- Joined
- 1 April 2006
- Messages
- 11,032
- Reaction score
- 8,373
anything unclear here?flateric said:an official LRS-B program logo
anything unclear here?flateric said:an official LRS-B program logo
Dragon029 said:Thank you for the re-upload Flateric; any idea of what the logo symbol (on the left) represents?
My brain keeps associating it with the Tardis from Doctor Who (appear anywhere, anytime?), but I would think they would go for something more original. It doesn't look like an aircraft, but the outer shapes are very likely lightning bolts, with the inside triangle shape being maybe a hypersonic projectile like a successor of the Falcon?
flateric said:oh, do me a favor and switch on the logic...
this is USAF program logo, for a program for which RFP for concurent bidders is not issued yet - and you starting to find similarities to shadow on a cloud from NG ad
too much far-fetching
BTW, logo first has appeared in Boeing document
bring_it_on said:Rather large and extensive upgrade (nearly 10 billion). Perhaps some LRS_B work thrown in as well?
Do you know what "indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity" contracts are all about?bring_it_on said:Rather large and extensive upgrade (nearly 10 billion). Perhaps some LRS_B work thrown in as well?
donnage99 said:I thought the whole program is bet on the idea that they won't change or add more capabilities into the aircraft during development to keep it from cost overrun. Looks like it aint' so.
sferrin said:donnage99 said:I thought the whole program is bet on the idea that they won't change or add more capabilities into the aircraft during development to keep it from cost overrun. Looks like it aint' so.
I thought the idea was to get a bare bones aircraft up front (think F-16A Block 15) and gradually add capability over it's lifetime? I don't see how they could possibly keep it under $500 million otherwise. (And they should be using a LOT of existing stuff too. The only thing that should be new is the structure of the aircraft itself.)
The first version of the Long-Range Strike Bomber is “very deliberately” not the final version, Air Force acquisition chief William LaPlante said in an interview. LaPlante said the first version could be described as the “80 percent solution” to USAF’s ultimate requirement.
sferrin said:I thought the idea was to get a bare bones aircraft up front (think F-16A Block 15) and gradually add capability over it's lifetime? I don't see how they could possibly keep it under $500 million otherwise. (And they should be using a LOT of existing stuff too. The only thing that should be new is the structure of the aircraft itself.)
Could do like the F110/F118 (B-2) and do an F135/F13X for the B-3. (Or base it on the F119 if it's even in production anymore.)Sundog said:sferrin said:I thought the idea was to get a bare bones aircraft up front (think F-16A Block 15) and gradually add capability over it's lifetime? I don't see how they could possibly keep it under $500 million otherwise. (And they should be using a LOT of existing stuff too. The only thing that should be new is the structure of the aircraft itself.)
What about the powerplant? I would think they would want something new there as well, or are they looking at a derivative initially? I realize that specific question is tied in directly to the requirements, so, like the airframe itself, it may not have been discussed publically yet.
What about the powerplant? I would think they would want something new there as well, or are they looking at a derivative initially? I realize that specific question is tied in directly to the requirements, so, like the airframe itself, it may not have been discussed publically yet.
Sundog said:sferrin said:I thought the idea was to get a bare bones aircraft up front (think F-16A Block 15) and gradually add capability over it's lifetime? I don't see how they could possibly keep it under $500 million otherwise. (And they should be using a LOT of existing stuff too. The only thing that should be new is the structure of the aircraft itself.)
What about the powerplant? I would think they would want something new there as well, or are they looking at a derivative initially? I realize that specific question is tied in directly to the requirements, so, like the airframe itself, it may not have been discussed publically yet.
bobbymike said:New Bomber Engines
The Air Force’s new bomber project doesn’t depend on getting Congress to fund the new advanced engine program proposed in the Fiscal 2015 defense budget, service acquisition executive William LaPlante told Air Force Magazine Wednesday. LaPlante said the new engine project isn’t specifically keyed to the new bomber or a new fighter, but is meant to explore advanced technologies with an eye toward efficiency and advancing the state of the art. “Once we decide to invest in advanced technology—the next generation of something—we should have in mind” the platforms it could support, LaPlante acknowledged. However, he also said, “We can’t build programs around” the success of a particular technology initiative. The engine initiative calls for $1 billion over the next five years, but the Pentagon has said it’s one of the things that will be cut if sequester continues in Fiscal 2016. LaPlante also said it’s “still too early to tell” if the contractor picked to build the airplane will select an engine for it or if the government will choose the powerplant. James Kenyon, general manager of next generation fighter programs for Pratt & Whitney, said Monday that his company is “prepared to work with the airframers to provide what they need” for the LRS-B, but declined to be specific about any particular engine Pratt is proposing for the project.
