US Next Generation Bomber Studies

[sublight_]

a VHF space based option

On what frequencies? VHF does not get along with the ionosphere.

 

[Moose]

You want a space based passive VHF detector? I would assume that would be a rather gargantuan receiver array, or a hell of a lot of smaller ones networked.

 

[bobbymike]

These links are subscriber only, sorry:

http://aviationweek.com/defense/under-radar-project-aims-slash-boeing-costs?NL=AW-19&Issue=AW-19_20150716_AW-19_223&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=3186&utm_medium=email&elq2=4327e65b3c014cafa3b83e06adbe9e16

Boeing believes a closely held manufacturing technology initiative, code-named Black Diamond, will give it a competitive edge in the Long-Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B) and T-X trainer contests and also reduce the costs of future commercial airplane programs, according to outside analysts who have been briefed on it. The effort is led by the Phantom Works unit of Boeing’s Defense, Space & Security division, which is believed to be building a large-scale demonstrator airframe to prove and showcase key technologies.

Black Diamond, one analyst says, is closely linked to new CEO Dennis Muilenburg. “It’s one reason why he’s the next CEO,” that source says. Boeing declined comment on the initiative.

Black Diamond is company-funded and free from government security regulations, which has allowed the company to involve its commercial aircraft unit and its outside partners. Its goal is to advance the state of the art in two related disciplines: engineering based on detailed computer models that include all the physical properties of each part, not just its shape, and robotic fabrication and assembly
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-economics-credibility-dominate-bomber-decision?NL=AW-19&Issue=AW-19_20150716_AW-19_223&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_3&utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=3186&utm_medium=email&elq2=4327e65b3c014cafa3b83e06adbe9e16

The story so far in the Long-Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B) program will make fascinating reading when and if the participants can tell it without being tossed into a federal slammer.

It would have been easy if the people who had built a stealth bomber and stealth unmanned air vehicle (UAV) had teamed with the people who build hundreds of large airplanes every year, and have learned the hard way how to do that in composites. But they didn’t, so Pentagon acquisition czar Frank Kendall, Air Force acquisition boss Bill LaPlante and their staffs have had to earn their pay to choose between Northrop Grumman and the Boeing/Lockheed Martin team.

 

[sferrin]

These links are subscriber only, sorry:

http://aviationweek.com/defense/under-radar-project-aims-slash-boeing-costs?NL=AW-19&Issue=AW-19_20150716_AW-19_223&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=3186&utm_medium=email&elq2=4327e65b3c014cafa3b83e06adbe9e16

Boeing believes a closely held manufacturing technology initiative, code-named Black Diamond, will give it a competitive edge in the Long-Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B) and T-X trainer contests and also reduce the costs of future commercial airplane programs, according to outside analysts who have been briefed on it. The effort is led by the Phantom Works unit of Boeing’s Defense, Space & Security division, which is believed to be building a large-scale demonstrator airframe to prove and showcase key technologies.

Black Diamond, one analyst says, is closely linked to new CEO Dennis Muilenburg. “It’s one reason why he’s the next CEO,” that source says. Boeing declined comment on the initiative.

Black Diamond is company-funded and free from government security regulations, which has allowed the company to involve its commercial aircraft unit and its outside partners. Its goal is to advance the state of the art in two related disciplines: engineering based on detailed computer models that include all the physical properties of each part, not just its shape, and robotic fabrication and assembly
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-economics-credibility-dominate-bomber-decision?NL=AW-19&Issue=AW-19_20150716_AW-19_223&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_3&utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=3186&utm_medium=email&elq2=4327e65b3c014cafa3b83e06adbe9e16

The story so far in the Long-Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B) program will make fascinating reading when and if the participants can tell it without being tossed into a federal slammer.

It would have been easy if the people who had built a stealth bomber and stealth unmanned air vehicle (UAV) had teamed with the people who build hundreds of large airplanes every year, and have learned the hard way how to do that in composites. But they didn’t, so Pentagon acquisition czar Frank Kendall, Air Force acquisition boss Bill LaPlante and their staffs have had to earn their pay to choose between Northrop Grumman and the Boeing/Lockheed Martin team.

