US Next Generation Bomber Studies

[flateric]

...just wondering though what so special it would be in Q3 report for people to make such a conclusion?

 

[bobbymike]

For what it's worth, the analyst consensus during the 3rd quarter earnings calls for the various primes was that LM/Boeing has all but won LRS-B.

I wonder if they're going off of anything more than "well Lockheed already won the F-22 and F-35". Personally I'm still thinking it's Northrop Grumman's to lose.

I agree with sferrin I don't see how a financial analyst could conclude this? Many analysts were touting 'mortgage backed securities' in 2008 as well.

 

[sublight_]

A financial analyst is going to convey whats good for the financial analyst. Not what the truth is....

 

[phrenzy]

I'm surprised this isn't reflected in their stock price. This plus their modular fusion reactor claims should have people going cooky for LM. I'm not holding my breath on the reactor thing but that's a big announcement that came to nothing.

If they get LRS-B you have to wonder if Boeing can maintain much of a combat aircraft division. How long can you keep your best engineers when all you have is upgrades for legacy aircraft from an aquired company?

Whatever you think of the way the company operates nowdays they are in a pretty solid business position. Maybe scary good?

 

[Sentinel36k]

.

 

[flateric]

Sounds like the AFRL likes the subsonic alternative, hopefully more info comes soon.

Sentinel

It was clear for ages...
A honor for Josef - his render now in AFRL powerpoint)

 

[bring_it_on]

I'm surprised this isn't reflected in their stock price. This plus their modular fusion reactor claims should have people going cooky for LM. I'm not holding my breath on the reactor thing but that's a big announcement that came to nothing.

If they get LRS-B you have to wonder if Boeing can maintain much of a combat aircraft division. How long can you keep your best engineers when all you have is upgrades for legacy aircraft from an aquired company?

Whatever you think of the way the company operates nowdays they are in a pretty solid business position. Maybe scary good?

Boeing and lockheed are bidding as a team, with Boeing acting as the Prime Contractor.

http://news.usni.org/2013/10/25/boeing-lockheed-team-air-force-long-range-bomber-bid

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

My money's on speed!

 

[dark sidius]

Me too, the picture on the Invent posters is a cancelled NGB not surely LRS-B.

 

[TomS]

I'm not sure why the LM-Boeing partnership imples a fast aircraft. Both companies have significant experience with subsonic stealth aircraft.

 

[dark sidius]

Some little news http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/01/18/air-force-bomber-industry/21805275/

 

[Flyaway]

New article.

This is worth a quote.

Maj Gen Harencak said the new bomber is crucial to maintaining the US strategic deterrent. The general, who is a former bomber pilot, added that "the ability to go anywhere in the world, anytime, and to get through enemy defences and be able to provide a lot of ordnance on a consistent basis has never disappeared, and never will."

He noted that much about the LRS-B programme is classified, which has invited criticism from many quarters. "To our critics out there: why don't you wait until you actually know something about it before you criticise it?"

"There are publications out there that are already saying: 'You don't need this. It's too expensive. It's not going to work.' We don't even know what it is yet, per se," he said.

Some critics have said simpler, unmanned aircraft and stand-off missiles could accomplish the same mission as the one envisioned for the new bomber, but at a fraction of the cost.

"No one has ever been right about the next war we're going to fight. Those who say: 'Don't worry. You won't need this,' have been wrong before. … They are wrong today. And they will be wrong in the future," the general said. "Stand-off is absolutely important, but it has never in history been enough."

http://www.janes.com/article/48144/usaf-general-defends-new-bomber-nuclear-stockpile-modernisation

 

[bring_it_on]

U.S. Air Force May Offer Late-Year Peek At New Bomber

Some details of the so-far highly classified Long-Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B) could be unveiled late this year, according to Maj. Gen. Garrett Harencak, the U.S. Air Force assistant chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration.
“I can’t say whether it will be October or November – it’s at the level of the (Air Force) chief of staff and the secretary,” Harencak says. Earlier, in remarks to an Air Force Association meeting, Harencak addressed the bomber’s critics: “Why don’t you wait to know something about it before you criticize it?” His comments about a year-end revelation responded to a question about when the public would know something about the program.

So far, no details of the LRS-B – even its size and number of engines – have been released, although funding profiles and other reports suggest that a great deal of work has been done, including flight testing of demonstrator aircraft. Northrop Grumman and a Boeing/Lockheed Martin team are competing for a full-scale development contract, expected to be awarded by mid-year.

