US Next Generation Bomber Studies

[flateric]

Boeing pulls back the curtain on the NGB. Photos courtesy of Bill Sweetman on the Aviation Week website:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3acfe7ae59-0e54-40e3-a40a-55be78ed725c

Who will be third one posting a link to Ares Blog?

 

[THX_1138]

Doh! Sorry about that :

 

[lantinian]

I think Northrop must be smiling while looking at the Lockheed-Martin/Boeing model. Its planform resembles so much the original B-2 proposals from 25 years ago. While I realize that Boing has ideas for major improvements in efficiency through laminar flow control in the center section, the two proposal will differ in their mission profiles and respective performance. But since Air-Force doesn't not have a firm grasp on specific requirements, its all up in the air.
It feel like the concept phase of the AFT in the early 80 where the Air Force was looking at solutions from the industry so that it can define its mission. However the industry seam to have passed the moment of offering concepts 2003-1007 and if focusing instead on a specific solution they believe in best.
Since both teams have more or less a preferred solution or at least one they feel most comfortable with and the time table is so tight, it is very possible that one of the approaches could be immediately favored following the release of the final requirements

So it maybe down to the type of war the USAF is planning to fight. If they getting in and out is more important then Northrop wins, if loiter time over the target area are critical, then Boeing team wins.

Anybody else wants to analyze the designs so far from a mission stand point of view?

I also wander how will their respective configuration effect deployment ability. The Boing design might need a shorter runway but will need larger hangars. I do not know which of the two is the more important when it comes to the question if the bomber can be based in a certain base or not.

 

[flateric]

BAe Systems/Allied TechSystems ABVL (Air Based Vertical Launch) - concept, offered in 2006 as candidate for what then still was called LRS.
Up to 70 launch tubes for 1900-kg missiles, each carrying Small-Diameter Bombs, are placed in two modules forward and back of the wing.
Second module can be refitted for nine larger launch tubes, carrying heavier missiles with up to 7 submunitions on each.

Source: Jane's International Defence Review, March 2006, p. 12

 

[flateric]

well, now with a different sause...

Electronics & Integrated Solutions’ (E&IS) Center for Transformation (CFT) technology organization is engaged in a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)-funded, six-month study to investigate an Air Based Vertical Launch (ABVL) concept for missile programs.
“We are working with DARPA to make the case for ABVL as a highly cost-effective solution to the emerging global strike, long-range strike and missile defense missions,” said CFT Advanced Concepts Director Scott Smith. “BAE Systems will leverage capabilities from across lines of business to evolve this transformational concept for next generation joint warfare and the safety of our troops.”
ABVL was conceived as an affordable way to use a vertical launching system in a large-body aircraft instead of ground-based launches of ballistic missiles.
“By vertically launching missiles above the dense atmosphere, a missile will fly a lot faster than the same missile launched from the ground,” said Tom McCants, director of Technical Operations for the Customer Solutions (CS) operating group.
“The increased missile speed and height of the airplane translate into greater coverage and earlier engagement.”
Having missiles ready aboard an aircraft also maximizes deployment flexibility, McCants said.
ABVL makes the most of missile propulsion, minimizing the missile’s flight time and maximizing its reach, McCants added. “For example, in the hands of the joint commander, a single long-endurance aircraft using ABVL could provide timely, precision strike support for troops both in Afghanistan and Iraq while simultaneously defending against out-of-theater ballistic missile attacks.”
Using a few long-range, longendurance aircraft, McCants said, the U.S. “could sustain this coverage indefinitely.”
Vertical launch of missiles from an airborne platform forms the basis of a BAE Systems patent application, Smith said. The project combines the efforts of Customer Solutions operating group’s Technology Solutions & Services business and the Land & Armaments
operating group’s Armament Systems business along with the CFT.
E&IS’ Sensor Systems, Platform Solutions and Information Warfare lines of business are also contributing.