On the face of it I'd think it'd be a no-brainer. NG would be the logical choice from a technical and industrial base point of view. (I can already hear the howls of faux outrage if "LM gets the bomber TOO?" Because we all know, LM getting the contract would make for far juicier headlines than if NG gets it.)

 

[bring_it_on]

Northrop would have to look for a partner..I doubt they'd attempt (for both industrial and political reasons) to make all of it themselves. I think Boeing may get some work regardless

 

[FighterJock]

Would the pentagon really go with Northrop just because LM are having problems with the F-35 program and that Boeing have not designed a modern bomber since the B-52?

 

[sferrin]

Would the pentagon really go with Northrop just because LM are having problems with the F-35 program and that Boeing have not designed a modern bomber since the B-52?

I was thinking more along the lines of "don't put all your eggs in one basket" as well as public perception. Supposedly part of the reason the YF-23 lost was because Northrop was in hot water for the B-2 cost/schedule at the time. I don't know if there is any truth to that but there it is. Also, yeah, Boeing hasn't built a bomber in a while (though Rockwell did build the B-1B, but if they have anything more from those days than a bunch of drawing and some old-timers I'd be surprised), and Lockheed has NEVER built one.

 

[FighterJock]

Forgot that LM has never built a bomber, actually they were really close in winning the ATB program back in the 1980s but Northrop won the ATB with better RCS poll results than Lockheeds Senior Peg design.

 

[Steve Pace]

Many moons ago Lockheed produced the USAAC/USAAF B-34 that was used in WW-II.

-SP

 

[Arjen]

Marauder, Baltimore, Maryland ...

 

[Steve Pace]

Marauder, Baltimore, Maryland ...

Those are all Martin bomber names. The B-34 shown was named Ventura. -SP

 

[Arjen]

Exactly. Lockheed-Martin.

 

[Steve Pace]

Marauder, Baltimore, Maryland ...

As you know it wasn't Lockheed Martin when those aircraft (the Marauder, Baltimore and Maryland) were in service. it was the Glenn L. Martin Company in Baltimore, Maryland. The Lockheed Aircraft Corporation was all the way cross-country in Burbank, California. The Lockheed B-34 Ventura had nothing to do with the Martin Marauder, Baltimore and Maryland. -SP

 

[Ian33]

So basically we are seeing the QUARTZ dance come to fruition 30 years on.

Bomber, Scout, Fast recon. Neat times we live in.

 

[bring_it_on]

A Future-Based Risk Assessment for the Survivability of Long-Range Strike Systems

 

[jsport]

A Future-Based Risk Assessment for the Survivability of Long-Range Strike Systems

Intersting quote from 2008

"National Intelligence Council’s 2020 Project [5]. Similar
to the other studies, the National Intelligence Council (NIC)
team conducted workshops and brainstorming sessions with a
broad range of experts to develop four alternative future
scenarios: Davos World, Pax Americana, A New Caliphate,
... ''

 

[sferrin]

A Future-Based Risk Assessment for the Survivability of Long-Range Strike Systems

Intersting quote from 2008

"National Intelligence Council’s 2020 Project [5]. Similar
to the other studies, the National Intelligence Council (NIC)
team conducted workshops and brainstorming sessions with a
broad range of experts to develop four alternative future
scenarios: Davos World, Pax Americana, A New Caliphate,
... ''

What the hell is "Davos World" and what was #4? ;D

 

[zebedee]

From the Guardian newspaper, 20th January 2005...


"The assessment contains four "illustrative global scenarios" for policy-makers to consider. The first, dubbed Davos World after the free-market World Economic Forum that meets annually in the Swiss mountain resort, imagines the consequences of year-on-year economic growth and the mounting economic and political power of Asia.


The second, Pax Americana, envisages a world in which Washington is compelled to manage Europe, the Middle East and Asia in the absence of wider consensus.


A third scenario, New Caliphate, posits a radical wave across the Muslim world, putting a brake on globalisation, while the fourth, Cycle of Fear, projects the spread of weapons of mass destruction into terrorist hands."


Zeb


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/jan/20/usa.martinkettle

 

[sferrin]

A third scenario, New Caliphate, posits a radical wave across the Muslim world, putting a brake on globalisation, while the fourth, Cycle of Fear, projects the spread of weapons of mass destruction into terrorist hands."