Harencak did comment twice that the bomber’s attributes would include “persistence” in heavily defended airspace, tending to support the idea that LRS-B will be designed with a high level of stealth, similar to that of the classified Northrop Grumman RQ-180 unmanned air vehicle.

http://aviationweek.com/awin-only/us-air-force-may-offer-late-year-peek-new-bomber

 

[sferrin]

"Harencak addressed the bomber’s critics: “Why don’t you wait to know something about it before you criticize it?”

Ain't that the truth.

 

[bring_it_on]

There is always something to criticize. In the absence of information on the system due to secrecy, one can always criticize the secrecy of the project or go ahead and claim that had it not been secret there would have been plenty to criticize

 

[Sundog]

Unfortunately, both sides are wrong on the secrecy argument. Saying you don't know what's going on so don't criticize is a non sequitur, as it hit's at the heart of the problem. Now, there is something to be said for keeping it secret if it is actually at the behest of national security. Unfortunately, that usually isn't the case as so often happens our enemies know more about what is going on with regard to our military secrets then the public does, which tends to be quite antithetical to a functioning democracy.


Those who criticize because of the secrecy have some legitimacy, but the secrecy in and of itself isn't necessarily an indictment of a problem with the program. I do think it needs more light and I would like to think those in charge know they have to meet their deadlines and cost targets after having screwed the pooch so royally with the F-35 programs schedule and costs.


Having said that, I obviously understand the need to keep the configuration and the main parameters under wraps, but let's not pretend our enemies can't make very good educated guesses based on their own espionage and that they won't already be working on counter-measures before it even rolls out, regardless of whether or not we see it in the public.


I also have a problem with those who say making some vehicles unmanned lowers their costs. Given the same mission it really hasn't lowered the cost, though it probably does increase the volumetric efficiency and defintiely opens up a vehicles ability to loiter. I like the idea of it being optionally manned as I think it really allows a greater choice of mission parameters.

 

[sferrin]

I do think it needs more light and I would like to think those in charge know they have to meet their deadlines and cost targets after having screwed the pooch so royally with the F-35 programs schedule and costs.

Because every other program has come in under cost and on time right? :

 

[Flyaway]

Be interesting to see what the phrase we will learn some details later this year actually translates too when the time comes.

 

[marauder2048]

Unfortunately, that usually isn't the case as so often happens our enemies know more about what is going on with regard to our military secrets then the public does, which tends to be quite antithetical to a functioning democracy.

Certain Russians (and probably by extension certain Chinese) already have far greater access to our nuclear arsenal and delivery systems than virtually any member of the public courtesy of New START (and previous strategic arms treaties).

If LRS-B is a "heavy bomber" (greater than 8000 km un-refueled range) she'll come under the New START inspection regime as soon as she's declared nuclear capable perhaps even sooner.

 

[bobbymike]

Unfortunately, that usually isn't the case as so often happens our enemies know more about what is going on with regard to our military secrets then the public does, which tends to be quite antithetical to a functioning democracy.

Certain Russians (and probably by extension certain Chinese) already have far greater access to our nuclear arsenal and delivery systems than virtually any member of the public courtesy of New START (and previous strategic arms treaties).

If LRS-B is a "heavy bomber" (greater than 8000 km un-refueled range) she'll come under the New START inspection regime as soon as she's declared nuclear capable perhaps even sooner.

Bomber inspections for New START are counting platforms they don't get to see the inner workings of the weapons system. Since bombers are counted as one platform regardless of weapons load they don't get close to the platform at all more like "Hey Ivan see that open hanger door 100 yards away, there's one of our 'nuclear capable' bombers."

For ICBMs and SLBMs this is different because New START counts warheads. The treaty allows surprise inspections of missiles to count warheads, however, the warheads can be covered to protect 'sensitive information.'

 

[Flyaway]

Unfortunately, that usually isn't the case as so often happens our enemies know more about what is going on with regard to our military secrets then the public does, which tends to be quite antithetical to a functioning democracy.

Certain Russians (and probably by extension certain Chinese) already have far greater access to our nuclear arsenal and delivery systems than virtually any member of the public courtesy of New START (and previous strategic arms treaties).

If LRS-B is a "heavy bomber" (greater than 8000 km un-refueled range) she'll come under the New START inspection regime as soon as she's declared nuclear capable perhaps even sooner.

Bomber inspections for New START are counting platforms they don't get to see the inner workings of the weapons system. Since bombers are counted as one platform regardless of weapons load they don't get close to the platform at all more like "Hey Ivan see that open hanger door 100 yards away, there's one of our 'nuclear capable' bombers."