Electronics & Integrated Solutions Now (October 17, 2005 )

http://www.eis.na.baesystems.com/news_room/newsletters/2005-10-17.pdf

 

[flateric]

well, found a BAe patent...with A380 as carrier considered as well...
http://www.google.com/patents/pdf/Air_based_vertical_launch_ballistic_miss.pdf?id=WHSbAAAAEBAJ&output=pdf&sig=ACfU3U13N-zzB_m3_j3uc8uzxHtTxeFCGw

 

[lantinian]

This reminded me of the movie "The Arrow" with Dan Akroid, where the CF-105 aerodynamic designer was showing a proposed Mach 3 version of the CF-105 with missile launched from it back in a similar fashion. However, it was only intended for cheaper satellites launching platform.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

OK we need a separate threat for that. YOU JUST GOT MY ATTENTION!

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

I meant, "thread" not "threat". See what that did?

 

[OM]

I meant, "thread" not "threat". See what that did?

...I'd share my prescription for Vicodin, but me and "Stumpy" have a priority ;D ;D

 

[antigravite]

In the late 1950s (1958), Lockheed embarked on study of a nuclear-powered aircraft called CAMAL (Continuous Airborne Missile Air Launcher)... Same old ideas, same old stories. CAMAL might have been a source of inspiration for Stanley Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove or How I learn to Love the Bomb" (1964).

 

[flateric]

Well, we have separate thread for cruise missile carriers. BAe project was posted here because it was offered as LRS platform.

 

[donnage99]

So it maybe down to the type of war the USAF is planning to fight. If they getting in and out is more important then Northrop wins, if loiter time over the target area are critical, then Boeing team wins.

Anybody else wants to analyze the designs so far from a mission stand point of view?

The loitering over enemy territory for a long time and attack as targets pop up is one of the requirements from the air force. It has also been emphasized by northrop in their NGLRS study also, I believe. So I think both concepts offer this capability. However, looking at the northrop design, it's hard to figure out how they gonna achieve it, especially their design has short wings and elongated body. I guess their solution is somewhat less obvious then boeing/lockheed.

 

[hole in the ground]

With regards to these "strategic" platforms, I wonder what the effect the slipstream will have on the missiles as they emerge from the tubes. It would make quite a mess if the missile couldn't clear the tail in time or tumbled on release...

 

[flateric]

With regards to these "strategic" platforms, I wonder what the effect the slipstream will have on the missiles as they emerge from the tubes. It would make quite a mess if the missile couldn't clear the tail in time or tumbled on release...

If you will have a spare 15 minutes to read a patent description carefully, you will answer your question yourself.

 

[hole in the ground]

:-[
beg your pardon...

guess i should investigate and engage grey before mouth...

 

[donnage99]

wouldn't a platform with no vertical tail be safer, since it eliminates that chance when the missile fall back and hit the vertical tail?

 

[flateric]

It would be more expensive. BAe solution is cheaper. If the missile will fall back, it will be no difference for crew where exactly did it hit...

 

[donnage99]

It would be more expensive. BAe solution is cheaper. If the missile will fall back, it will be no difference for crew where exactly did it hit...

I think I phrased myself wrong, so I don't think you have the visual image of what I'm talking about. I meant that as the aircraft is flying foward, there's a good chance of the missile will fall backward as it get out of the tube, or that it will not move foward (while flying upward) as fast as the plane and the missile will hit the approaching vertical tail. With no vertical tail, this won't be a problem.

 

[flateric]

'Old' Lockheed FSA in a slightly better quality.

 

[donnage99]

I wonder why do they have to launch the missile vertically while airborne, when they can do it horizontally? Wouldn't that simplify the technical issues down alot? Or is the airborne platform does not fly as high as the attitude intended for these cruise missiles?

