Thought it might be fun to track the evolution of US long-range strike/next-generation bomber studies through Northrop Grumman concept designs. Hopefully I will get these in roughly chronological order.

Let's start with the Future Strike Vehicle (FSV) studies, which included this manned hypersonic bomber.
 

Attachments

  • FSV - hypersonic1.jpg
    FSV - hypersonic1.jpg
    328.5 KB · Views: 395
  • FSV - hypersonic2.jpg
    FSV - hypersonic2.jpg
    324.8 KB · Views: 420
Northrop's FSV studies also included these manned supersonic designs, the second of which appears to have been the starting point for its Quiet Supersonic Platform (QSP) studies.
 

Attachments

  • FSV - supersonic1.jpg
    FSV - supersonic1.jpg
    298 KB · Views: 461
  • FSV - supersonic2.jpg
    FSV - supersonic2.jpg
    191.6 KB · Views: 539
Northrop's manned supersonic design evolved over the course of the QSP studies for DARPA. The second image is the final "dual relevant" QSP configuration that was also proposed as a supersonic business jet (with Raytheon Aircraft). What is common to both designs is the dorsal inlets.
 

Attachments

  • QSP - late.jpg
    QSP - late.jpg
    43.7 KB · Views: 468
  • QSP - early.jpg
    QSP - early.jpg
    150.3 KB · Views: 413
Work then transitioned to the Long-Range Strike (LRS) studies for the US Air Force, which covered subsonic and supersonic, manned and unmanned bomber options.

Northrop's unmanned supersonic design was evolved from the QSP, while the subsonic unmanned design was scaled up from the X-47B unmanned combat air vehicle.

Which brings us to where things stand now - subsonic and manned
 

Attachments

  • NGLRS - supersonic unmanned.jpg
    NGLRS - supersonic unmanned.jpg
    112 KB · Views: 656
  • NGLRS - subsonic unmanned.jpg
    NGLRS - subsonic unmanned.jpg
    38 KB · Views: 462
That early QSP design is my favorite. It looks like a modern stealthy F-111 replacement. I wish they would release a 3 view drawing of it.

Don't forget they also showed a manned version of the supersonic unmanned UCAV shown in the post above at the Air Force Convention. With the cockpit right in front of the half shock cone inlets, it reminded me of something out of Star Wars; i.e.- I liked it, which I know is so important to them. ;)

BTW, did you know the Air Force UCAV was canceled as a result of what I call the "B-3" program? They basically mentioned it in this week's Aviation Week article about the UCAV-N. Of course, this just leads me to believe that USAF UCAV that is supposedly flying in the "Black World" must be performing well.
 
What they mean is that the USAF requirements for a bomber drove it to want a vehicle much larger than either the Boeing X-45C or the Northrop X-47B being designed under J-UCAS. The Navy could not go any bigger because it had to fit on a carrier, so the USAF decided to withdraw from J-UCAS and pursue the next-generation bomber programme instead, which looks like it will come out as a manned, scaled-up version of the J-UCAS with the option of evolving to an unmanned for optionally manned platform. It was not some "secret B-3" programme that killed J-UCAS. Unless you happen to like conspiracies...

NGB is 2,00nm+ radius with 14,000-28,000lb payload. UCAS-N is 1,500nm+ radius with 4,500lb payload. So you can see the two services were headed in slightly different directions.
 
CammNut said:
Now that the US Air Force has decided that its next-generation bomber (formerly long-range strike) will be subsonic and manned, here is the latest artist's impression from Northrop Grumman. Shows a strong heritage to the X-47B unmanned combat air vehicle.

It also shows quite a bit of heritage back to the B-2 and some of the concepts tossed around when they did the redesign to add low-alitude operating capability to the B-2. It also shows a heritage of the l-o development work NGC has done over the last quarter-century or so.
 
It was not some "secret B-3" programme that killed J-UCAS. Unless you happen to like conspiracies...

My point was that I don't see the USAF giving up on UCAV's and it's practically been an open secret that the USAF has been working on a secret UCAV program since back from when the JSF program was started. It isn't a "conspiracy," it's public knowledge. There have been plenty of reports of L-M flying a UCAV(s) and other unmanned vehicles, so I was hardly working in the world of make believe.

Now, if you want to believe that the USAF is going to abandon UCAV's for a bomber program, you go ahead and believe that. Also, the main reason they went to the manned bomber from the unmanned version was for the nuclear mission. I never said anything about the "joint" program. The joint program split off quite awhile ago.
 
Just found at the Flughtglobal-page ...