For ICBMs and SLBMs this is different because New START counts warheads. The treaty allows surprise inspections of missiles to count warheads, however, the warheads can be covered to protect 'sensitive information.'

Don't they get to photograph and measure the bombers. I'm sure I've seen a black & white photograph of a B-2 with a measuring mark by it that was said to be produced during such an inspection.

 

[marauder2048]

From the New START inspection annex:

"Inspectors also have the right to view a designated heavy bomber’s weapons bay from a location designated by the in-country escort in order to confirm the number of nuclear armaments declared to be on the bomber. Since some deployed heavy bombers have the capability to carry nuclear armaments loaded on pylons attached to the wings, as well as in the heavy bomber’s weapons bay, this viewing applies to the exterior and interior of such deployed heavy bombers."

 

[marauder2048]

Unfortunately, that usually isn't the case as so often happens our enemies know more about what is going on with regard to our military secrets then the public does, which tends to be quite antithetical to a functioning democracy.

Certain Russians (and probably by extension certain Chinese) already have far greater access to our nuclear arsenal and delivery systems than virtually any member of the public courtesy of New START (and previous strategic arms treaties).

If LRS-B is a "heavy bomber" (greater than 8000 km un-refueled range) she'll come under the New START inspection regime as soon as she's declared nuclear capable perhaps even sooner.

Bomber inspections for New START are counting platforms they don't get to see the inner workings of the weapons system. Since bombers are counted as one platform regardless of weapons load they don't get close to the platform at all more like "Hey Ivan see that open hanger door 100 yards away, there's one of our 'nuclear capable' bombers."

For ICBMs and SLBMs this is different because New START counts warheads. The treaty allows surprise inspections of missiles to count warheads, however, the warheads can be covered to protect 'sensitive information.'

Don't they get to photograph and measure the bombers. I'm sure I've seen a black & white photograph of a B-2 with a measuring mark by it that was said to be produced during such an inspection.

Yep. They can photograph and measure as well.

 

[flateric]

-

 

[bobbymike]

From the New START inspection annex:

"Inspectors also have the right to view a designated heavy bomber’s weapons bay from a location designated by the in-country escort in order to confirm the number of nuclear armaments declared to be on the bomber. Since some deployed heavy bombers have the capability to carry nuclear armaments loaded on pylons attached to the wings, as well as in the heavy bomber’s weapons bay, this viewing applies to the exterior and interior of such deployed heavy bombers."

Thanks for the information. That said it makes no sense to me as a bomber under new start is counted as one launcher/one warhead regardless of its' payload.

So according to this wording the inspectors 'confirm' the number of nuclear armaments declared on the bomber. So if the Russians say, "We want to see one of your declared nuclear bombers" The US has to do a full weapons load out to confirm how many nukes it can carry and then the Russians count them? Yet IT STILL only counts as one warhead? Again confused see my first paragraph.

From Federation of American Scientists;

"the limit allowed by the treaty is not the actual number of warheads that can be deployed. The reason for this paradox is a new counting rule that attributes one weapon to each bomber rather than the actual number of weapons assigned to them"

 

[mkellytx]

"Harencak addressed the bomber’s critics: “Why don’t you wait to know something about it before you criticize it?”

Ain't that the truth.

Good to see Sac didn't lose his edge when they made him a general. Always thought he was the best wing commander I served.


Cheers

 

[Flyaway]

A mildly critical article from Janes regarding the secrecy around the program. Seems to be more of such articles appearing of late. Can anyone say was there this kind of fuss whilst the B-2 was in its classified development phase?

The USAF's top brass have been vocal in defending the LRS-B from attacks on both the cost and capabilities fronts. But while air force procurement officials have spoken openly about the methods employed to keep the programme's price in check, the generals have been tight-lipped about the capability the country is getting in exchange for what will still likely be a hefty expenditure despite careful planning.

The USAF's assistant chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration recently admonished critics of the programme to wait until details of the technology are revealed before passing judgment on it.

However, that notion cuts both ways when the Pentagon chooses to release no information about one of its costliest weapon acquisitions. The lack of information about the programme has inspired scepticism in many who might otherwise be supportive of the effort to upgrade the Pentagon's Cold War-era nuclear arsenal.

http://www.janes.com/article/48385/usaf-wants-to-dodge-latest-air-defences-with-bomber-s-new-secret-weapon

 

[marauder2048]

From Jim McNerney, Boeing's Chairman and CEO on the 4th quarter earnings call:

"And there is no question that when we win Long-Range Strike and I'm sounding as confident as I can, because I do believe we will, that it will solidify the future of St. Louis for many, many years to come."

