventually become optionally-manned but enter service with a flight crew or a pilot, but the USAF has never revealed such details publicly.

Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley said today at a Defense Writers Group breakfast that the service will initially field the new stealth bomber as manned aircraft. "It's likely that we'll start the bomber programme as a manned programme," Donley says. "It'll have the option to be unmanned at some point and so I think that option will be protected."

GetAsset.aspx


The USAF is still some distance away from awarding a contract for the new aircraft, but Donley there have been no major changes in design or requirements since the programme was launched. "We're still a year or two away from those, what I would call a downselect decision," Donley says.

The USAF still hopes to build anywhere from 80 to 100 LRS-B aircraft which would become operational in the mid-2020s. "Cost is a major factor for us," Donley says.

Donley says he is not yet sure when the service will disclose more about the Pentagon's acquisitions strategy for the LRS-B, but he did say contract details are under review. "We are developing a contract strategy at the air force and AT&L [acquisitions, technology and logistics], that work is ongoing," he says.

"We're going to protect the capabilities of this airplane," Donley says. "I think several years down the road [we might disclose more details] because we think the capabilities that it will have represent advantages not unlike those that we have enjoyed with the [Northrop Grumman] B-2."

When the B-2 was new in the early 1990s, that aircraft represented a revolutionary leap in capability for strategic bombers. Even now, nearly two decades after the bat-winged aircraft was declared operational, the USAF is still tight lipped about the stealth bomber's exact performance and capabilities.

"We have not talked about B-2 capabilities in great depth, we did not reveal the existence of the B-2 programme until it rolled out of the hangar," Donley says. "We're years from that."
 
Back in Black Don't look for any details about the Air Force's Long Range Strike Bomber project anytime soon, said Secretary Michael Donley. LRS-B details won't emerge for "I think, several years down the road" because "we think the capabilities it will have represent advantages not unlike those that we've enjoyed on the B-2," Donley told reporters during a meeting in Washington, D.C., on April 23. The Air Force has never discussed the B-2's capabilities "in great depth," and the Pentagon did not reveal the stealth bomber to the public "until it rolled out of the hangar," said Donley. "We're years from that" on the new aircraft, he said. Donley said he was unsure of what acquisition strategy details the Air Force would reveal, except that the project's annual budget would be an open number. "We will protect the classification" on the LRS-B, he said. He added that the need for the new bomber is well established. "It's a high-profile part of our force structure; it's an integral part of the strategic triad as well. I think there's good reason to talk about the need and intent to pursue a long-range strike capability. There's benefit in that," he said.
 
'Persistor' and other LM LRS concept from ca.2003 we've seen
but what the hell is in the middle?
 

Attachments

  • 021-.jpg
    021-.jpg
    114 KB · Views: 999
flateric said:
'Persistor' and other LM LRS concept from ca.2003 we've seen
but what the hell is in the middle?

Do you have a copy of the original presentation?

It is interesting that concepts such as "Multi-Spectral Stealth", "Self Healing Structures" or "Situational Awareness" have all reappeared in the definition of 6th generation fighters.
 
flateric said:
what the hell is in the middle?

Once enlarged and cleaned a bit, it looks an awful lot like a sort of unpiloted "mini-me" M-12 (A-12 + D-21) "Mother Goose" mistel...
 

Attachments

  • Blackbird Mini-Me.jpg
    Blackbird Mini-Me.jpg
    26.2 KB · Views: 941
Looks amazing like stealthyfied Star Treck warp-engines !
 
flateric said:
Wanted really weird thing? Gotcha... From 2008 AFA presentation. Not clear if this Franky result of someone using barbiturates or one of AFRL concepts.
 

Attachments

  • sw afrl hunter-killer.jpg
    sw afrl hunter-killer.jpg
    176.4 KB · Views: 788
  • sw afrl hunter-killer 1.jpg
    sw afrl hunter-killer 1.jpg
    611.7 KB · Views: 770
flateric said:
flateric said:
Wanted really weird thing? Gotcha... From 2008 AFA presentation. Not clear if this Franky result of someone using barbiturates or one of AFRL concepts.

Oh no, the Hunter Killer is very real and has been around on paper for a long time now. You will see it pop up in a lot of places. It can trace it's roots back to the UTA and ICE studies.
 
I posted it just to show that this placeholder image being used for ... many purposes.


One more FSA from old AFRL reports. Planform looks close to three various NG FSA studies I've seen
 

Attachments

  • fsa afrl.jpg
    fsa afrl.jpg
    56.1 KB · Views: 646
That one looks quite speedy flateric. Do you think it could be supersonic? That would be a surprise for NGB.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom