US Next Generation Bomber Studies

[LowObservable]

$550 million is an APUC, not a flyaway. Helps to get these things right when you are tossing around language like "screeching".


It also helps to be realistic. An 80-100-aircraft program is extremely susceptible to overrun. Development cost is a big fraction of program cost, and in classic terms all the airplanes are high on the learning curve (150-200 units is a rule of thumb for the time it takes to stabilize cost on an all-new design). So any cut to production numbers or a flattened production ramp (to compensate for development delays and overruns) will have a large impact on APUC or program acquisition unit cost.

 

[sferrin]

$550 million is an APUC, not a flyaway. Helps to get these things right when you are tossing around language like "screeching".

Strike a nerve?

"The Air Force plans to buy 100 aircraft and says the flyaway cost will be about $550 million per plane in 2010 dollars (that’s at least $600 million already)."

 

[LowObservable]

Regardless of what BD says, I believe that's an APUC.

 

[AeroFranz]

Something to remember when the usual suspects start trying to get attention by exaggerating costs is the $550 million is FLYAWAY cost in 2010 dollars. R&D not included in that $550 million. Give it a day or two and you'll see headlines screeching, "New bomber already at $1billion a piece. Death spiral commencing."

Said suspects will just find and replace all "F-35" for "Next Generation Bomber".

Is there some perverse masochistic pleasure in dragging F-35 into every single thread? this is about LRS-B. We all have our opinions on F-35, that we debated ad nauseam. Let's give that a rest, please.

 

[Flyaway]

Just out of interest how many people make a choice on this programme as too which one is chosen and who are they?

 

[flateric]

Just out of interest how many people make a choice on this programme as too which one is chosen and who are they?

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/06/kendall-laplante-complete-long-range-strike-bomber-review-exclusive/

 

[sferrin]

Regardless of what BD says, I believe that's an APUC.

Do you know of any document that specifically states it one way or another? So far everything I'm turning up is saying it's fly away cost. ???

 

[Flyaway]

Perhaps the better question then would be will we find out down the line who has made the decision?

 

[sferrin]

Just out of interest how many people make a choice on this programme as too which one is chosen and who are they?

I would be more interested in the criteria used to make the decision. I don't care if it's the CEOs of Boeing and NG who make the choice if the objective facts back their decision. (Of course I'm sure both sides are trying to muddy the waters as much as possible.)

 

[bring_it_on]

Regardless of what BD says, I believe that's an APUC.

Do you know of any document that specifically states it one way or another? So far everything I'm turning up is saying it's fly away cost. ???

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE PRESENTATION TO THE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITEE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The average production unit cost (APUC) requirement for LRS-B remains $550M (Base Year 2010) for 100 aircraft. This APUC has played a very important role in establishing an affordable design to ensure sufficient production and a sustainable inventory of 80-100 aircraft. The LRS-B program remains on track to meet its requirements.

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS28/20140402/101996/HHRG-113-AS28-Bio-ThompsonJ-20140402.pdf

 

[sferrin]

"The average production unit cost (APUC) requirement for LRS-B remains $550M (Base Year 2010) for 100 aircraft."

Okay then, the $550M APUC is only valid if the full 100 aircraft are bought.

 

[LowObservable]

Thx B-i-O. And as S points out, it is apparently conditional on 100 aircraft and would be higher for 80. And it would also be contingent on rate, I would guess.

 

[bring_it_on]

Absolutely, in addition I'd also say its somewhat connected to meeting milestones as far as design are concerned. You need to give proper and timely updates to your supply base for them to be prepared to deliver in what you expect them to do and stay ahead of the cost curves. There may be a dozen or more things one can look at to determine how the price tracks to the requirements and make corrections well before you run into those issues.

 

[bring_it_on]

deleted

 

[bobbymike]

This may seem like a silly question for the more knowledgeable members at SPF but when the selection is made will we get any type of idea what the plane will look like or will that still be top secret?

I mean more than just NG, Boeing/LM artwork

 

[sferrin]

Absolutely, in addition I'd also say its somewhat connected to meeting milestones as far as design are concerned. You need to give proper and timely updates to your supply base for them to be prepared to deliver in what you expect them to do and stay ahead of the cost curves. There may be a dozen or more things one can look at to determine how the price tracks to the requirements and make corrections well before you run into those issues.

Also keep in mind uncertainty is expensive. Nobody is going to invest in long lead savings if they're just going to contract a couple units at a time with promises of more to come.

