US Next Generation Bomber Studies

[Rhinocrates]

Aha, so it does! According to "003" below at least.

Still, something like sixty years of development in avionics since and one big off-centre bomb depicted in the original Avro design.

Other images show a centreline bomb bay - e.g.. "lm-boeing-ngb-planform-view" "ngb" - are these to be taken seriously?

Third picture turned out to be some AFRL concept, fourth is incorrect CBSA reconstruction based on published B/LM NGB render

Thanks!

 

[bring_it_on]

Kendall: New AF Bomber Will Compete Upgrades

WASHINGTON — The US Air Force's next-generation bomber program will compete for the right to do future technology upgrades, the Pentagon's top weapons buyer told reporters Thursday.

Speaking at a rollout of his Better Buying Power 3.0 acquisition strategy, Frank Kendall, Pentagon undersecretary for acquisition, said the Long Range Strike-Bomber (LRS-B) is being designed to incorporate new technologies, and that those technologies will be individually competed.

"The design is structured so that we have the opportunity to insert technology refresh in a way we have not had the flexibility to do in the past," Kendall said. "That is one of the things we asked for … modular designs and the idea of competition for future upgrades is very much a part of that approach.

"I think we will have opportunities to compete technologies that can go into the bomber to a degree we would not have had really on other programs we have had before," Kendall said. "I think the program office has done a good job of that."

That means whichever team wins the right to build the bomber will have to accept that competitors can still fight over a piece of the sustainment-and-upgrade pie. Northrop Grumman is competing with a team of Lockheed Martin and Boeing for the right to produce the bomber, which will eventually replace the B-1 and B-52 fleets.

Kendall did not go into detail about how much of the bomber's technology refresh would be competed, but the Air Force has made competition over the life cycle of its programs a priority. Officials for the F-35 joint strike fighter, for example, are looking at training contracts as a way to inject competition into that program.

Forcing competition into programs is seen as a way to drive down overall lifecycle costs, something that will be particularly important with the bomber program, which has a self-imposed cap of $550 million per copy in 2010 dollars. The program is expected to downselect this summer.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/air-force/2015/04/09/new-usaf-bomber-will-compete-upgrades-frank-kendall/25536669/

 

[bring_it_on]

Who Chooses? It’s a Secret

The Air Force won’t say who the source selection authority is for the Long-Range Strike Bomber, but it’s not Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh, he said Wednesday. “I’m completely isolated from that,” he told reporters in Washington, D.C. “I have no knowledge at all of what’s in the bids, ... which I think is completely appropriate ,” Welsh said. A USAF spokesman said the service does not divulge such information, presumably to shield the SSA from people attempting to influence the choice. The request for proposals went out last year, and a choice is expected this summer. Welsh said he has visited both the Boeing/Lockheed Martin team and Northrop Grumman, and “I was very confident on where both teams were before they submitted bids ... I was impressed by both—the work they’ve been doing—and so I’m excited to see how this moves forward.” Welsh reiterated that LRS-B requirements have not changed since they were set in 2010, adding the program has not changed. “I have not approved a single requirements change since I’ve been in this job. We are serious about maintaining the baseline cost,” which is $550 million apiece in baseline 2010 dollars, “and I think we can produce the bomber for that cost.”

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2015/April%202015/April%2009%202015/Who-Chooses-It%E2%80%99s-a-Secret.aspx

 

[flateric]

LRS-B is being designed to allow upgrades to be competed
April 10th, 2015 by alert5

The Pentagon’s chief weapons buyer, Frank Kendall, said the Long Range Strike-Bomber (LRS-B) is being designed such that when it comes to upgrading the airplane, anyone can compete for it.

“The design is structured so that we have the opportunity to insert technology refresh in a way we have not had the flexibility to do in the past,” Kendall said. “That is one of the things we asked for … modular designs and the idea of competition for future upgrades is very much a part of that approach.”