Here's an old similar concept that I'm sure alot of you already know:
http://www.g2mil.com/bm747.htm

 

[airrocket]

In the early sixties when I was just a young lad small squadrons of B-52's would fly over my rural farm house at tree top level. This would happen at night as well as in the day time. My bedroom was on the second story of a large farm house located on the very brow of a large hill. These planes would skim the top of our house at night. You would not hear or sense them coming till they we're gone. The sudden roar was violent, window rattling and deafening as they we're flat out hauling ass at tree top level in total darkness. At times I could even smell burnt jet fuel from their exhaust after they had past. In the daytime one could see them fly down into the valleys between the low rolling hills of southwest Iowa. I lived forty five east of Omaha SAC airbase. I cannot imagine a 747 doing anything like that. There is more to those old BUFF's than we realize. That was nearly fifty years ago. We used to get jet fighters as well that would routinely break the sound barrier. None of that kind of cool stuff allowed today. B)

 

[donnage99]

In the early sixties when I was just a young lad small squadrons of B-52's would fly over my rural farm house at tree top level. This would happen at night as well as in the day time. My bedroom was on the second story of a large farm house located on the very brow of a large hill. These planes would skim the top of our house at night. You would not hear or sense them coming till they we're gone. The sudden roar was violent, window rattling and deafening as they we're flat out hauling ass at tree top level in total darkness. At times I could even smell burnt jet fuel from their exhaust after they had past. In the daytime one could see them fly down into the valleys between the low rolling hills of southwest Iowa. I lived forty five east of Omaha SAC airbase. I cannot imagine a 747 doing anything like that. There is more to those old BUFF's than we realize. That was nearly fifty years ago. We used to get jet fighters as well that would routinely break the sound barrier. None of that kind of cool stuff allowed today. B)

I used to live near the Air Force base in Warner Robins, GA, just 2 years ago, sound barriers were almost a daily part of our lives. I've never seen fixed wings aircrafts flying that low around our area, but seen packs of apache flying low enough that you could see the pilots looking down in a school area. Regulations or not, doesn't mean people can't make exceptions ;D

 

[lantinian]

I wonder why do they have to launch the missile vertically while airborne, when they can do it horizontally?

I was trying to find a video of F-14 launching 6 AIM-54 where you could clearly see the missiles climbing to a higher altitude after launch

The reason for this is higher altitude offers less drag. However since climbing up also takes energy, this flight profile is only beneficial if the missile spends enough time in high altitude to save more energy than it lost during climbing. Hence only long range missiles benefit from this. ICBM are the ultimate proof of the concept.

From my personal observation all missiles (not cruise missiles) having a range of more than 100 miles are expected to benefit for a top, near vertical launch.

As far as I remember the missile from GAM like the Russian Triumph also climb to a higher altitude than their target.

The other reason for this flight profile except range is energy. In the final part of the flight the missile can retain a lot of energy simply because it follows a downward trajectory. For air targets this translates into smaller no except zones and for ground targets this translates into a higher impact power.

So in one sentence, the reason is that the munition launched will lose less energy to reach its higher cruising altitude when launched near vertically then if launched horizontally.

 

[donnage99]

There are several really nice fanart of the lockheed/boeing design and northrop design of the newest popular science issue. I can't post all the pix, but here's one that is available from their website:

 

[donnage99]

another one from popsci (anyone knows how to get a larger image?)

 

[fightingirish]

There are several really nice fanart of the lockheed/boeing design and northrop design of the newest popular science issue. I can't post all the pix, but here's one that is available from their website:

The USAF Sign is twisted.

 

[Demon Lord Razgriz]

What issue of PM is that from? ???

 

[donnage99]

What issue of PM is that from? ???

popular science the latest issue. You can get the article online at popsci website, though.
http://www.popsci.com/node/30794

 

[hesham]

Hi,

http://www.aee.odu.edu/fas.php?id=3

 

[flateric]

this is fantasy BS

 

[lantinian]

By Graham Warwick
The U.S. Air Force remains interested in a high-speed, long-range strike aircraft despite the decision to stay subsonic for its Next-Generation Bomber and cancellation of the Blackswift hypersonic demonstrator.

