US Next Generation Bomber Studies

[bring_it_on]

Look at the Brahmos its time to go supersonic for the credibility.

The High speed strike weapon would be something we have that is similar.

 

[bobbymike]

Realistically, can you see a practical scenario where you'd need 16 B61s on a single platform? Or a practical way to weaponeer 80 guided 500-pounders?

Scenario 1 would be WWIII. Given that the B-52 is still equipped to do just that (and the B-1B could be if world politics changed enough) it would seem "not wise" to unilaterally give that up. The 80 500lb guided bombs thing was done years ago with a B-2. (And could probably be done with a B-1B if they felt like it.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdzJWciha4A

During his testimony at the HASC Strategic Forces Subcommittee Stratcom chief Haney seemed to strongly imply that the under New START bomber counting rules the LRS-B will have a very large bomb load out for nukes as a credible hedge force against uncertain future strategic scenarios. I read his comment as "We are able to put as many bombs on each nuke capable bomber as we want and it counts as 'One' against New START counting rules"

Also, that is the one of the most awesome displays of bomb accuracy I have ever seen. Imagine 15+ B-2s hitting 1200 aim points/day like that WOW!

 

[sferrin]

Imagine a B-1B dumping, say, 150 SDBs. Makes one wonder if they could do it at supersonic speed from 40-50,000 feet.

 

[flateric]

...now imagine that you are loosing bomber with all these 150 pretty expensive munitions - at once

 

[sferrin]

...now imagine that you are loosing bomber with all these 150 pretty expensive munitions - at once

And what situation would lead to that? Besides, 150 SDBs are almost certainly cheaper than 20 AGM-129s. Or 24 D-5s on an Ohio. Or 90 SM-2 on a Burke. Etc. etc. The whole point of having a bomber is to carry a lot of munitions a long ways. Else what's the point? The benefits FAR outweigh the risks.

 

[flateric]

Nope. The whole point of having a bomber is to carry optimum amount of munitions at optimum distances and deliver to target.
There's a well known ironic sentence of Kirov class cruisers - it's mighty as hell, but can't be in several places at once.

 

[bobbymike]

Nope. The whole point of having a bomber is to carry optimum amount of munitions at optimum distances and deliver to target.
There's a well known ironic sentence of Kirov class cruisers - it's mighty as hell, but can't be in several places at once.

So if you wanted to go intercontinental distances with a VLO platform carrying a significant payload all other things being equal (avionics, electronics, etc.) how much would it actually save you to have a 20k lbs payload to a 40k lbs payload?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/02/27/pentagons-55-billion-mystery-plane-is-secret-but-debate-over-cost-is-appearing/

 

[quellish]

And what situation would lead to that?

Humidity and/or not reading the documentation.

 

[flateric]

fast rewind back to 2006


"An artist's conception of a hypersonic global strike and global persistence attack aircraft. (Illustration by Peter A. Barnett, Northrop Grumman Corp.)

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Dayumm!!! I've never seen that bottom pic before. I like it! ;D

 

[sferrin]

Nope. The whole point of having a bomber is to carry optimum amount of munitions at optimum distances and deliver to target.
There's a well known ironic sentence of Kirov class cruisers - it's mighty as hell, but can't be in several places at once.

And a medium bomber can't carry an MOP or significant numbers of large missiles/munitions. And hey, if they want to ditch heavy bombers then fine, just don't sell the new one as an equal replacement. Headline should read, "Bringing back the B-47 and ditching the B-52".

 

[flateric]

Sferrin, RFP figures for NGB payload and range is kinda known. Taking into account that LRS-B is even less ambitious, what you trying to prove to me? That USAF analytics were wrong?
We have already discussed that MOP won't be on LRS-B, btw.

 

[sferrin]

Sferrin, RFP figures for NGB payload and range is kinda known. Taking into account that LRS-B is even less ambitious, what you trying to prove to me? That USAF analytics were wrong?
We have already discussed that MOP won't be on LRS-B, btw.

All I've ever said was this:

"Even if you used F-35 level of technology (instead on inventing new), F135 engines, the avionics, sensors, and displays from the F-35 it would STILL come in greater than 550 million if you're looking at a B-1B/B-52 replacement. Only way you'd have a prayer is if you went with what would be considered a medium bomber. I'm talking B-47/B-58 sized. I could easily see them doing that and then trying to spin it as a heavy bomber because of range and the fact that precisions munitions are much smaller. Never mind the fact that an actual heavy bomber can carry things like MOP, Hound Dog sized cruise missiles, or 20 ALCMs."

