US Next Generation Bomber Studies

[flateric]

key word was "old reports"

 

[bobbymike]

Long-Range Strike Bomber and Assurance in the Pacific


Naval assets and strategic air forces are going to be a "huge component" of the next two decades of US strategy and the nation needs to make sure it gets the balance right, said Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee's seapower and projection forces panel, on Tuesday. The Air Force's Long-Range Strike Bomber is a component of this balance, Forbes told reporters during the June 4 meeting in Washington, D.C. When asked about the health of the LRS-B program, Forbes said he believes the Air Force and Office of the Secretary of Defense have been "very forthcoming" about its progress towards an on-ramp capability in the mid-2020s. "I think they've been transparent to us at this particular point," he said. "It doesn't mean we don't have problems and things to do," but the program is "moving along," he added. Forbes also wants the Pentagon doing more strategic thinking about "cost imposition strategy" as it relates to countries like China that have invested in asymmetric tools, such as cyber weapons and ballistic missiles, to counter US advantages in the Pacific, such as aircraft carriers.

 

[bobbymike]

Bomber Evolution

“Geography still matters” and there is “value to the President in having a long-range strike capability” in the form of a new bomber, outgoing Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said in his last interview with Air Force Magazine. The need for a bomber “was recognized in the strategic guidance a couple of years ago,” but the project has had its ups and downs because USAF wasn’t being realistic about it, Donley said. “We actually have a pretty poor record on bomber programs,” Donley allowed, saying that the B-70, B-1, and B-2 all were either stopped or “truncated” because they reached too far technologically, and their expense made it impossible to buy them in needed numbers. After former Defense Secretary Robert Gates killed the Next Generation Bomber in 2009, the Pentagon “took a significant deep breath and a long look at what we needed to reconsider” in the bomber. The replacement project, the LRS-B “involves a lot less risk,” Donley said. It emphasizes “mature technologies,” and USAF “set requirements…early so that we made tradeoffs in range and payload…early.” The “family of systems” approach will also help prevent the Air Force from “attempting to build an aircraft…destined to be something that we could not afford.”

 

[dark sidius]

There is a thing very difficult to understand, how it will be possible to build a LRS-B with less costs and risk, build a penetrating bomber to defeat new threat an be abble to go deep inside ennemy territory with proven and no costly requirements? I can't understand how it can be less costly than the others bomber programms, if you want a new stealth high capacity bomber with high survivability and no costly you must have a "rupture" in technology.

 

[Grey Havoc]

For the sake of convenience: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,19770.0.html

 

[bobbymike]

New Bomber To Drive Long-Range Strike Costs to $10 Billion Per Year

Posted: Jun. 26, 2013

The Pentagon's new bomber acquisition program will propel annual Air Force spending on its long-range strike inventory to $10 billion within a decade, more than three times higher than the Defense Department estimated a year ago, according to a new DOD report. The Defense Department disclosed the numbers in an annual report, required by law, on its long-term aircraft plan, which was delivered to lawmakers last week. The report summarizes plans to acquire and sustain a fleet of more than 14,000 aircraft between fiscal years 2014 and 2023.

Last year's report to Congress estimated funding to procure and sustain the Air Force bomber fleet -- including the B-1, B-2, B-52 and the new Long-Range Strike-Bomber -- would peak at just under $3 billion annually, but the new assessment provides what DOD calls a "realistic LRS-B funding ramp in FY-19-23, unlike last year." "This report includes estimated annual funding for LRS-B in the five years beyond the FYDP," the report states, referring to the future years defense plan for FY-14 through FY-18. Between FY-19 and FY-21, funding for the bomber portfolio is projected to climb from $7 billion to $10 billion a year, according to the report, which reiterates Air Force plans to field the new aircraft in the mid-2020s and buy between 80 and 100 aircraft.

The May report, "Annual Aviation Inventory and Funding Plan: Fiscal Years 2014-2043," covers three decades in broad strokes and details specific inventory plans through FY-23, when spending on aircraft is projected to peak at $100 billion, 25 percent higher than last year's estimate of $80 billion for FY-22. "The plan is affordable within the FYDP," Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel wrote in a June 17 memo accompanying the 37-page report. "Beyond the FYDP, the military departments adjusted their plans to comply with a constrained topline by procuring fewer aircraft than desired." Still, the planned inventory is 2 percent larger than projected in last year's plan, with 330 more aircraft per year between FY-14 and FY-22. Between FY-19 and FY-22, the Pentagon's new plan calls for an average of 305 more aircraft than last year's report. For a second year, the report provides a long-term inventory forecast for fighters, bombers, tankers, intra-theater and strategic airlifters, and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft, as well as for all military rotary-wing aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles and operational support and executive aircraft.