Things will definitely get interesting once Iran gets nukes.

 

[Sundog]

A third scenario, New Caliphate, posits a radical wave across the Muslim world, putting a brake on globalisation, while the fourth, Cycle of Fear, projects the spread of weapons of mass destruction into terrorist hands."

Things will definitely get interesting once Iran gets nukes.

Fortunately for Saudi Arabia, they won't be getting them for awhile.

 

[sferrin]

A third scenario, New Caliphate, posits a radical wave across the Muslim world, putting a brake on globalisation, while the fourth, Cycle of Fear, projects the spread of weapons of mass destruction into terrorist hands."

Things will definitely get interesting once Iran gets nukes.

Pakistan and Israel have them. When Iran gets them Saudi Arabia will feel compelled to have them. Interesting times.


Fortunately for Saudi Arabia, they won't be getting them for awhile.

 

[bring_it_on]

A FUTURE-BASED RISK ASSESSMENT FOR THE SURVIVABILITY OF LONG RANGE STRIKE SYSTEMS

https://www.scribd.com/doc/271942403/Long-Range-Strike-System-Survivability

 

[Sundog]

To clarify, I was saying, fortunately for Saudi Arabia, Iran has finally been set back on it's nuclear program, since nobody was slowing them down in the past from getting nuclear weapons.

 

[bobbymike]

To clarify, I was saying, fortunately for Saudi Arabia, Iran has finally been set back on it's nuclear program, since nobody was slowing them down in the past from getting nuclear weapons.

That's why upon learning of the 'so-called' 'set back' SA immediately pondered its' own nuclear program.

But let's not derail this thread when there is an "Iran Nuclear Deal" thread in "The Bar"

 

[bring_it_on]

Long-Range Strike Bomber contract to be awarded; Boeing and Lockheed’s edge; Northrop Grumman’s advantage ....

 

[marauder2048]

Long-Range Strike Bomber contract to be awarded; Boeing and Lockheed’s edge; Northrop Grumman’s advantage ....

It's an interesting read but something that's been nagging me is: will there be enough slack in the aerospace supply chain to accommodate
the bomber at reasonable cost/schedule? If you look at the current and proposed ramp-ups that will be occurring during the bomber's
timeline just the composite heavy jets alone (F-35, 787, 777X, A350) will be at unprecedented production rates.

I've got to think that between Lockheed, Boeing and Airbus (and leaving out the up-and-comers) most of the supply chain is/will be pretty well locked down or heavily committed.

 

[sferrin]

Long-Range Strike Bomber contract to be awarded; Boeing and Lockheed’s edge; Northrop Grumman’s advantage ....

It's an interesting read but something that's been nagging me is: will there be enough slack in the aerospace supply chain to accommodate
the bomber at reasonable cost/schedule? If you look at the current and proposed ramp-ups that will be occurring during the bomber's
timeline just the composite heavy jets alone (F-35, 787, 777X, A350) will be at unprecedented production rates.

I've got to think that between Lockheed, Boeing and Airbus (and leaving out the up-and-comers) most of the supply chain is/will be pretty well locked down or heavily committed.

While it's tiny compared to that, the CH-53K is also an all composite aircraft. (Or close enough makes no difference.) Carbon fiber and core suppliers are loving life. And I'd think the supplier chain would be exploding.

 

[Sundog]

To clarify, I was saying, fortunately for Saudi Arabia, Iran has finally been set back on it's nuclear program, since nobody was slowing them down in the past from getting nuclear weapons.

That's why upon learning of the 'so-called' 'set back' SA immediately pondered its' own nuclear program.

But let's not derail this thread when there is an "Iran Nuclear Deal" thread in "The Bar"

Well, we were both late to the table in that regard here, but I will look there.

 

[marauder2048]

Long-Range Strike Bomber contract to be awarded; Boeing and Lockheed’s edge; Northrop Grumman’s advantage ....

It's an interesting read but something that's been nagging me is: will there be enough slack in the aerospace supply chain to accommodate
the bomber at reasonable cost/schedule? If you look at the current and proposed ramp-ups that will be occurring during the bomber's
timeline just the composite heavy jets alone (F-35, 787, 777X, A350) will be at unprecedented production rates.