All the rest of the back and forth was me pointing out that the new bomber is not equivalent to the aircraft it's replacing with others saying, essentially, "it doesn't matter". It does matter but we're not willing to spend the amount of money to replace a heavy bomber with a heavy bomber so we get what we're getting.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Kinda like the USN rebranding the LCS as a "frigate" now. LOL

 

[sferrin]

Kinda like the USN rebranding the LCS as a "frigate" now. LOL

Or the USN saying those pathetic 30mm pop guns are better than the Mk110 57mm guns on the Zumwalts.

 

[Flyaway]

Quite unlikely imho.

F135s then?

 

[bring_it_on]

F135s then?

I guess that depends on size of the bomber, range, payload, supersonic speed requirement (if any) etc. 2 F-135 based engines or 4 F-414 based engines's would be a pretty safe assumption

 

[Flyaway]

F135s then?

I guess that depends on size of the bomber, range, payload, supersonic speed requirement (if any) etc. 2 F-135 based engines or 4 F-414 based engines's would be a pretty safe assumption

Just two F135s would still give you a fairly capable aircraft considering its capabilities as a powerplant.

 

[sferrin]

F135s then?

I guess that depends on size of the bomber, range, payload, supersonic speed requirement (if any) etc. 2 F-135 based engines or 4 F-414 based engines's would be a pretty safe assumption

Just two F135s would still give you a fairly capable aircraft considering its capabilities as a powerplant.

Not even half of a B-52 or B-1 power wise.

 

[bring_it_on]

An F135 based engine that could get max dry thrust improvement of about 10% could get you nearly 62,000 pounds of total thrust out of two engines. That is still about 10% shy of the total thrust on the B-2 (4 engines) but I guess you could cover that gap if you had a smaller sized bomber.

On the cost front, I really do not see why going over the 550 Million mark can hurt. Of course if they tinker around the requirements and keep adding stuff to it as the RFP's evolve it may be an issue. Bombers last for a long time and even a 30-40% more expensive Long Range Bomber (compared to the current 550 figure) is a bargain given the amount of time it would serve the Air force. Certainly if we are willing to pay 100-150 Million a pop for a fighter, we can afford to may 700-800 Million for a strategic bomber that is going to last significantly longer.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Kinda like the USN rebranding the LCS as a "frigate" now. LOL

Or the USN saying those pathetic 30mm pop guns are better than the Mk110 57mm guns on the Zumwalts.

A damn shame...geting back on topic.I'd love to see some more shiny graphics like earlier today.

 

[BioLuminescentLamprey]

Nope. The whole point of having a bomber is to carry optimum amount of munitions at optimum distances and deliver to target.
There's a well known ironic sentence of Kirov class cruisers - it's mighty as hell, but can't be in several places at once.

That's definitely true, but we know that B-2A Spirits took out one of the "harder" targets in Libya; an airfield. A bunch of pre-determined aimpoints were destroyed in one pass there and it probably went somewhat along the lines of what the B-2A is doing in that video. I can't say that it required 80 JDAM, but there is a lot of utility in this. Of course, you probably don't want to leave the bomb-bay doors open that long inside of a more modern IADS....

Horses for courses would be the rule of course (unless of course, the horse of course is the famous Mr. Ed.)

 

[bring_it_on]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwGST17nsdw

 

[sferrin]

Nope. The whole point of having a bomber is to carry optimum amount of munitions at optimum distances and deliver to target.
There's a well known ironic sentence of Kirov class cruisers - it's mighty as hell, but can't be in several places at once.

That's definitely true, but we know that B-2A Spirits took out one of the "harder" targets in Libya; an airfield. A bunch of pre-determined aimpoints were destroyed in one pass there and it probably went somewhat along the lines of what the B-2A is doing in that video. I can't say that it required 80 JDAM, but there is a lot of utility in this. Of course, you probably don't want to leave the bomb-bay doors open that long inside of a more modern IADS....

Horses for courses would be the rule of course (unless of course, the horse of course is the famous Mr. Ed.)

Or maybe (in the B-1Bs case) you load up 30 BLU-109 JDAMs and take out 30 hardened aircraft shelters. (Or bomb the crap out of a port.) The point is, with a big payload like the B-1B you have OPTIONS.