 

[flateric]

F-35, LRS-B to Benefit from New Acquisition Policies

—OTTO KREISHER

The Pentagon's new effort to improve the defense acquisition system will focus on enabling programs to respond quicker to technological advances and changes in the threat, an idea already being applied to the F-35 program and one that will be used on the Long-Range Strike Bomber, defense acquisition executive Frank Kendall said. Unveiling the implementation for Better Buying Power 3.0 at an April 9 Pentagon briefing, Kendall said a key factor in helping the US military maintain its crucial technological edge would be building new weapons with a modular, open-system design that would allow rapid technology upgrades. He said the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is "on our third iteration of technology refreshment" and is not yet operational. Asked how BBP 3.0 would apply to the LRS-B program, Kendall said he could not say much about it because it was classified and still under competition, but it would have a modular design and technological upgrades would be a "big part" of it. The new acquisition policies also would give them the ability to compete the technology going into the bomber that they did not have before, Kendall said. He indicated that could mean separate competitions for future upgrades after the production contract award.

 

[phrenzy]

That's not what the article claims. It says that LM is doing the whole design effort and Boeing is just there for fabrication (i.e., LM does the design and tells Boeing "build this"). That would be ignoring a lot of design expertise within Boeing's Phantom Works for no good reason.

Yeah, I can't see that.

Except that it must be pretty hard to share the design work without giving away trade secrets. You can't have one group design the wing and the other designing the RAM without giving away the specs of the skin to the other team. Certainly phantom works is capable but it's hard to see how they could cooperate effectively on designing a top flight stealth program without sharing proprietary info.

Maybe they are doing all in design work together though. As long as the F-35 goes ahead it's not like there's a pile of other big programs on the horizon that the technology either team would be exposed to could employ it on. Maybe a few uclass class UAV's. Plus, not everyone is s career skunk works / phantom works employee, they must have worker migration and deal with people working for the opposition with a legal promise not to migrate what they know, I suppose that could happen with the companies working in tandem. In a competition this valuable it's hard to believe they would leave any technology on the table just to keep it from the other teammate.

I suppose the general shape and planform is going to have to be shared though and won't be very sensitive, Boeing could be designing the internal structures, bomb bay and various systems integration.

 

[flateric]

"without sharing proprietary info" sometimes sounds funny these days...
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-checks-x-47b-rcs-202190/

 

[Mat Parry]

I was always amused by the skunk works logo on a pole model for Northrop's X-47b (visable on the 3rd photo flateric shared).
What's always been more of a puzzler for me is why do rcs testing on a model that does not have a engine inlet?

Northrop's proprietary information?
Or
are engine inlet (& exhaust) designs optimised at a different (later?) stage of the of the design process

 

[sublight_]

Maybe somebody can answer over in the X-47b thread; If the X-47b was supposed to just have a "notional" stealth shape and the platforms primary purpose was the testing of its autonomous systems and carrier integration, then why was all the pole model testing done?

 

[bring_it_on]

For measurement and design refinement? The program did not require them to demonstrate RCS with the 2 vehicles, but NG would still require to measure, and document its RCS in order to use the design as it submits its bids for further contracts that are likely to follow up.

 

[flateric]

Maybe somebody can answer over in the X-47b thread; If the X-47b was supposed to just have a "notional" stealth shape and the platforms primary purpose was the testing of its autonomous systems and carrier integration, then why was all the pole model testing done?

Read FG article on testing again.
"...pole model that is modular and flexible, allowing large-scale physical changes. The model is being used as a design tool, rather than simply for signature demonstration."

 

[sublight_]

Maybe somebody can answer over in the X-47b thread; If the X-47b was supposed to just have a "notional" stealth shape and the platforms primary purpose was the testing of its autonomous systems and carrier integration, then why was all the pole model testing done?

Read FG article on testing again.
"...pole model that is modular and flexible, allowing large-scale physical changes. The model is being used as a design tool, rather than simply for signature demonstration."

Respectfully, the wings may be extended as well as flaps and other surfaces, but the dimensions of the fuselage are going to change very little. It is not exactly a pile of legos. And it is a design tool for whom? For Lockheed to build platforms for Northrop?

 

[flateric]

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/lockheed-martin-debuts-revolutionary-x-47b-pole-model-design-55160887.html

 

[quellish]

Respectfully, the wings may be extended as well as flaps and other surfaces, but the dimensions of the fuselage are going to change very little. It is not exactly a pile of legos. And it is a design tool for whom? For Lockheed to build platforms for Northrop?