"The aviation plan supports the department's rebalance as we end the war in Afghanistan and focus on the broader range of challenges and opportunities, including the Asia-Pacific region," the report states. "Specifically, the plan maintains the current bomber fleet and carrier aviation while divesting some mobility aircraft due to assessed excess capacity." Looking two decades out, the aviation plan describes new research and development efforts exploring potential new Air Force and Navy fighter programs, the F-X and F/A-XX. "The department is continuing to evaluate projected threats and the alternative means for defeating those threats," according to the report. "It is anticipated that a family of systems -- mixes of manned and unmanned aircraft, with varying stealth characteristics, and advanced standoff weapons -- will shape the future fighter/attack inventory." At the direction of the Pentagon's acquisition executive, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency in FY-13 launched a "next-generation air dominance study" to define projected threats between 2020 and 2050, as well as associated U.S. capability gaps. The Pentagon wants to continue the program in FY-14, with plans to initiate technology and prototype developments, according to FY-14 budget documents. -- Jason Sherman

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/07/is-this-what-the-lockheed-mart.html

 

[Sundog]

That's their full size Blackswift concept and is not what LRS-B is going to be.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Hey, tell it to DEW Line. All I did was post.

 

[Sundog]

Hey, tell it to DEW Line. All I did was post.

I did.

 

[dark sidius]

Its a little strange, Blackswift was cancelled in 2008 and we see it in a 2013 Lockheed promotional video ?

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

That is a little weird. Maybe they just wanted to tease us and use Blackswift as a general idea of what direction they'd LIKE to go with the LRS program.

Of course liking and doing are two different things. Time will tell.

 

[bring_it_on]

I don't think we should read much into the video, its just something that is used as a promotional video for skunk works, all they need to show on it are designs that they have designed, could be everything from a SR 71 to a drawing one of their designers made...It would be unwise to search for cues about the LRS-B from this video...If i am not wrong, any promotional video featuring a DOD funded program still in development has to be cleared for public use by the office concerned?

 

[dark sidius]

I think the same, but in the video like that wee can see the works of skunk, we can find a direction they works for futur programs. For the F-22 we saw pictures of it a lot of years before the flight of the prototype.

 

[flateric]

Not true. YF-22 and YF-23 general arrangement was unclassified just several months prior to roll-out.

 

[bring_it_on]

Not to mention that a threat from a certain country's espionage has meant that the secretary of the USAF had to come out and publicly say that the LRS-B system would be "protected", and be so to such an extent where we are pouring millions if not billions into it already, but do not know where the program office is. Although funnier things have happened, i do not think the AF would allow LMA to just release a serious contender's pictures on youtube .....

Back to the program, i feel that raytheon having been selected for the NGJ, it would be NG that would get the work for such a development effort on the LRS-B, which should be as if not more challenging...This is just one hunch i have knowing that the DOD likes to spread the risk and know how around developmental teams...One doubt that i have is regarding the propulsion..With the AFA article hinting that the Variable cycle engine's that spin off from the ADVENT/AETD programs would be ready for the EMD phase by 2018-2019, would the USAF be willing to go for those and take the increased risk? or would they modify existing proven engines from the F-119/F-135 family.

 

[Sundog]

With the AFA article hinting that the Variable cycle engine's that spin off from the ADVENT/AETD programs would be ready for the EMD phase by 2018-2019, would the USAF be willing to go for those and take the increased risk? or would they modify existing proven engines from the F-119/F-135 family.

I doubt the LRS-B would need vaiable engine tech since it's a subsonic mission. At least according to what has been released anyway. I can't remember the name of the program, but one of the engine development programs was for designing the engine to meet the air vehicle performance requirements and the electrical energy generation requirements. I see that as more pertinent to the LRS-B than variable cycle.

 

[bring_it_on]

The potential for an adaptive, variable cycle engine is enormous. As Walker said, fuel efficiency buys range in combat. As a result, a new engine family "will also increase the unrefueled range for several platforms engaged in [anti-access, area-denial missions]," he said.
Take the case of a future long-range bomber powered by a new adaptive engine. Adaptive technology opens up the possibility for fuel savings that could be utilized in many ways: lighter vehicle weight, supercruise dash while preserving fuel efficiency, and of course, a longer combat radius.

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2012/September%202012/0912engines.aspx

Anytime you have a proposal that could help you gain 20-30% range improvement just based on the propulsion, you have to consider it, weight it against the risk, cost and decide. I am sure the designers would be considering that, since the timelines of the LRS_B are very close to the de-risking effort of the VC engines....If a down selection is made in 2015, and work begins in all ernest from their, VC engines based on the work currently being done could begin EMD 2-3 years from the down select. You could perhaps develop the LRS-B with proven engines, and then swap for new engines and take a slight range hit in the initial testing, IOC period.