"In the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom, eight B-1s dropped almost 40 percent of aerial ordnance, including some 3,900 JDAMs"

 

[bring_it_on]

Air Force Decision On New Bomber Design Slips From Spring To Summer

Inside Defense


The Air Force is delaying until this summer plans to select a new bomber design, extending a contest between Northrop Grumman and a Boeing-Lockheed Martin team to develop a long-range strike bomber that -- if executed as planned -- could be one of the most important aerospace military contracts of a generation.
Last July, the Air Force announced it had solicited classified requests for proposals for the new aircraft program -- which a defense analyst says could cost as much as $90 billion -- noting the service anticipated to select the new aircraft developer in the "spring 2015" timeframe.
In written testimony prepared for a March 4 hearing of the House Armed Services seapower and projection forces subcommittee, senior Air Force officials signaled the schedule for the Long Range Strike-Bomber program had shifted.
"The source selection for LRS-B is ongoing and we expect a decision this summer," states written remarks by Air Force acquisition executive William LaPlante and Lt. Gen. Mike Holmes, Air Force deputy chief of staff for strategy, plans and requirements. "It is a deliberate process and we are executing our plan with the discipline and rigor that all source selections require. The Air Force is committed to fairness and impartiality in all of its competitive procurements," according to the testimony.
Air Force spokesman Ed Gulick, in a March 4 email, confirmed the disclosure "is a change" to the program's timeline.
The Air Force is seeking $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2016 to develop the new bomber as part of a five-year plan that would allocate $13.8 billion on the research and development effort through FY-20, according to the service' budget request.
Beginning in the mid-2020s, the Air Force hopes to begin deploying the first new bombers which the service says are needed to operate in the Asia-Pacific region against adversaries developing sophisticated anti-access, area-denial capabilities.
"It will take us 80 to 100 bombers to provide the sortie rates and the weapons capability that can complete a major theater fight," Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh told the House Appropriations defense subcommittee on Feb. 27, referring to the requirement for the LRS-B.
When describing the projected cost of the new bomber, Air Force officials rely on an FY-10 figure -- $550 million per aircraft -- that does not account for research and development costs and assumes an average cost-after-a-complete-production run that analysts project would extend for more than decade.
Todd Harrison, a defense budget expert at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, estimates the development effort -- accounting for the impacts of inflation -- could cost $24 billion. In addition, simply factoring inflation into the Air Force's FY-10 cost figure and assuming a 100-aircraft production run through the mid-2030s would cost $66 billion. That would assume a $90 billion program without any cost growth -- a factor prevalent in nearly all clean-sheet weapon system development and production programs. -- Jason Sherman

To be fair they had said it last year that the decision would be due late spring or summer 2015 - http://defensetech.org/2014/09/15/air-force-plans-major-step-in-long-range-strike-bomber-program/

 

[Sundog]

Reuters Article on LRS-B


The following two paragraphs are from that article;


Reuters Quote 1

Air Force acquisition chief William LaPlante said the Air Force would likely also adopt a "cost-plus" type contract for the development phase of the new bomber, given that it would include more new technologies than mature technologies.

Reuters Quote 2

Industry executives have said the service is looking for more mature technologies and components to speed up development and deployment, and keep the cost of the new planes from rising sharply.

So, is everything clear now?

 

[bring_it_on]

LaPlante basically said that the USAF is looking for a cost+ because it isn't as straight forward as taking something form the commercial domain. As is presented in the video above, he was speaking in extremely simplistic terms to explain the position of the air-force regarding the cost+ development.

 

[mkellytx]

Imagine a B-1B dumping, say, 150 SDBs. Makes one wonder if they could do it at supersonic speed from 40-50,000 feet.

No, at least not as currently certified. The doors are limited to .94 M, time and no longer working the program prevent me from remembering why that limit is in place. FWIW, I conducted a mission where we dropped a JDAM at .94 M at 1500 ft AGL...very impressive and why I remember the .94 number. Not really sure what needs be accomplished to get the supersonic release envelope opened.


Cheers

 

[mkellytx]

Nope. The whole point of having a bomber is to carry optimum amount of munitions at optimum distances and deliver to target.
There's a well known ironic sentence of Kirov class cruisers - it's mighty as hell, but can't be in several places at once.