It is a pile of legos, that's the point.
The dimensions and the shape of the vehicle may change significantly. The X-47B in particular has many challenges to solve. The best shapes for RF signature are some of the worst for meeting USN requirements. Look at how different the X-47A and X-47B are. X-47A has a very aggressive RF signature, but would not be fun on a carrier and compromises payload. The X-47B can do carrier-type things and can carry more mass, but the RF signature is not as aggressive.


They want to understand the trade off space better. Northrop no longer has an outdoor RCS range where they can do these things easily, so they are working with LM.

 

[jsport]

not having competeting outside RF signature ranges is a bad thing.

 

[flateric]

http://www.pogo.org/blog/2015/04/20150416-major-concerns-unaddressed-as-lobbyists-battle-for-new-stealth-bomber.html
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/defense-giants-face-off-over-bid-for-new-stealth-bomber-116980.html?hp=t3_r

 

[sferrin]

http://www.pogo.org/blog/2015/04/20150416-major-concerns-unaddressed-as-lobbyists-battle-for-new-stealth-bomber.html

"If this sounds familiar, it should. As Tony Capaccio reports for Bloomberg Business, the LRS-B’s predecessor the B-2, “was planned as 132 planes for about $571 million each in 1991 dollars before the first Bush administration cut the fleet to 20 planes in the early 1990s. That resulted in a price of about $2.2 billion per bomber, a fourfold increase, in a program that remained highly classified during its development.”"


<Insert obligatory facepalm> Typical POGO cluelessness. R&D is a fixed cost and when you cut the numbers total unit cost is going to go up, and this has absolutely zero to do with anything other than you don't get to divide the R&D cost into as many pieces. But they want to imply that, "see what secrecy gets you? They're hiding all kinds of stuff."

 

[sublight_]

Respectfully, the wings may be extended as well as flaps and other surfaces, but the dimensions of the fuselage are going to change very little. It is not exactly a pile of legos. And it is a design tool for whom? For Lockheed to build platforms for Northrop?

It is a pile of legos, that's the point.

If you look at the pictures posted above, the fuselage doesn't have any seams, which is why I say it does not look like a pile of legos. You would have to take a chainsaw/blowtorch/etc to it in order to really change its shape. Do all the edges look replaceable? Yes, those do.

 

[TomS]

It looks like there might be a seam across the nose, suggesting that the nose at least might be swappable. Also there may be one at the wing root and wingtip, so the gross wing shape might also be changable.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.pogo.org/blog/2015/04/20150416-major-concerns-unaddressed-as-lobbyists-battle-for-new-stealth-bomber.html

"If this sounds familiar, it should. As Tony Capaccio reports for Bloomberg Business, the LRS-B’s predecessor the B-2, “was planned as 132 planes for about $571 million each in 1991 dollars before the first Bush administration cut the fleet to 20 planes in the early 1990s. That resulted in a price of about $2.2 billion per bomber, a fourfold increase, in a program that remained highly classified during its development.”"


<Insert obligatory facepalm> Typical POGO cluelessness. R&D is a fixed cost and when you cut the numbers total unit cost is going to go up, and this has absolutely zero to do with anything other than you don't get to divide the R&D cost into as many pieces. But they want to imply that, "see what secrecy gets you? They're hiding all kinds of stuff."

POGO is a joke IMHO, partisan hacks who are against any new weapon system since I can remember. They truly embody "figure lie and liars figure"

 

[LowObservable]

The pole model is pretty generic and was part of J-UCAS, when LM and NG were teamed. As the release states, it was a demo for RCS validation and modeling techniques rather than an RCS demo for the design.


As for POGO, I don't understand the anger. It's not as if everyone in DC is pure in heart and motive, and if you want money or power (the local currencies) being pro-big-program is demonstrably the best way to do it. And the point about the B-2 cost spiral is entirely valid. At the point when the final cut to 21 happened, the flyaway cost for another 20 was already north of $500 million each and development to a supportable standard was far from complete.


Any time you start with double-figure production numbers you are vulnerable to rapid increases in PAUC, which ultimately is the measure of strategic investment.

 

[sferrin]

As for POGO, I don't understand the anger.

Because they like to portray themselves as a beacon of truth and impartiality while twisting details, and misrepresenting the facts with the worst of them.