I've got to think that between Lockheed, Boeing and Airbus (and leaving out the up-and-comers) most of the supply chain is/will be pretty well locked down or heavily committed.

While it's tiny compared to that, the CH-53K is also an all composite aircraft. (Or close enough makes no difference.) Carbon fiber and core suppliers are loving life. And I'd think the supplier chain would be exploding.

The CH-53K is an interesting case in point; I take the consistently late part deliveries from Spirit (amongst others) as evidence of its low priority relative to the 787 and A350. It's just the reality of having a single end-use customer (USMC) which isn't paying a premium for early delivery slots.

The supplier chain is quite literally exploding (see the recent incident at the Zodiac factory).

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/commentary/2015/07/20/commentary-stealthy-deterrence/30415353/

 

[bobbymike]

LRS-B Will Be More Than a Bomber

—Marc V. Schanz 8/5/2015

​The Long-Range Strike Bomber will be vastly different than even the last B-2 produced in 1993, serving as a highly capable "long-range sensor shooter" aircraft in future combat operations, said retired Lt. Gen. David Deptula, dean of AFA's Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies on Tuesday. Since 1993, some 15 "Moore's Law" cycles have passed—​the concept that the computing power of microchips would double roughly over 18 months—enabling exponential increases in electronic processing power. "This is a different paradigm than the one we found in World War II," Deptula said, where thousands of single-mission bombers were used to target one major objective. The ability to integrate future electronic systems and sensors onto the LRS-B will enable the bomber to act as a key node in high-end future combat operations to send and receive intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, battle management taskings, targeting information, and deploy large numbers of munitions at the same time. The concept of moving beyond "segregated mission" aircraft is already proving itself in F-22 operations in Syria, he noted. During the opening waves last September, Raptors performed strikes, collected ISR, relayed time-critical information to other aircraft, and used its powerful data links to retask for new targets. (See also With the Raptors Over Syria from the February 2015 issue of Air Force Magazine.)

The Case for the New Bomber

—Marc V. Schanz 8/5/2015

In a briefing with reporters Tuesday, retired Lt. Gen. David Deptula, dean of AFA’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, previewed his soon-to-be-released study on why the Long-Range Strike Bomber program is vital to maintaining effective, versatile, and efficient US military power projection. Since the end of the 1991 Gulf War, adversaries have adjusted to how the US fights wars, Deptula said. That’s why nations such as Russia and China have poured money into anti-access, area-denial tools, including advanced surface-to-air missiles, ballistic missiles, and cyber attacks. Adversaries have learned that “if [the US] is going to get access to a region, we are going to win, and win quickly,” Deptula said. Though the US fields 124 mission-capable bombers today, 87 percent are non-penetrating, pre-stealth aircraft. This poses grave risks for survivability in a campaign against modern A2/AD threats, he noted. As evidence, Deptula points out, the 20-airframe B-2 fleet was used in the opening night of the last four major US air campaigns, from Operation Allied Force in 1999 to Libya in 2011, because of its ability to penetrate modernized defenses and “dramatically increase” the ability for US assets to reach the hardest targets in the opening wave.

 

[Triton]

NUCLEAR WEAPONS SUSTAINMENT
Improvements Made to Budget Estimates, but
Opportunities Exist to Further Enhance Transparency

July 2015
Government Accountability Office

http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/671788.pdf

 

[Triton]

"Could Muilenburg's military cred tip $55 billion bomber contract to Boeing?"
Jun 29, 2015, 1:47pm PDT Updated Jun 29, 2015, 4:14pm PDT

Source:
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2015/06/29/could-muilenburgs-military-cred-tip-55-billion.html

Dennis Muilenburg may help bring home the bomber.

The new Boeing (NYSE: BA) CEO, with his reputation for bringing bottom-line performance to the company's defense and space unit, may be the tipping point in Boeing's favor for the $55 billion long-range strike bomber contract.

That's the view of Wayne Plucker, director of North America research in aerospace and defense for Frost and Sullivan in San Antonio, who said Pentagon leaders are familiar with Muilenburg — and that could weigh in Boeing's favor.

“I think it’s additive,” Plucker said. “It’s one of those nice added elements, someone... they’re comfortable dealing with, and from whom they won’t expect surprises. At this point in the procurement game, that an important thing.”
The Air Force is to choose by the end of the summer between a Boeing-Lockheed Martin team or Northrop Grumman to land the 100-aircraft bomber contract.