 

[flateric]

This may seem like a silly question for the more knowledgeable members at SPF but when the selection is made will we get any type of idea what the plane will look like or will that still be top secret?
I mean more than just NG, Boeing/LM artwork

Boeing/LM and NG artwork were of NGB/2018 Bomber. Remember, that LRS-B is a cheaper variant of 'battleship' NGB (which, in her turn, can be compared as Tesla S to Lamborghini Gallardish B-2A).
LO planforms in fact are mostly settled between two competitors - NG will likely go with cranked kite (judging from Super Bowl 'Hangar Ad'), and Boeing LM with mix of Phantom Ray/Polecat OML merged with 1978 original Hal Markarian ATB planform (what an irony).
Judging from the last info, AF will release information 'by stages' and very slowly - not unlike they did in course of ATB - i.e. you will not see fancy pics just few months prior to roll-out.

 

[sferrin]

NG will likely go with cranked kite (judging from Super Bowl 'Hangar Ad'),

I thought the idea was to be more stealthy than the B-2. Isn't the kinked leading edge a step backwards?

 

[flateric]

Cranked kite is less LO but gives much more freedom for designer to pack stuff inside OML. Boeing/LM NGB has wing sweep angle close to 45' btw
Interesting that if you will take a closer look on hangar ad plane, you will notice that leading edges in front of inlets are not straight at all.

 

[quellish]

I thought the idea was to be more stealthy than the B-2.

"More stealthy" meaning what, exactly?

Isn't the kinked leading edge a step backwards?

Backwards from what?

 

[sublight_]

"More stealthy" meaning what, exactly?

VHF stealth. Are they going to go there, or have SEAD/DEAD buddy for the VHF radars? That is the 50 billion dollar question.

 

[Sundog]

It doesn't matter if the leading edge is kinked or straight as long as the design meets the requirements.

 

[sferrin]

I thought the idea was to be more stealthy than the B-2.

"More stealthy" meaning what, exactly?

Meaning what it says.

Isn't the kinked leading edge a step backwards?

Backwards from what?

Backwards from a non-kinked leading edge.

 

[marauder2048]

"The average production unit cost (APUC) requirement for LRS-B remains $550M (Base Year 2010) for 100 aircraft."

Okay then, the $550M APUC is only valid if the full 100 aircraft are bought.

Wouldn't the claimed extensive use of "off-the-shelf components" tend to make flyaway and APUC largely congruent?
Just a guess...

 

[sferrin]

It doesn't matter if the leading edge is kinked or straight as long as the design meets the requirements.

Obviously.

 

[sferrin]

"The average production unit cost (APUC) requirement for LRS-B remains $550M (Base Year 2010) for 100 aircraft."

Okay then, the $550M APUC is only valid if the full 100 aircraft are bought.

Wouldn't the claimed extensive use "off-the-shelf components" tend to make flyaway and APUC largely congruent?
Just a guess...

Aside from the engines I'd think "off the shelf" would be more of a feel-good bullet point than a significant source of savings. Sure, maybe you could cram the avionics of the F-35 into it but it would be far from drag-and-drop.

 

[bring_it_on]

This may seem like a silly question for the more knowledgeable members at SPF but when the selection is made will we get any type of idea what the plane will look like or will that still be top secret?

I mean more than just NG, Boeing/LM artwork

Although the program has hinted at (I think Avweek reported something to that end) that further details may be released at the time of selection announcement (after giving a few months for protests which would surely follow for such a large program) I seriously doubt that the actual design would be shared till at least the first flight or rollout.

 

[marauder2048]

This may seem like a silly question for the more knowledgeable members at SPF but when the selection is made will we get any type of idea what the plane will look like or will that still be top secret?

I mean more than just NG, Boeing/LM artwork

Although the program has hinted at (I think Avweek reported something to that end) that further details may be released at the time of selection announcement (after giving a few months for protests which would surely follow for such a large program) I seriously doubt that the actual design would be shared till at least the first flight or rollout.

Ironically, AvWeek also endorsed the New Start treaty which will allow the Russian inspectors to a get closer, sooner look at LRS-B than any member of the general public.

 

[quellish]

Meaning what it says.

[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Oh, OK. So it's just "teh MOAR STEALTHS than B-2".[/font]
[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]That's very specific and constructive.[/font]

The reality is that there isn't any "more stealths". The B-2 was designed for different requirements than LRS-B. In the last 30 years threats have changed. Saying that the LRS-B requires "[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]teh better dbsms" is meaningless.[/font]
[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]But if it helps the people signing the checks sleep better at night, then it must![/font]

Backwards from a non-kinked leading edge.