That's definitely true, but we know that B-2A Spirits took out one of the "harder" targets in Libya; an airfield. A bunch of pre-determined aimpoints were destroyed in one pass there and it probably went somewhat along the lines of what the B-2A is doing in that video. I can't say that it required 80 JDAM, but there is a lot of utility in this. Of course, you probably don't want to leave the bomb-bay doors open that long inside of a more modern IADS....

Horses for courses would be the rule of course (unless of course, the horse of course is the famous Mr. Ed.)

Or maybe (in the B-1Bs case) you load up 30 BLU-109 JDAMs and take out 30 hardened aircraft shelters. (Or bomb the crap out of a port.) The point is, with a big payload like the B-1B you have OPTIONS.

"In the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom, eight B-1s dropped almost 40 percent of aerial ordnance, including some 3,900 JDAMs"

Ah, no. The rotaries in the 3 bays can only carry 8 GBU-31's a piece times three bays gives you 24 GBU-31V3's. The only external pylon allowed by START is the right forward one for the Sniper Pod.

 

[Flyaway]

Air Force Decision On New Bomber Design Slips From Spring To Summer

Inside Defense


The Air Force is delaying until this summer plans to select a new bomber design, extending a contest between Northrop Grumman and a Boeing-Lockheed Martin team to develop a long-range strike bomber that -- if executed as planned -- could be one of the most important aerospace military contracts of a generation.
Last July, the Air Force announced it had solicited classified requests for proposals for the new aircraft program -- which a defense analyst says could cost as much as $90 billion -- noting the service anticipated to select the new aircraft developer in the "spring 2015" timeframe.
In written testimony prepared for a March 4 hearing of the House Armed Services seapower and projection forces subcommittee, senior Air Force officials signaled the schedule for the Long Range Strike-Bomber program had shifted.
"The source selection for LRS-B is ongoing and we expect a decision this summer," states written remarks by Air Force acquisition executive William LaPlante and Lt. Gen. Mike Holmes, Air Force deputy chief of staff for strategy, plans and requirements. "It is a deliberate process and we are executing our plan with the discipline and rigor that all source selections require. The Air Force is committed to fairness and impartiality in all of its competitive procurements," according to the testimony.
Air Force spokesman Ed Gulick, in a March 4 email, confirmed the disclosure "is a change" to the program's timeline.
The Air Force is seeking $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2016 to develop the new bomber as part of a five-year plan that would allocate $13.8 billion on the research and development effort through FY-20, according to the service' budget request.
Beginning in the mid-2020s, the Air Force hopes to begin deploying the first new bombers which the service says are needed to operate in the Asia-Pacific region against adversaries developing sophisticated anti-access, area-denial capabilities.
"It will take us 80 to 100 bombers to provide the sortie rates and the weapons capability that can complete a major theater fight," Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh told the House Appropriations defense subcommittee on Feb. 27, referring to the requirement for the LRS-B.
When describing the projected cost of the new bomber, Air Force officials rely on an FY-10 figure -- $550 million per aircraft -- that does not account for research and development costs and assumes an average cost-after-a-complete-production run that analysts project would extend for more than decade.
Todd Harrison, a defense budget expert at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, estimates the development effort -- accounting for the impacts of inflation -- could cost $24 billion. In addition, simply factoring inflation into the Air Force's FY-10 cost figure and assuming a 100-aircraft production run through the mid-2030s would cost $66 billion. That would assume a $90 billion program without any cost growth -- a factor prevalent in nearly all clean-sheet weapon system development and production programs. -- Jason Sherman

To be fair they had said it last year that the decision would be due late spring or summer 2015 - http://defensetech.org/2014/09/15/air-force-plans-major-step-in-long-range-strike-bomber-program/

I suppose they are doing they can to avoid the loser seeking legal redress?

 

[bring_it_on]

Or it could simply be taking them a few weeks longer to come to a decision which itself could be based on a host of factors. Not a big deal at all. The RFP is out, the proposals are most likely in and now they have to go over them carefully making sure to pick the best one.

 

[sferrin]

Nope. The whole point of having a bomber is to carry optimum amount of munitions at optimum distances and deliver to target.
There's a well known ironic sentence of Kirov class cruisers - it's mighty as hell, but can't be in several places at once.