 

[bring_it_on]

From Jim McNerney, Boeing's Chairman and CEO on the 4th quarter earnings call:

"And there is no question that when we win Long-Range Strike and I'm sounding as confident as I can, because I do believe we will, that it will solidify the future of St. Louis for many, many years to come."

Good catch!. Here is a link if anyone is interested

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2859306-the-boeings-ba-ceo-jim-mcnerney-on-q4-2014-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single

 

[Steve Pace]

Talk about confident! Long-Range Strike hey? -SP

 

[bobbymike]

From Jim McNerney, Boeing's Chairman and CEO on the 4th quarter earnings call:

"And there is no question that when we win Long-Range Strike and I'm sounding as confident as I can, because I do believe we will, that it will solidify the future of St. Louis for many, many years to come."

When they roll their Hypersonic Bomber out of the hanger??

 

[bring_it_on]

Boeing and Lockheed jointly do the long range strike missile, while Northrop does the Long range strike bomber ;D ;D

 

[Flyaway]

They'll need to start drumming up public & wider political support soon & what with the comments from Boeing perhaps we'll see some something more sooner rather than later.

 

[bobbymike]

http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-lrs-b-and-military-aircraft-industry?NL=AW-19&Issue=AW-19_20150129_AW-19_838&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1_b&YM_RID=CPEN1000000230026&YM_MID=1622

 

[bring_it_on]

http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-lrs-b-and-military-aircraft-industry?NL=AW-19&Issue=AW-19_20150129_AW-19_838&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1_b&YM_RID=CPEN1000000230026&YM_MID=1622

From the link

But if you believe the industry is actually shaped by market forces, the implications of LRS-B are far more profound. Whoever loses LRS-B will lose the capability to be a combat aircraft prime. The loser almost certainly will not be around to bid on F-X or F/A-XX and could decide to sell its other defense assets. Last Supper-like edicts may be feasible when it comes to platform integrators, but if a company doesn’t have a military aircraft integration capability, how could DoD consider them “top-tier”?

I don't necessarily agree here. If Northrop grumman wins Lockheed has the F-35 program which would be the largest of its kind in the world. Boeing would be winding down their legacy programs that have done quite well for them. They would also be ramping up there efforts for the T-X program. They would have airframe work with the P-8, possibly the JSTARS replacement and in my opinion would have a strong chance of hopping on to the Northrop grumman train if NG wins the competition as it is unlikely that NG plans to take all the risk for the 100 Billion dollar (potentially) program itself. With the DARPA X-Plane announcement in the 16 budget cycle, boeing would have that program to look forward to as well in addition to whatever secret prototypes they are doing internally. They have a very successful commercial side of the business and their defense side isn't doing bad either.

Now if Northrop Grumman looses, they still have work on their unmanned platforms (Global Hawk, Triton etc), E-2Ds, the alleged RQ-180, F-35 (a huge contract for them in dollar amount) and future competitions to look forward to (T-X, F-X, FA-XX). I really do not see how this would force them totally out of the airframe business.

 

[sferrin]

Agreed. Sounds more like wishful thinking. And let's not forget UCLASS is still in the works. That in itself could be a fairly large program for the winner. (Once the USN starts using them you can be sure other services/countries will be eyeing them.)

 

[sublight_]

possibly the JSTARS replacement

The JSTARS replacement will be the cheapest bizjet they can find. Gulfstream will probably get that....

 

[bring_it_on]

I don't think its that straight forward with this and Boeing would pose a tough fight with a low risk solution. Anyhow, I brought it up to highlight that there is work to be fought for that would preserve the design teams and ensure that they have production contracts to compete on post the LRS-B down-select later this year.

 

[fightingirish]

Here a new TV Commercial by Northrop Grumman for the NFL Superbowl next Sunday.

Northrop Grumman Hangar TV Commercial
When the world says it can’t be done, Northrop Grumman forges ahead and does it anyway. For over 75 years, we’ve delivered the world’s most advanced aircraft—from the first and only stealth bomber, to the first unmanned aircraft to autonomously launch and land on an aircraft carrier. This is what we do.

http://youtu.be/H-vkdUBNOOc

http://youtu.be/H-vkdUBNOOc

[list type=decimal]
[*]YB-35 (1946)
[*]B-2 (1989)
[*]X-47B (2011)
[*]Long range strike bomber (2015 or 20??)
[/list]

 

[totoro]

How on earth can buying a super expensive superbowl ad space be justified with what tiny bit of brand recognition one can expect to very few key people that even care about NG products? That million dollars would've been much more effective just being put into a hand of a lobbyist on the Capitol Hill.