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/06/12/214539/speed-bump-usaf-sets-modest-goals-for-new-bomber.html

Cheers Deino
 

Attachments

  • Northrop bomber concept.jpg
    Northrop bomber concept.jpg
    37.9 KB · Views: 816
Dear Deino,

CamNut was faster than you :)

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,191.15.html
 
Lockheed Martin mid stage LRSA proposal (the same stuff as shown in this post)
 

Attachments

  • lm-LRSA.jpg
    lm-LRSA.jpg
    148.1 KB · Views: 1,030
Cool Northrop's subsonic unmanned NGLRS pic
 

Attachments

  • NG-subUNGLRS.jpg
    NG-subUNGLRS.jpg
    668 KB · Views: 955
This is from August 2007 issue of Air Forve Magazine, Journal of the Air Force Association
The first is a Northrop manned concept.
 

Attachments

  • Future Strike 001.jpg
    Future Strike 001.jpg
    63.5 KB · Views: 1,336
Another try at the Northrop concept
 

Attachments

  • Future Strike.jpg
    Future Strike.jpg
    122.1 KB · Views: 833
Well, I think this a different beast, the Quiet Supersonic...
As for the discussion, last thing I'd read, here http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,115319,00.html , said the a new bomber would be ready by 2018. So I think it will be something not too far off. BTW, anyone has something on the Boeing's B1-R proposal from 2004-2005?
 
Dear Elider, first of all, first at schematics chart is General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper (aka RQ-9 Predator B) UAV. Fourth is supersonic Northrop Future Strike Vehicle concept from ca. 1997 - almost 10 years RIP already. The 'real' hint for future USAF bomber is what CammNut posted here http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=191.0;attach=16413
 
"One proposed solution is the B-1R, essentially a B-1B powered by four Pratt & Whitney F119s, which are also
used on the F/A-22 Raptor. White said that the B-1B has the range and payload for the mission but with a few
tweaks its capabilities would be greatly enhanced. “In many ways, we would be restoring the original capabilities
envisioned in the B-1A program, such as Mach 2 speeds,” said White. Additional enhancements would include networkcentric
capabilities, air-to-air engagement, active electronically-scanned array radar, improved defensive systems, and
opening up existing external hard points for conventional weapons." - from Boeing's "All Systems Go" Also you can look here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-1_Lancer#_note-Hebert Don't think that we will see more than this CG rendering.
 

Attachments

  • B-1R(egional).jpg
    B-1R(egional).jpg
    236.4 KB · Views: 729
Yes, I's seen that, so I hoped.. ;D
Anyway, to "restore the original B-1A" capabilities you have first of all to restore the variable geometry inlets... ;)
 
Our intelligence sources still working on it, comrade) In fact soon will be nothing to search for, I think.
 
Skybolt said:
Yes, I's seen that, so I hoped.. ;D
Anyway, to "restore the original B-1A" capabilities you have first of all to restore the variable geometry inlets... ;)

Not necessarily. ;)
 
Hi,

And here is the Lockheed Martin future strike aircraft.
 

Attachments

  • Lockheed strike project.JPG
    Lockheed strike project.JPG
    18.1 KB · Views: 841
Really weird old LRSA stuff from AFRL dungeons
 

Attachments

  • AFRLLRShotstructures1.jpg
    AFRLLRShotstructures1.jpg
    28.8 KB · Views: 686
  • AFRLLRShotstructures2.jpg
    AFRLLRShotstructures2.jpg
    87.7 KB · Views: 665
Shown in paper dedicated to High-Frequency Excitation Active Flow Control High-Speed Weapon Release (HIFEX) study - an active flow control approach for high-speed weapon dispense from a weapons bay, this rendering may represent Boeing's approach for Mach 2-4 LRSA from 2004.
 

Attachments

  • boe2004ULRSAs.jpg
    boe2004ULRSAs.jpg
    97.4 KB · Views: 729
Sundog said:
That looks somewhat similar to Northop's STAV design.

Too early for STAV, too little chance of appearing Northrop design in stuff written by Boeing. Otherwise, it can be one of AFRL studies as well - have seen it before in their powerpoints.
 
Northrop next generation strike concept from Air Force Magazine Nov 2007.
 

Attachments

  • Northrop NGLRS concept.jpg
    Northrop NGLRS concept.jpg
    267 KB · Views: 1,006
http://dailyreport.afa.org/AFA/Features/newtech/box092507boeing.htm

A Boeing Technology Brief

September 24, 2007— Boeing officials at the Air Force Association’s 2007 Air & Space Conference and Technology Exposition in Washington expounded on technologies to come and some current and imminent programs. Their talks ranged from the advanced bomber to the tanker replacement program to unusual unmanned aerial vehicles and new missiles.