 

[dark sidius]

In the Air Force mag they speak above, Advent for futur strike, futur bomber and fighter. The single program for a bomber in futur is LRS-B there is a real possibility to find this kind of engine on the new bomber, and we are speaking about well known engine program, surely in the black world , new propulsion engine must be more in advance than the white world program in my opinion.

 

[bring_it_on]

Newer engine's would be on the table. The ADVENT and AETD programs are not CHEAP, and are seriously being pursued by the DOD, A quarter of a billion dollars in R&D alone this year. The goal is to de-risk the technology to a level where you can launch an EMD phase around 2018....Variable engine's COULD have been made available for the ATF, its just that the USAF decided to pursue a lower risk solution to save cost and reduce risk, so if it could have been done then with proper investment, it can certainly be done by the time the LRS-B matures with proper funding that it is receiving. P&W were kept out of the ADVENT to make sure they had their best crews working full time on delivering 5th gen propulsion at the lowest possible cost and high quality, now that that is sorted out, they are going to be joining in and taking the F-119/135 family to the VC level.

General Electric began developing the YF120 for the ATF competition in the early 1980s. Unlike competitor Pratt & Whitney, GE elected against developing a conventional low bypass turbofan and instead chose to design a variable cycle engine. This decision was made as a result of the challenging ATF requirement of supercruise. This meant the engine had to produce a large amount of dry thrust (without afterburner) and therefore have high off-design efficiency ("design" being standard cruise conditions).[1]
The core technology used in the YF120 was developed during two industry-government programs, the Advanced Technology Engine Gas Generator (ATEGG) and Joint Technology Demonstration Engine (JTDE) programs.[2]

http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=12482

Pratt & Whitney Completes Initial Design Review for Adaptive Engine Technology Development Program

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/pratt-whitney-completes-initial-design-113100991.html


USAF Advances Adaptive Engine Technology Development Program

http://www.aerodefevent.com/industry-news/usaf-advances-adaptive-engine-technology-development-program/

ADVENT core

 

[Sundog]

The potential for an adaptive, variable cycle engine is enormous. As Walker said, fuel efficiency buys range in combat. As a result, a new engine family "will also increase the unrefueled range for several platforms engaged in [anti-access, area-denial missions]," he said.
Take the case of a future long-range bomber powered by a new adaptive engine. Adaptive technology opens up the possibility for fuel savings that could be utilized in many ways: lighter vehicle weight, supercruise dash while preserving fuel efficiency, and of course, a longer combat radius.

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2012/September%202012/0912engines.aspx

Anytime you have a proposal that could help you gain 20-30% range improvement just based on the propulsion, you have to consider it, weight it against the risk, cost and decide. I am sure the designers would be considering that, since the timelines of the LRS_B are very close to the de-risking effort of the VC engines....If a down selection is made in 2015, and work begins in all ernest from their, VC engines based on the work currently being done could begin EMD 2-3 years from the down select. You could perhaps develop the LRS-B with proven engines, and then swap for new engines and take a slight range hit in the initial testing, IOC period.

If you read the article closely, you will see the fuel efficiency is in regard to supercruise. Since LRS-B is supposedly subsonic, you don't need this technology. Unless you just want to add un-needed cost and complexity to the program. Then, by all means, have at it.

 

[bring_it_on]

That was what GE wanted to achieve from the engine's for the ATF, from what i have read, the goal for the ADVENT/AETD programs is to realize fuel burn savings, that yield around 25% more range by burning less fuel at all settings and altitudes compared to the current generation of engine's. The New family would just not improve the performance to use the engine in a more optimized way in both supersonic and subsonic regime, but would better the bottom lines in all regimes.. This is what i make of what i have read.

 

[dark sidius]

Personaly I think the LRS-B must have rupture in propulsion to achieve the possibility of penetrating a China like defense, a simple subsonic X-47 like bomber in my opinion is not enough to do that. Very dangerous new threat, like J-20 with new AA missille and S-400 or soon S-500 type of missile. For defeat this kind of defense you need a very innovative concept. But we must wait, because the answers will be here when the plane will roll out of the hangar and before this time we don't know we have just possibility.

 

[flateric]

Damn, Sidius, you was told that many times. New bomber will be cheaper than B-2 with 550 mln. a piece, USAF wants it 'soon' and 'based on proven tech' - and these are official statements.
Please left your hypersonic fantasies for yourself.