—John A. Tirpak
5/22/2014
flateric said:Bone - till 2040
The B-1 has been de-nuclearized for awhile now as part of START II or SORT I think and cannot be made to be nuclear capable anymore is my understanding.J.A.W. said:flateric said:Bone - till 2040
Thanks for the 'heads-up' on that F..
& It is curious that the 'Bone' was not listed with the B-2/B-52 as up for nuke delivery modernisation in the paper
posted by B'mike in the 'nuke news' thread.
donnage99 said:I thought the whole program is bet on the idea that they won't change or add more capabilities into the aircraft during development to keep it from cost overrun. Looks like it aint' so.
bobbymike said:The B-1 has been de-nuclearized for awhile now as part of START II or SORT I think and cannot be made to be nuclear capable anymore is my understanding.J.A.W. said:flateric said:Bone - till 2040
Thanks for the 'heads-up' on that F..
& It is curious that the 'Bone' was not listed with the B-2/B-52 as up for nuke delivery modernisation in the paper
posted by B'mike in the 'nuke news' thread.
bobbymike said:The B-1 has been de-nuclearized for awhile now as part of START II or SORT I think and cannot be made to be nuclear capable anymore is my understanding.
The request for proposal (RFP) on the US Air Force’s long range strike-bomber program will be issued soon, perhaps in a matter of days, according to the service’s top civil acquisitions official....
That program is in a competitive phase,” William LaPlante, assistant Air Force secretary for acquisition, said during a speech at the Atlantic Council in Washington on Friday. “We’re probably days away from releasing the final RFP for that program.”
Asked to clarify the timetable for the contract award, LaPlante indicated the award date was set for the first half of 2015.
“There’s no magic, I’ll just tell you how the timeline works,” he told reporters. “If you do an RFP now, then you get proposals in in the fall and you evaluate them. You can imagine that being done sometime in the early part of 2015. Is that April? Is that January? I don’t know.”
Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James had previously indicated an RFP would likely be issued in the fall.
....
Only some basic information has been made public: The service has a mid-2020s operational date in mind; the plane will be based on existing technologies; there will be room for a large payload; and the service is at least exploring making the bomber optionally-manned. The bomber is also designed to fit into a “family of systems” that ties in ISR, electronic attack and communication systems.
That program is designed around a fixed set of requirements [with] relatively mature technologies, [where we will] build the first version knowing it won’t have everything on it that we want or will want,” he said. “We’re building an adaptable approach with an open architecture, [with] places on the wings that allow us to customize sensors and weapons with future capabilities.
Let’s build a truly block approach, make it adaptable. Let’s not fall into the trap that we fall into too often which is try to put so much into the first version.”
The big question on the bomber has always been cost. Former Defense Secretary Bob Gates set a target cost of $550 million per copy, but analysts have been quick to note that figure does not include a limit on how much can be spent in research and development.
Critics of the program also point out that the $550 million figure is now being discussed more as a guideline than a firm target, while under Gates it was discussed in the press as a cap. However, LaPlante pointed out that the figure was only ever a target to aim for with the current 80 to 100 plane procurement estimate.
He did confirm there is a cost target for what is spent in research and development, but declined to say what it was.
The team of Lockheed Martin and Boeing are hoping to defeat Northrop Grumman on the contract. Asked to respond to LaPlante’s comments, Boeing spokesman Todd Blecher wrote in an email: “We look forward to competing for this program, and having the opportunity to continue our decades-long partnership with the Air Force.”
dark sidius said:http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/air-force-keeps-mum-on-new-bomber-rfp/
I have only talked with one Air Force official who has said anything in any detail about the bomber. And it wasn’t much — just that it will be much faster than anything that currently flies such missions.
sublight is back said:dark sidius said:http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/air-force-keeps-mum-on-new-bomber-rfp/
I have only talked with one Air Force official who has said anything in any detail about the bomber. And it wasn’t much — just that it will be much faster than anything that currently flies such missions.
Somebody cant make up their mind. Why would you need a flutter suppression system on a fast bomber?
DrRansom said:The Breaking Defenses story repeats the 'much faster' comment, maybe the USAF will be getting something with supersonic dash.
If that is the case, then I have no idea how they'll keep the price down.
dark sidius said:Who spoke about a flutter suppression system?
Polecat, BFF, X-56 MUTT and Polecat II were all Lockheed flight test programs for reducing LRS/NGB risk.
bring_it_on said:Supersonic would have meant that skunk works which arguably has the most experience with high speeds would have had some sort of lead...