Advanced Bomber. Boeing Advanced Systems President George Muellner told reporters that the next bomber will have advanced stealth and wing-mounted antenna, but it won’t make use of new variable cycle engines because it won’t be supersonic. He noted that integrating the antenna would be the toughest technology nut to crack, especially if the aircraft has to be shielded from electromagnetic pulse. And, EMP hardening is a must if the bomber has a nuclear mission.
 
elider said:
Northrop next generation strike concept from Air Force Magazine Nov 2007.

Wow. It almost looks as if the Northrop design staff has been watching Broken Arrow too many times.
 
Wow. It almost looks as if the Northrop design staff has been watching Broken Arrow too many times.

Weird. I was thinking the guys who did the design for Broken Arrow based their design off of all the publicly released concepts from companies like Northrop-Grumman. Who knew?
 
Just call me Ray said:
elider said:
Northrop next generation strike concept from Air Force Magazine Nov 2007.

Wow. It almost looks as if the Northrop design staff has been watching Broken Arrow too many times.

Actually, that geometry has been proposed many times, from small UAVs on up to strategic bombers.
 
Sundog said:
Wow. It almost looks as if the Northrop design staff has been watching Broken Arrow too many times.

Weird. I was thinking the guys who did the design for Broken Arrow based their design off of all the publicly released concepts from companies like Northrop-Grumman. Who knew?

Meh, wasn't aware of that actually.
 
Regarding to resemblance - this last concept is much closer to the scaled-up and manned X-47B than to B-3 from Broken Arrow, so there is not any surprise.
 
Boeing and AFRL Demonstrate First-Ever Supersonic Munitions Release

ST. LOUIS, Nov. 26, 2007 -- Boeing [NYSE: BA] and the U.S. Air Force have successfully demonstrated how an innovative application of a technology called active flow control enables -- for the first time -- munitions to be safely released from a weapons bay at high supersonic speeds.

During a recent test at the High-Speed Test Track at Holloman Air Force Base, N.M., researchers from Boeing Phantom Works and the Air Force Research Laboratory used a rocket sled and active flow control to successfully release a MK-82 Joint Direct Attack Munition Standard Test Vehicle at a speed of about Mach 2 (twice the speed of sound) from a weapons bay with a size approximating that of the U.S. Air Force B-1 bomber.

"Active flow control technology will enable safe separation of weapons from weapons bays of future high speed aircraft," said Jim Grove, AFRL program manager for High Frequency Excitation Active Flow Control for Supersonic Weapon Release, or HIFEX. "This program also demonstrates that sled testing can provide a lower risk technology evaluation alternative to flight testing in this complex, high risk environment," Grove said.

The active flow control configuration used in the HIFEX rocket sled test is a tandem array of microjets upstream of the weapons bay. Wind tunnel testing indicated that, without active flow control, the JDAM test vehicle would have returned to the bay.

"As it was, the active flow control microjets reduced the unsteady pressures inside the weapons bay and modified the flow outside the bay to ensure that the test vehicle went out of the rocket sled nose up," said Bill Bower, Boeing Phantom Works program manager for HIFEX.

The release of the test vehicle from the rocket sled bay was actually a bigger challenge than a release from an aircraft bay at altitude would be, Bower said. That's because for an aircraft there would be a reduced dynamic pressure, less vibration than on the rocket sled, and more time to release a store while the aircraft sustains supersonic speed.

The sled used in the HIFEX test was designed by the U. S. Air Force 846th Test Squadron and the Support Systems unit of Boeing Integrated Defense Systems. At 65,700 pounds, it was 26,000 pounds heavier than any sled tested in more than 10 years but was faster by 400 feet per second. In the 57-year history of the Holloman High-Speed Test Track, it was the heaviest sled train to reach Mach 2.

Powered by two pusher sleds, the HIFEX sled achieved thrusts of 438,000 pounds for about 5.9 seconds on the first stage, 575,000 pounds for about 3 seconds on the second stage, and 115,000 pounds for about 3.6 seconds on the third stage. The JDAM test vehicle was dispensed during peak velocity, which was about 2,000 feet per second. The sled train accelerated to more than 13 g's to get to peak velocity, then decelerated at 7.5 g's for more than a mile to stop.

AFRL is collaborating with the Aeronautical Systems Center to fund full-scale validation testing of the HIFEX concept to demonstrate that active flow control can do what a weapons bay spoiler (passive control) cannot.

The HIFEX program began in 2001 under the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Tactical Technology Office. DARPA and Boeing conducted eight wind tunnel tests to develop the active flow control concept and conducted design, fabrication and preliminary testing of the full-scale rocket sled demonstrator. In January 2007, DARPA transferred the HIFEX program to AFRL.

Boeing, the U.S. Air Force 846th Test Squadron, Waveflows, and EPIC Systems will conduct additional testing of the full-scale HIFEX system in 2008. AFRL intends to use active flow control technology from HIFEX to develop full-envelope weapon release systems for future U.S. Air Force Global Strike aircraft.