 

[SOC]

penetrating a China like defense, a simple subsonic X-47 like bomber in my opinion is not enough to do that.

Big as the B-2 and you're still a VLO platform, as something that size can do something a fighter or UAV-size platform cannot: incorporate LO to counter long-wavelength radar. Speed? Speed by itself just makes you a nice fat target.

 

[bring_it_on]

Personaly I think the LRS-B must have rupture in propulsion to achieve the possibility of penetrating a China like defense, a simple subsonic X-47 like bomber in my opinion is not enough to do that. Very dangerous new threat, like J-20 with new AA missille and S-400 or soon S-500 type of missile. For defeat this kind of defense you need a very innovative concept. But we must wait, because the answers will be here when the plane will roll out of the hangar and before this time we don't know we have just possibility.

I would think that the developers would be better positioned to make that call for the assumptions required to derive to the conclusion that speed alone will carry the day, and Stealth by itself isn't going to cut it is a pretty big one. Only the designers, and the people with access to the "dark-side " know what lies over the horizon in terms of LO and RCS suppression, what Electronic warfare, and non kinetic solutions can be developed or fielded that would help out. We just do not know. I bet the people working on the 2020 Bomber ---> LRS-B have worked things like this out already...But i seriously doubt that the DOD stopped funding black ops on stealth and LO post the B-2...So we could have potentiall billions of dollars of R&D in the dark, on stealth in the last few decades....

 

[dark sidius]

I agree for that Bring it On, I don't speak hypersonic for LRS-B, or may be in the form of a futur missile for the bomber, but with proven technology you can reuse enhanced F-119 or F-135 engine for an affordable bomber, coupled with an another new stealth shape. For hypersonic surely the successor of LRS-B in the far futur when the tech will be mature and no expensive may be in 2 decades.

 

[bring_it_on]

Hypersonic weapons have to come up at some point in the future. With a systems approach to the LRS-B, Hypersonics should and probably would be a part of the development package. With the restructuring of the hypersonic programs towards weaponization, it would probably be the LRS-B and the bomber fleet that would be initial candidates for things like hystrike and whatever else they feel like having. Russia and India have already BEGUN developing the Hypersonic Brahmos in all ernest, and the USAF has indicated that we could potentially have hypersonic solutions for things like hyper strike (HSSW) in the post 2020 time period.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/high-speed-strike-weapon--hssw--.html

Tactical hypersonic weapons, are far easier to make then the Prompt global strike weapons the DOD has been wanting, and they can give the LRS-B significant advantage against A2AD threats in the FDOW scenarios.

 

[sferrin]

HSSW has already been cancelled.

 

[bring_it_on]

The program may have been cancelled, but the concept of a hypersonic weapon for A2AD work may well stay and be a consideration for the LRS-B system. It would be quite stupid to develop a very very expensive, cutting edge bomber, and not plan to develop weapons around it. Of course the weapons do not need to be operational at the same time as the bomber, but could be brought in with time.

Air Force Sees Hypersonic Weapons in 2025

http://defensetech.org/2013/05/13/video-air-force-sees-hypersonic-weapons-in-2025/

Developing a family of SO Hypersonic weapons for the LRS-B is going to be FAR cheaper then developing a bomber with considerable supersonic cruising ability...Lets say we need around a 100 missiles launched in the FDOW scenario of a medium sized conflict (this is in addition to other SO and PGM), at 2-3 million a pop, thats around 300 million dollars worth of missiles...Compare that to a system that would need to have RCS that is the lowest we've ever made, a supercruise in excess of mach 1.5, and global range...The developmental cost over run would probably be enough to finance a few thousands of these weapons, and this is before the increased acquisition costs is factored in, not to mention the fact that these weapons would go a long way in keeping the legacy bomber fleet relevant for a longer time.

 

[sferrin]

Preaching to the choir. I just don't have a whole lot of faith in the US's ability to deliver in the realm of hypersonic (or even supersonic) air-breathing missiles.

 

[dark sidius]

Last week an Aviation week article speak about the Darpa refocuse on tactical hypersonic system insteed of global hypersonic system in conjonction with Air Force, this is a new chance to see a missile system in year 2020/30 for the futur bomber in my opinion, to challenge anti access/denial like China or Russia. The LRS-B for the concept we know publicly will be a penetrating bomber and a part of a long range familly of system, surely new missile or drone to help penetrating the defense for the rest no informations we will have the surprise when it will be public.

 

[bring_it_on]

Sfferin, its tough to find a better person to talk to regarding US Hypersonic programs then you, but i must disagree. With the new threat in the pacific evolving,and wars in the ME winding down, it seems these programs will find a new purpose.. The LRS-B is a perfect example, even with a Democrat president, we are seeing LRS-B being funded, rest assured, there would be hypersonics in the near-mid term future, maybe not by 2025, but not far from that either.