While Northrop Grumman built the most recent bomber, the B-2, Boeing is associated with some of the most famous names in bomber history. In particular, Boeing built the B-52, powered by eight engines in four pods, which continues as the nation’s primary heavy bomber, 60 years after it was introduced.

“My personal sense is that Boeing has the legacy that would help to frame it in their direction,” Plucker said.

Muilenburg’s credentials in the defense community come from the fact that from 2009 through 2013 he served as CEO of St. Louis-based Boeing Defense Space & Security. He won a reputation for effective cost-cutting, keeping margins up even while federal procurement was going down. He was named Boeing CEO on June 23.

Winning the contract is keenly important for Boeing because it likely will be the last new military airframe for as many as 20 years. With Boeing’s St. Louis-produced jet fighters nearing the end of their product lives, Boeing needs a big new contract to keep the St. Louis lines running.

While assembly of the bomber would likely be in St. Louis or be done by Lockheed Martin, Boeing Puget Sound’s experience in carbon composites and military aircraft, would give Western Washington a significant role, Plucker said.

The Puget Sound area could be a “major component supplier” for the new bomber, despite the fact that the region already is jammed with commercial aircraft work, he said.

“There’s a lot of capability there in large airframes,” he said, about the Puget Sound region. “Pieces, parts — they could be done on several of the side lines.

 

[Triton]

Hopefully, this is a better analysis of the Government Accountability Office report.

"Report: US strategic bomber spending totals $58B through 2024"
by: James Drew
Washington DC
Source: Flightglobal.com
01:04 31 Jul 2015

Source:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/report-us-strategic-bomber-spending-totals-58b-through-415235/

 

[Flyaway]

Russia and China’s bomber plans could muster support for LRS-B

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/russia-and-chinas-bomber-plans-could-muster-support-for-415472/

 

[bring_it_on]

Northrop realigns Scaled Composites under advanced research unit

Northrop Grumman has announced a major shakeup of its aerospace systems business, with its rapid prototyping arm Scaled Composites realigning under a newly formed “research, technology and advanced design organisation”.

Scaled has always operated with a degree of autonomy since being acquired by Northrop in 2007, but with its legendary founder Burt Rutan now in retirement and new opportunities like the US Air Force T-X next-generation trainer on the horizon, it will now be more tightly integrated than ever as part of Northrop’s new advanced research arm.

The unit built the Virgin Galactic SpaceShipTwo and unmanned X-47A demonstrator, and is currently developing the world’s largest aircraft, the Model 351 Stratolaunch, plus Northrop's bid for the XS-1 experimental spaceplane for the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

Former vice-president of advanced systems Chris Hernandez has been tapped to lead the new division, reporting directly to Tom Vice, corporate vice-president and president of Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems.

Hernandez has served since 2013 as the company’s vice-president of advanced systems, and reporting to him will be Tom Pieronek – the newly appointed vice-president of basic research.

In another reshuffle, Northrop has also launched a new global business development unit headed by Mary Petryszyn to grow international sales amid a lacklustre defence budget domestically. That decision comes as American defence contractors look abroad with renewed vigour to boost their bottom lines, since there is no end in sight for an unpopular US government automatic spending cap known as sequestration.

Northrop’s reshuffle is timely affair, with Lockheed announcing last month that it will acquire helicopter maker Sikorsky, and as the US Air Force prepares to announce the winner of its Long-Range Strike Bomber contract, potentially worth upwards of $80 billion for 80 to 100 aircraft.

In terms of new US opportunities, Northrop is eyeing the air force’s T-X and Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System Recapitalisation (JSTARS Recap) programmes primarily, as well as the navy’s Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) project.

 

[flateric]

back to 2004 MACK...

 

[phrenzy]

We're coming up to the announcement now, last chance to look smart by calling the winner.

 

[Flyaway]

We're coming up to the announcement now, last chance to look smart by calling the winner.

Still putting my money on Northrop Grumman, though not very much of it. :-\

 

[bring_it_on]

Well..If I'd have to guess I'd say its going to be Northrop Grumman - Boeing but I'm going to keep my money in my pocket