And the point about the B-2 cost spiral is entirely valid. At the point when the final cut to 21 happened, the flyaway cost for another 20 was already north of $500 million each and development to a supportable standard was far from complete.

"North of $500 million" is far different than $2.2 billion. The way they put it the increase to $2.2 billion was because classification allowed the hiding of incompetence and corruption. [/quote][/quote]

 

[marauder2048]

As for POGO, I don't understand the anger. It's not as if everyone in DC is pure in heart and motive, and if you want money or power (the local currencies) being pro-big-program is demonstrably the best way to do it

Strategic systems have been absolute career kryptonite for civilian and uniformed alike for a very long time now.

But I guess that doesn't prevent those of impure heart and motive not to mention improbably long planning horizons from trying
to infiltrate into positions where they can tap the DOD's Multi-Billion Dollar Stealth Slush FundTM

 

[Steve Pace]

Tell that to the B-2 drivers that flew nearly 50-hour missions to drop their precision munitions. -SP

 

[sferrin]

Tell that to the B-2 drivers that flew nearly 50-hour missions to drop their precision munitions. -SP

I'll bet they wished they were flying B-70s. 12 hours sounds way better than 50. ;D

 

[RadicalDisconnect]

As for POGO, I don't understand the anger.

Read their articles on the F-22's performance (especially when comparing to the F-16), and tell me they're not distorting information.

 

[marauder2048]

Tell that to the B-2 drivers that flew nearly 50-hour missions to drop their precision munitions. -SP

That's exactly my point; it's a calling not a career. No careerist or ruthless opportunist (i.e. those of impure heart and motive) would be willing to make the above commitment
because the literal payoff (in or out of the service) is so low. IOW, the people who are there are there for the right reasons.

 

[Dragon029]

As for POGO, I don't understand the anger.

Read their articles on the F-22's performance (especially when comparing to the F-16), and tell me they're not distorting information.

Do you have a link to a specific article or two? I'm not doubting you, just interested in seeing how far they go.

 

[LowObservable]

"North of $500 million" is far different than $2.2 billion

Indeed it is. However, as I made perfectly clear, the $500m+ was a flyaway price (not even APUC) that was causing indigestion on all sides, not just among 60 Minutes and Pogo. and would have triggered acute appendicitis had it been widely known how far (in $ and time) the B-2 was from being a practical, operable system, and what its O&S costs were.

 

[RadicalDisconnect]

As for POGO, I don't understand the anger.

Read their articles on the F-22's performance (especially when comparing to the F-16), and tell me they're not distorting information.

Do you have a link to a specific article or two? I'm not doubting you, just interested in seeing how far they go.

Well then...

http://www.slideshare.net/Picard578/stevenson-f-22-brief

http://www.pogo.org/our-work/reports/2000/ns-fa22-20000810.html

The Sound Signature - Modernity and the sound of a booming supersonic F-22 allow high-speed computers to identify it and (given an intergrated net of sensors) provide sufficiently accurate position location and prediction.
...
The F–22 does not provide a Great Leap Forward in performance relative to the F–15C or MiG-29. At 65,000 lbs, with 18,500–18,750 lbs of fuel, with two nominal 35,000 lb thrust engines—it has the thrust to weight ratio of the F–15C, the fuel fraction of the F–15C, and a wing loading that is only slightly inferior to that of the F–15C, so it will accelerate, climb, and maneuver much like the F–15C for reasons of basic physics.

Or how about this gem that compares the M48 with the M1A2 Abrams. I'll let you guess who Mr. Sprey picked as the winner.

http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/09/07.pdf

Note that those who post about the F-22 on POGO are Pierre Sprey and Winslow Wheeler. You can easily dig up their garbage pieces on the F-22.

 

[sferrin]

Note that those who post about the F-22 on POGO are Pierre Sprey and Winslow Wheeler. You can easily dig up their garbage pieces on the F-22.

Don't forget Everest Riccioni (though they seem to have turned him out to pasture). He was right there with them. In one piece he went on and on about how the F119 was the wrong engine for the F-35 because it was designed for supercruise and the F-35 was not. When I pointed out the F-35 used the F135 his reaction was, "oh, I didn't know that". The rest of his article was equally informative. :

 

[bring_it_on]

As for POGO, I don't understand the anger.

Read their articles on the F-22's performance (especially when comparing to the F-16), and tell me they're not distorting information.