"Non-kinked" meaning like the F-117? Again, how is this a step backward?

 

[quellish]

VHF stealth. Are they going to go there, or have SEAD/DEAD buddy for the VHF radars?

"VHF stealth"? Low observable aircraft have had to deal with VHF radars for... ever. They're a known problem with known solutions - and something that is not much of an issue for the B-2.


A VHF radar can tell you something is there (maybe), and wether it's closer to Cleveland or Vegas, but it doesn't get you a kill. Stealth aircraft are not meant to be "invisible" or "undetectable" - they're meant to be survivable. When the laws of physics change to allow a VHF radar to guide a weapon smaller than a nuke to a kill then I'll be worried - mostly because the laws of physics just changed.


VHF radars operate in 1-3 meter bands (IIRC). Features that are electrically that size or smaller will become important specular scattering sources. So fighter-sized aircraft are at a disadvantage. Larger aircraft - like the B-2 - are not. Aircraft without stuff sticking out of them like tails - like the B-2 - not so much.


Physics. It makes the world go round.

 

[marauder2048]

VHF stealth. Are they going to go there, or have SEAD/DEAD buddy for the VHF radars?

"VHF stealth"? Low observable aircraft have had to deal with VHF radars for... ever. They're a known problem with known solutions - and something that is not much of an issue for the B-2.


A VHF radar can tell you something is there (maybe), and wether it's closer to Cleveland or Vegas, but it doesn't get you a kill. Stealth aircraft are not meant to be "invisible" or "undetectable" - they're meant to be survivable. When the laws of physics change to allow a VHF radar to guide a weapon smaller than a nuke to a kill then I'll be worried - mostly because the laws of physics just changed.


VHF radars operate in 1-3 meter bands (IIRC). Features that are electrically that size or smaller will become important specular scattering sources. So fighter-sized aircraft are at a disadvantage. Larger aircraft - like the B-2 - are not. Aircraft without stuff sticking out of them like tails - like the B-2 - not so much.


Physics. It makes the world go round.

I think the point he was trying to make is that Ultra-wideband VHFs have the potential to excite a greater number
of the target's resonant frequencies. Hence, I would think you would want a planform which looks more like the flying kite X-47(a) "Pegasus" than sawtooth flying wings or cranked kites.

 

[LowObservable]

Cranked kite is the result of a compromise between the configurators, aero people and signature groups. "Pure" flying wings are elegant, but hard to put things in, and that creates aero issues when you try. (Classic Northrops were terrible, Hortens somewhat better.) The sig group didn't like the crank, but then they also wanted the B-2 to have a full-span low-radius leading edge, until the aero team beat them about the head.


Phantom Ray is a bit different, but has lower aspect ratio that may have its own costs (wetted area, for one).


Quellish is, I think, being a little too negative on the accuracy of VHF radars and overlooking the potential of cueing higher-frequency AESAs and sensor fusion. Back in the day, we had GD build us a working full-size replica of a P-14. Maybe we have someone building a 55Zh6ME-VHF or Skywatch-V surrogate, but there's no sign of such a thing.

 

[sferrin]

That's very specific and constructive.

Very aggravating isn't it?

 

[sferrin]

Cranked kite is the result of a compromise between the configurators, aero people and signature groups. "Pure" flying wings are elegant, but hard to put things in, and that creates aero issues when you try. (Classic Northrops were terrible, Hortens somewhat better.) The sig group didn't like the crank, but then they also wanted the B-2 to have a full-span low-radius leading edge, until the aero team beat them about the head.

I was thinking more refined B-2 ish (similar to the model Northrop has had in their booths) with different intakes. You still need range with payload, and I'd think the cranked-kite would come up short in that regard as well by comparison. The B-49 was nice but yeah, too much of a compromise. Maybe something like the B-2 was going to be before they came up with the notion that they were going to fly it on the deck (have they ever, even in exercises?) If a cranked-kite can meet the detectability requirements (which hopefully aren't a step back relative to the B-2), and range-with-payload requirements then great. Like the saying goes, "better is the enemy of good enough".

 

[marauder2048]

Cranked kite is the result of a compromise between the configurators, aero people and signature groups. "Pure" flying wings are elegant, but hard to put things in, and that creates aero issues when you try. (Classic Northrops were terrible, Hortens somewhat better.) The sig group didn't like the crank, but then they also wanted the B-2 to have a full-span low-radius leading edge, until the aero team beat them about the head.