 

[sferrin]

Sfferin, its tough to find a better person to talk to regarding US Hypersonic programs then you, but i must disagree. With the new threat in the pacific evolving,and wars in the ME winding down, it seems these programs will find a new purpose.. The LRS-B is a perfect example, even with a Democrat president, we are seeing LRS-B being funded, rest assured, there would be hypersonics in the near-mid term future, maybe not by 2025, but not far from that either.

DSE and shockonlip are probably the most knowledgable here on high speed flight. And I'm not saying there isn't a need. I'm saying I doubt our ability to pull it off. We've lost too much.

 

[dark sidius]

I don't see why USA can't do the job in hypersonic after a lot of programs since decades, X-51 finish with a success, HTV-2 failed but there is a lot of informations learning about the 2 flights and surely a lot of classified programs we don't know. Russia and India work on a Brhamos 2 and there is no reason that USAF don't do the same with a new missile in the horizon. In few years Advent program I think will deliver a new propulsion system for a new kind of tactical fighter or strike aircraft with new capacity for a futur 6th g fighter, and USAF will be the first air force with this type of engine around the world, its not for hypersonic but a greater capacity in sub/supersonic flight it still a good step for near futur.

 

[sferrin]

I don't see why USA can't do the job in hypersonic after a lot of programs since decades, X-51 finish with a success, HTV-2 failed but there is a lot of informations learning about the 2 flights and surely a lot of classified programs we don't know. Russia and India work on a Brhamos 2 and there is no reason that USAF don't do the same with a new missile in the horizon. In few years Advent program I think will deliver a new propulsion system for a new kind of tactical fighter or strike aircraft with new capacity for a futur 6th g fighter, and USAF will be the first air force with this type of engine around the world, its not for hypersonic but a greater capacity in sub/supersonic flight it still a good step for near futur.

Maybe you should look at the US's track record. The X-43 and (barely) the X-51 are the only examples of success. There are dozens of examples of failed programs. Ask yourself what the last supersonic air-breathing weapon was that the US put into service. That would be the turbojet powered Hound dog, retired almost 40 years ago. I don't doubt that we could if the will were there. I doubt there is the will. One or two failures (if by some miracle it makes it to hardware) and that'd be all she wrote.

 

[bring_it_on]

The threshold is not there, with many cutting edge programs especially with DARPA. However pretty much post the cold war the sense of urgency and motivation has been fairly lacking. I have myself worked in the defense industry in that period and can vouch for the same. Things have changed now with the ASBC and the Pacific "re-positioning", and the services would probably be more specific with the R&D teams as to what the threat is and what is required to counter it. We can do a basic study of Alternatives, on how much more capable a Mach 5-6 Scramjet weapon would be to a Mach 3-3.5 Ramjet powered one etc , but i think if the services are looking for a hypersonic weapon by 2025, the time frame is no coincidence.

 

[sferrin]

The threshold is not there, with many cutting edge programs especially with DARPA. However pretty much post the cold war the sense of urgency and motivation has been fairly lacking. I have myself worked in the defense industry in that period and can vouch for the same. Things have changed now with the ASBC and the Pacific "re-positioning", and the services would probably be more specific with the R&D teams as to what the threat is and what is required to counter it. We can do a basic study of Alternatives, on how much more capable a Mach 5-6 Scramjet weapon would be to a Mach 3-3.5 Ramjet powered one etc , but i think if the services are looking for a hypersonic weapon by 2025, the time frame is no coincidence.

If they'd simply carried on with Fasthawk we'd probably already have them at sea. Had to cancel it though to get The Next Big Thing.

 

[dark sidius]

2025 timeframe, is the date of the start of LRS-B delivery I think its not a coincidence, I think the LRS-B with all the LRS family will be a very efficient attack system. In my opinion the family will have a Bomber (LRS-B) a new missile and a new type of drone. In the same time for year 2025 the F/X, FA/XX will be surely in the form of flying prototype.

 

[bring_it_on]

I do not agree with regards to the FA-xx, The navy still has to define the program, then do a complete AOA, and then look at what sort of capability enhancements are available for the F-18E/F fleet. This is of course not counting any additional F-18E/F purchases between now and whenever the line closes, and no more F-35's over and above the number navy intends on getting. While doing an AOA i am sure, the Congress would try to talk the navy into doing something along with the USAF, in which case i only see the FA-XX being pushed back as the USAF timelines for a F-22 replacement would be much farther out.