Do you have a link to a specific article or two? I'm not doubting you, just interested in seeing how far they go.

Well then...

http://www.slideshare.net/Picard578/stevenson-f-22-brief

http://www.pogo.org/our-work/reports/2000/ns-fa22-20000810.html

The Sound Signature - Modernity and the sound of a booming supersonic F-22 allow high-speed computers to identify it and (given an intergrated net of sensors) provide sufficiently accurate position location and prediction.
...
The F–22 does not provide a Great Leap Forward in performance relative to the F–15C or MiG-29. At 65,000 lbs, with 18,500–18,750 lbs of fuel, with two nominal 35,000 lb thrust engines—it has the thrust to weight ratio of the F–15C, the fuel fraction of the F–15C, and a wing loading that is only slightly inferior to that of the F–15C, so it will accelerate, climb, and maneuver much like the F–15C for reasons of basic physics.

Or how about this gem that compares the M48 with the M1A2 Abrams. I'll let you guess who Mr. Sprey picked as the winner.

http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/09/07.pdf

Note that those who post about the F-22 on POGO are Pierre Sprey and Winslow Wheeler. You can easily dig up their garbage pieces on the F-22.

Using performance that has absolutely ZERO relevance to any mission profile is the hallmark of their analysis. Of course you have willing folks out there that are ready to swallow up whatever stuff they put out. Check this gem for example...They don't point out the fact that the Viper in that hot rod performance is nearly out of fuel and has only about 2 missiles and a gun. Yeah, thats a profile the F-22 (or the F-35) is likely to be sent up in...because you know, thats how the F-16's are kitted by the USAF or NATO customers...

 

[LowObservable]

Reading the Stevenson brief, it seems that whatever anyone here may think of his analysis, he reached the same conclusion that Bob Gates did, about three years before Gates: That the F-22's advantages were offset by inflexibility and high cost.

 

[bobbymike]

Reading the Stevenson brief, it seems that whatever anyone here may think of his analysis, he reached the same conclusion that Bob Gates did, about three years before Gates: That the F-22's advantages were offset by inflexibility and high cost.

Stopped clock analysis. Or maybe the throw every claim possible cause a couple have to be right. Claiming 'high cost' or 'cost overruns' is really insightful you could probably pick random people off the street for 'in depth' details like that.

 

[sferrin]

Reading the Stevenson brief, it seems that whatever anyone here may think of his analysis, he reached the same conclusion that Bob Gates did, about three years before Gates: That the F-22's advantages were offset by inflexibility and high cost.

I think Bob Gates arrived at whatever conclusion Gordon England told him to when it came to the F-22. As for "F-22's advantages were offset by inflexibility and high cost." that's pretty much subjective opinion. One the USAF doesn't agree with. The decision to end F-22 production is already being seen for the foolhardy decision it was.

 

[Sundog]

Reading the Stevenson brief, it seems that whatever anyone here may think of his analysis, he reached the same conclusion that Bob Gates did, about three years before Gates: That the F-22's advantages were offset by inflexibility and high cost.

I think Bob Gates arrived at whatever conclusion Gordon England told him to when it came to the F-22. As for "F-22's advantages were offset by inflexibility and high cost." that's pretty much subjective opinion. One the USAF doesn't agree with. The decision to end F-22 production is already being seen for the foolhardy decision it was.

Why was it fool hardy? There isn't a single threat out there that even requires an F-22 and there won't be for at least another decade and even then, it won't be in enough numbers to make a difference.


What's fool hardy is the USAF starving the previous generation of major upgrades that could see them last well into the future in order to pursue technology they can't affords to use. They're cannibalizing our current forces to pay for the F-35. That isn't a smart trade off. Upgraded F-15s and F-16s could have been purchased in much higher numbers than the F-22 and F-35 and would have provided plenty of needed capability. But the USAF insists on using technology that actually isn't ready for prime time and ends up spending a lot more than expected as a result. It looks like they may have learned their lesson with LRS-B, but I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[sferrin]

Reading the Stevenson brief, it seems that whatever anyone here may think of his analysis, he reached the same conclusion that Bob Gates did, about three years before Gates: That the F-22's advantages were offset by inflexibility and high cost.