That's definitely true, but we know that B-2A Spirits took out one of the "harder" targets in Libya; an airfield. A bunch of pre-determined aimpoints were destroyed in one pass there and it probably went somewhat along the lines of what the B-2A is doing in that video. I can't say that it required 80 JDAM, but there is a lot of utility in this. Of course, you probably don't want to leave the bomb-bay doors open that long inside of a more modern IADS....

Horses for courses would be the rule of course (unless of course, the horse of course is the famous Mr. Ed.)

Or maybe (in the B-1Bs case) you load up 30 BLU-109 JDAMs and take out 30 hardened aircraft shelters. (Or bomb the crap out of a port.) The point is, with a big payload like the B-1B you have OPTIONS.

"In the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom, eight B-1s dropped almost 40 percent of aerial ordnance, including some 3,900 JDAMs"

Ah, no. The rotaries in the 3 bays can only carry 8 GBU-31's a piece times three bays gives you 24 GBU-31V3's. The only external pylon allowed by START is the right forward one for the Sniper Pod.

I thought it might be 8 (makes sense given that each was made for the roughly comparably sized SRAM) but for some reason I had 30 stuck in my head.

 

[mkellytx]

I thought it might be 8 (makes sense given that each was made for the roughly comparably sized SRAM) but for some reason I had 30 stuck in my head.

Yeah, the 30+ load was SRAM2, smaller diameter all that jazz. The dual GBU-38 adapter on the rotary was a smart piece of kit, all the swing arms and moving parts made the 28 byes less than ideal. An eight position rotary doubled up (16 GBU-38's) sure beat only loading 7 on the 10 byes (fin clearance), hell, 4 -31's and 8 -38's per bay is pretty respectable for most target sets...

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/03/05/lrsb-bomber-cost-plus-contract-air-force/24432697/

 

[Flyaway]

Or it could simply be taking them a few weeks longer to come to a decision which itself could be based on a host of factors. Not a big deal at all. The RFP is out, the proposals are most likely in and now they have to go over them carefully making sure to pick the best one.

I still reckon whoever the loser is they'll be around the GAO like a shot. Such is the size & importance of the contract that a protest would almost seem mandatory.

 

[bring_it_on]

Well the reason given by Avweek (I think) for why they may wait till around Q4 of this year to announce a winner publicly (after deciding it in the summer) was that they want to give time for the entire process of appeals so your point is perfectly valid.

 

[marauder2048]

Well the reason given by Avweek (I think) for why they may wait till around Q4 of this year to announce a winner publicly (after deciding it in the summer) was that they want to give time for the entire process of appeals so your point is perfectly valid.

Agreed. Boeing's recent restructuring of their Defense unit *except* the bomber team might suggest that they bid very aggressively. Caveat Emptor.

 

[marauder2048]

Sferrin, RFP figures for NGB payload and range is kinda known. Taking into account that LRS-B is even less ambitious, what you trying to prove to me? That USAF analytics were wrong?
We have already discussed that MOP won't be on LRS-B, btw.

All I've ever said was this:

"Even if you used F-35 level of technology (instead on inventing new), F135 engines, the avionics, sensors, and displays from the F-35 it would STILL come in greater than 550 million if you're looking at a B-1B/B-52 replacement. Only way you'd have a prayer is if you went with what would be considered a medium bomber. I'm talking B-47/B-58 sized. I could easily see them doing that and then trying to spin it as a heavy bomber because of range and the fact that precisions munitions are much smaller. Never mind the fact that an actual heavy bomber can carry things like MOP, Hound Dog sized cruise missiles, or 20 ALCMs."

All the rest of the back and forth was me pointing out that the new bomber is not equivalent to the aircraft it's replacing with others saying, essentially, "it doesn't matter". It does matter but we're not willing to spend the amount of money to replace a heavy bomber with a heavy bomber so we get what we're getting.

Not to alarm you but some of the ESAV designs slot in between the B-58 and the B-1B. But those designs seem to be conceived to deliberately outwit New Start by coming in under the range (~ 4300 n.mi.) specs for a heavy bomber. Haney's recent remarks are interesting in this regard.

 

[marauder2048]

FWIW, Loren Thompson has weighed in on some of the issues of interest (range > 5000 n.mi, payload < B-2, no supersonic cruise/dash etc.) on LRS-B and calls the competition for Boeing.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2015/03/09/the-air-forces-b-3-bomber-isnt-as-secret-as-it-seems/

 

[flateric]

Oh, what outstanding discoveries did she make!