A subsonic bomber was chosen because the technology for a highly survivable supersonic aircraft was not mature enough to meet the 2018 service-entry goal, says Ronald Paul, chief scientist for the Air Force Research Laboratory's air vehicles directorate. "Highly survivable" means broadband all-aspect stealth and requires a tailless configuration with embedded engines, which has never been done with a supersonic aircraft, he says.

When the Air Force defined its 2018 bomber, "the technology was not on the table" for a supersonic aircraft, says Paul. Now the AFRL is wind tunnel-testing supersonic, long-range strike designs by Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. A key enabling technology being matured is active flow control, says Paul, both in the stealthy serpentine inlet and exhaust ducts for the embedded engines and for flight control of the tailless platform.

The AFRL is also working with USAF's Air Combat Command and Pacific Command on an analysis of long-range strike options. This is a follow-on to the studies that resulted in selection of a manned subsonic aircraft as the Next-Generation Bomber, but is focused on weapons, says Paul.

Options being studied include high-speed weapons such as a long-range missile based on technology from the Boeing X-51A scramjet-powered hypersonic demonstrator, which is scheduled to fly toward the end of this year.

With cancellation of the hypersonic Blackswift - which would have tested turbojet/scramjet combined-cycle propulsion in a reusable demonstrator - the laboratory is looking for additional funding to test a long-range version of the X-51, says AFRL's commander, Maj. Gen. Curtis Bedke.

Blackswift - a joint program between AFRL and the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency - was canceled last year by Congress, which was skeptical that the unmanned demonstrator could meet its ambitious goals. These included taking off from a runway, accelerating on turbojet power, transitioning to scramjets, cruising and maneuvering at Mach 6, and returning to a runway landing.

If the AFRL is allowed to keep the money intended for Blackswift, Bedke says, it could be used to advance a range of hypersonic technologies, including further developments of the air-launched, missile-size X-51.

Yes, as flateric sad, this tread if for only official stuff like the quote from AWST, Jan 11, 09

 

[airrocket]

Are you suggesting an air force supersonic bailout package???? Such a package is just not popping up on my radar screen..... I think POPsci is daydreaming or sensationalizing for reader interest.

 

[flateric]

Not PopSci, this is Aviation Week's

 

[flateric]

ta-da-da-da
http://uk.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUKN2746826620090127
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3ace5e7529-1bfa-4135-aa88-1ffd32951a8d

 

[Lampshade111]

this is fantasy BS

What is? The B-3 specifications the USAF settled on seems realistic enough.

If the USAF had a ton more money to work with I would have like to seen some sort of advanced Mach 3 stealth bomber. Yet I imagine the Air Force was correct in ruling out supersonic stealth designs as too costly.

 

[flateric]

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:ee82f877-8742-40f9-bbf0-91342c6fad53

Northrop Grumman's NGB X-Posed
Posted by Bill Sweetman at 3/20/2009 6:30 AM CDT
Just released - the design patent on Northrop Grumman's Next Generation Bomber concept.

Details: as expected, it looks smaller than a B-2. Four engines make life easier for the signatures group, because the smaller inlet duct can achieve the required radar-blocking curvature in a lesser length. Most likely, a single weapon bay on the centerline. And, as expected, a variation on the Northrop Grumman "cranked kite" planform family. And, overall, not too far from the concept that Jozef Gatial produced for us last year (sic!)

No wonder I was getting some odd looks from Northrop Grumman people. Another observation: some of the names on the patent are relative newcomers, this being their first patent for the company. The patent was filed at the end of 2007 - just before Northrop Grumman reported a major contract win, probably associated with the NGB project.

 

[Stuka]

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2765.msg49048.html#msg49048

 

[lantinian]

I'd swear that the rear and front view of the design have very little to do with the top view. They just don't add up.

Will they be using a modification of the F-118 engines that were on the B-2? I just think the F414 will be an overkill, not to mention the F136.

 

[flateric]

I was always wondering if there's a special persons in aerospace industry who takes original drawings/CAD printouts and degrades them to a harsh level we see in patents like this? =)