Phantom Ray is a bit different, but has lower aspect ratio that may have its own costs (wetted area, for one).


Quellish is, I think, being a little too negative on the accuracy of VHF radars and overlooking the potential of cueing higher-frequency AESAs and sensor fusion. Back in the day, we had GD build us a working full-size replica of a P-14. Maybe we have someone building a 55Zh6ME-VHF or Skywatch-V surrogate, but there's no sign of such a thing.

I was indicating that the tailless diamond X-47a (NG calls it a "tailless kite") is probably the best from a signature
standpoint. Cranking was necessary for carrier compatibility; hard to see how you maintain a reasonable spot factor for a tailless
diamond ("Folding facets"?) as the vehicle scales up.

While flying wings and cranked kites will have better L/D, the longer tailless diamond might make up for that with better SFC;
longer ducts can dissipate the vortices that would otherwise have to be countered with active flow control or tolerated at a loss of total pressure recovery.
It would also permit for the use of a large diameter fan like the P&W 9000.

IOW, the tradeoff of the aero L/D for the propulsion L/D may make the diamond less hopeless.

 

[flateric]

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0OL1FR20150605?irpc=932

U.S. Air Force bomber contract due in early August: sources
By Andrea Shalal
WASHINGTON | Fri Jun 5, 2015 9:42am EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Air Force is expected to unveil in early August whether Northrop Grumman Corp, maker of the B-2 bomber, or a Boeing Co-Lockheed Martin Corp team will build a new U.S. long-range bomber, sources familiar with the competition said.

The top-secret "source selection" process, which could be worth $50 billion to $80 billion to the winning bidder, is nearly complete, with the decision still to be reviewed by top U.S. government lawyers and other officials, said the sources, who were not authorized to speak publicly.

The two teams are competing to build 80 to 100 new bombers for the Air Force at cost of no more than $550 million per aircraft.

Air Force officials initially expected a contract to be awarded this spring, but the target slipped to July several months ago. Last week General Herbert Carlisle, head of Air Combat Command, suggested for the first time the closely watched announcement might not come until August.

The process is winding down, and an announcement now appears likely in early August, the sources said Thursday and Friday.

The Pentagon’s top acquisition official, Frank Kendall, told Breaking Defense, a news website, in an interview late Thursday that he and Air Force acquisition chief William LaPlante had just completed a review of the program.

“We looked at the design to make sure it’s at the level of maturity it’s supposed to be,” Kendall was quoted as saying.

Kendall is the "Milestone Decision Authority" for the program, which means he is accountable for its cost, schedule, and performance, his spokeswoman said.

LaPlante told reporters in May that he expected a decision in one to two months, but that he was focused on ensuring the decision was carefully justified, rather than meeting a specific deadline.

Analysts say the decision will have a huge impact on the U.S. defense sector, particularly the losing team, although Kendall has repeatedly said he does not expect the outcome to trigger a major merger or acquisition.

Kendall has said the decision will be made on the merits of the proposals, not the potential impact on the industrial base.

Loren Thompson, a defense consultant and chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute, said the decision would be made purely on the basis of price and performance.

(Editing by Jeffrey Benkoe)

 

[FighterJock]

Not long to wait to see who is the eventual winner of the LRS-B program. Unlike how long we have got to wait to see the winning design, according to the article in last months Combat Aircraft magazine.

 

[sferrin]

Not long to wait to see who is the eventual winner of the LRS-B program. Unlike how long we have got to wait to see the winning design, according to the article in last months Combat Aircraft magazine.

Not much different than the B-2 program then.

 

[Ian33]

Not long to wait to see who is the eventual winner of the LRS-B program. Unlike how long we have got to wait to see the winning design, according to the article in last months Combat Aircraft magazine.

If I remember correctly, this is to give foreign powers no time to formulate a response before it enters service. Saying that, I still believe that articles are flying already.

 

[FighterJock]

Not long to wait to see who is the eventual winner of the LRS-B program. Unlike how long we have got to wait to see the winning design, according to the article in last months Combat Aircraft magazine.

If I remember correctly, this is to give foreign powers no time to formulate a response before it enters service. Saying that, I still believe that articles are flying already.

So this means that the Russian PAK-DA aircraft could be well out of date by the time that we finally get to see the LRS-B winner. Now I see why they are keeping it secret.