I think Bob Gates arrived at whatever conclusion Gordon England told him to when it came to the F-22. As for "F-22's advantages were offset by inflexibility and high cost." that's pretty much subjective opinion. One the USAF doesn't agree with. The decision to end F-22 production is already being seen for the foolhardy decision it was.

Why was it fool hardy? There isn't a single threat out there that even requires an F-22 and there won't be for at least another decade and even then, it won't be in enough numbers to make a difference.


What's fool hardy is the USAF starving the previous generation of major upgrades that could see them last well into the future in order to pursue technology they can't affords to use. They're cannibalizing our current forces to pay for the F-35. That isn't a smart trade off. Upgraded F-15s and F-16s could have been purchased in much higher numbers than the F-22 and F-35 and would have provided plenty of needed capability. But the USAF insists on using technology that actually isn't ready for prime time and ends up spending a lot more than expected as a result. It looks like they may have learned their lesson with LRS-B, but I'll believe it when I see it.

No, no, no, you got that all wrong. We should have killed the F-15 and F-16 and kept buying F-4s. 'cuz, you know, F-4s man. : (BTW there are many threats out there that require an F-22 or F-35.)

 

[bobbymike]

Reading the Stevenson brief, it seems that whatever anyone here may think of his analysis, he reached the same conclusion that Bob Gates did, about three years before Gates: That the F-22's advantages were offset by inflexibility and high cost.

I think Bob Gates arrived at whatever conclusion Gordon England told him to when it came to the F-22. As for "F-22's advantages were offset by inflexibility and high cost." that's pretty much subjective opinion. One the USAF doesn't agree with. The decision to end F-22 production is already being seen for the foolhardy decision it was.

Why was it fool hardy? There isn't a single threat out there that even requires an F-22 and there won't be for at least another decade and even then, it won't be in enough numbers to make a difference.


What's fool hardy is the USAF starving the previous generation of major upgrades that could see them last well into the future in order to pursue technology they can't affords to use. They're cannibalizing our current forces to pay for the F-35. That isn't a smart trade off. Upgraded F-15s and F-16s could have been purchased in much higher numbers than the F-22 and F-35 and would have provided plenty of needed capability. But the USAF insists on using technology that actually isn't ready for prime time and ends up spending a lot more than expected as a result. It looks like they may have learned their lesson with LRS-B, but I'll believe it when I see it.

No, no, no, you got that all wrong. We should have killed the F-15 and F-16 and kept buying F-4s. 'cuz, you know, F-4s man. : (BTW there are many threats out there that require an F-22 or F-35.)

Let alone the million P-51 Mustangs we could have had

 

[Dragon029]

Reading the Stevenson brief, it seems that whatever anyone here may think of his analysis, he reached the same conclusion that Bob Gates did, about three years before Gates: That the F-22's advantages were offset by inflexibility and high cost.

I think Bob Gates arrived at whatever conclusion Gordon England told him to when it came to the F-22. As for "F-22's advantages were offset by inflexibility and high cost." that's pretty much subjective opinion. One the USAF doesn't agree with. The decision to end F-22 production is already being seen for the foolhardy decision it was.

Why was it fool hardy? There isn't a single threat out there that even requires an F-22 and there won't be for at least another decade and even then, it won't be in enough numbers to make a difference.


What's fool hardy is the USAF starving the previous generation of major upgrades that could see them last well into the future in order to pursue technology they can't affords to use. They're cannibalizing our current forces to pay for the F-35. That isn't a smart trade off. Upgraded F-15s and F-16s could have been purchased in much higher numbers than the F-22 and F-35 and would have provided plenty of needed capability. But the USAF insists on using technology that actually isn't ready for prime time and ends up spending a lot more than expected as a result. It looks like they may have learned their lesson with LRS-B, but I'll believe it when I see it.

No, no, no, you got that all wrong. We should have killed the F-15 and F-16 and kept buying F-4s. 'cuz, you know, F-4s man. : (BTW there are many threats out there that require an F-22 or F-35.)

Let alone the million P-51 Mustangs we could have had

A Curtis JN-4 for every citizen!

 

[Steve Pace]

Four airplanes - From the U.S., the 1903 Wright Flyer, Douglas DC-3, Boeing 707, and the SR-71 qualify as game changers. -SP