Phantom Works is the advanced R&D unit of Boeing. Its charter is to provide innovative technology solutions that reduce cycle time and cost of aerospace products and services while improving their quality and performance.

A unit of The Boeing Company, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems is one of the world's largest space and defense businesses specializing in innovative and capabilities-driven customer solutions. Headquartered in St. Louis, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems is a $32.4 billion business with 72,000 employees worldwide.
###​

A question is why you testing supersonic munitions release, and 'conduct additional testing of the full-scale HIFEX system in 2008' if your next-gen bomber said to be subsonic?
 

Attachments

  • HIFEX_Test.jpg
    HIFEX_Test.jpg
    112.2 KB · Views: 399
From Air Force Association Magazine, October 2006, Vol. 89, No. 10
USAF plans to field a true next generation long-range strike weapon (seen here in an artist’s conception) in 2035. The “exotic” bomber may be a traditional bomber or a system of systems with capabilities such as hypersonic speed. (Artist’s conception by Erik Simonsen)
2018-03.jpg

Source:http://www.afa.org/magazine/oct2006/10062018.asp (06.12.2007)
 
That painting/image is interesting, because it looks like an almost exact top view of the Monogram NASP model kit from top-view. Some artists seem to be getting really cheap with their source material.
 
The more you read of this USAF requirement, it does begin to sound like a B-2 "light." Subsonic.....off-the shelf.....using existing tech......etc. It doesn't sound as if it needs to be a true global performer but just something more than an intermediate or regional performer but still nuclear capable.


As I read between the lines, does a modern day incarnation of Lockheed's "Senior Peg" sound familiar. Lower risk....lower cost....somewhat smaller.....a little more conventional in today's context.


And, as I think about the history of this, if the Senior Peg had been chosen for the original ATB contract.............would we be having this discussion today? Would arguably cheaper and easier to build Senior Pegs still be rolling-off of the line today replacing the B-1/FB-111/B-52 line as we begin to chatter about its replacement in the 2030-60 timeframe?

The less-advanced -117/Peg design has proven to be a hardier and more resilient concept, even if less advanced, for the money. Northrop has provided the ultimate expression of the concept at greater cost and less flexibilty. Either one are far more capable than their potential opponent's ability to defend against them.


In the end, even though I had family working Northrop during the time, I think Senior Peg was under-developed and under-appreciated.
 
Boeing and Lockheed Martin Team for Next Generation Bomber Program
http://boeing.com/news/releases/2008/q1/080125a_nr.html

ST. LOUIS, and BETHESDA, Md., Jan. 25, 2008 -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] and Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] today announced they will team to perform studies and system development efforts including collaborative research and development in pursuit of the anticipated U.S. Air Force Next Generation Bomber program.

This collaborative effort for a long-range strike program will include work in advanced sensors and future electronic warfare solutions including advancements in network enabled battle management, command and control, and virtual warfare simulation and experimentation.

"Boeing and Lockheed Martin are working closely at all levels to capture the best of industry to develop and provide an effective and affordable solution for the warfighter," said Darryl Davis, president of Boeing Advanced Systems. "The work performed by the Boeing/Lockheed Martin team is designed to help the Air Force establish capability-based roadmaps for technology maturation and date certain timelines for the Next Generation Bomber program."

Boeing and Lockheed Martin have formed teams for several high profile programs including the F-22 Raptor and Small Diameter Bomb Increment II.

"The combined technical strengths of Boeing and Lockheed Martin offer the best possible team to provide a new long range capability to the USAF by 2018," stated Frank Cappuccio, Lockheed Martin's executive vice president and general manager Advanced Development Programs (the Skunk Works®) and Strategic Planning.
 
I can see Boeing teaming with LM because it couldn't really compete on it's own with the other two guys from a standpoint of stealth and Lockheed has never built a bomber.
 
and Lockheed has never built a bomber

One could argue that the F-117 is a bomber. They also have designed bombers before. Besides, I don't think that really matters these days (speaking from an industry viewpoint).

Regards,

Greg
 
The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) recently issued a report on the Air Force
bomber modernization plans (LRS/2018 bomber). Available as PDF (0.7 MB) here:

http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_pubs/task,view/id,4301/type,1/

Directlink to the PDF:

http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/080125_bomber_assessment.pdf

No renderings or much technical details, but includes interesting statements about how the USAF is (not) supporting this project, kind of: If the Air Force "doesn’t want a new bomber, it’s going about it in exactly the right way." (p. 6)

Also interesting (at least for me): The experts consulted for this report, including officials from the Big Three Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, don't see a lack of mature technology as big obstacle. The poor Air Force advocacy and the lack of money are causing much more concern to them.

Regards
Eric
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom