US Next Generation Bomber Studies

[Triton]

A contract announcement is still expected in September?

 

[Flyaway]

A contract announcement is still expected in September?

As per latest articles on the project, then yes is the answer.

 

[Ian33]

I'm betting on this: Lockheed Boeing got the award, Northrop have a legal challenge hence the delay.

USAF want the Lockheed Boeing bird (Won on pure performance parameters) Certain others, the Northrop article. Both sides plowing money into the legal fight.

September will be after the challenge is thrown.out and the loser gets a hefty new programme as compensation aka UCLASS and stealthy transport.

 

[kcran567]

Northrop gets the bomber program, so Lockheed gets punished for F-35. Boeing gets the T-X program.

 

[bring_it_on]

Is there anyone here who thinks that Northrop (if they win) can execute this whole program by themselves without reaching out to Boeing or Lockheed?

 

[sferrin]

Is there anyone here who thinks that Northrop (if they win) can execute this whole program by themselves without reaching out to Boeing or Lockheed?

IMO if they win they'll reach out to Boeing. Boeing is in the middle of significantly expanding their facilities so they'd be able to lend that experience to NG with the bomber.

 

[Sundog]

Is there anyone here who thinks that Northrop (if they win) can execute this whole program by themselves without reaching out to Boeing or Lockheed?

IMO if they win they'll reach out to Boeing. Boeing is in the middle of significantly expanding their facilities so they'd be able to lend that experience to NG with the bomber.

Also, didn't Boeing build the outer wing sections of the B-2? So they already have experience working together.

 

[Steve Pace]

Is there anyone here who thinks that Northrop (if they win) can execute this whole program by themselves without reaching out to Boeing or Lockheed?

IMO if they win they'll reach out to Boeing. Boeing is in the middle of significantly expanding their facilities so they'd be able to lend that experience to NG with the bomber.

Also, didn't Boeing build the outer wing sections of the B-2? So they already have experience working together.

Yes, Boeing autoclaved the B-2's wings - LOL - it's an all-wing aircraft. Boeing was a huge player on the B-2 program. -SP

 

[tacitblue]

So I'm sure this has been discussed, but what form do you guys think the B-3A will take on: flying wing optimized for mid/high alt flight with relatively limited maneuverability and relatively slow speed. Or do you guys think it will be more like a successor to the "Bone" optimized for low alt penetration, speed on the deck, and a high degree of maneuverability (relatively speaking for a medium to big airplane).


There are (dis)advantages to both........ first being the flying wing is dead meat once (if) spotted crusing around at 45-55k with no place to hide. The low alt a/c wouldn't have the same degree of LO, but operating low between hills and geographical features doesn't have to contend with long rang SAMs, only threats within LoS and adversary AWACS guiding interceptors to target, and it would be shorter ranged operating in a denser altitude.



The B-2 made sense at the time in the 80s and 90s when stealth was in its infancy and counter-stealth was just a word on a napkin. I'm not so sure that a re-do of the flying wing bomber makes sense any longer.

 

[bobbymike]

So I'm sure this has been discussed, but what form do you guys think the B-3A will take on: flying wing optimized for mid/high alt flight with relatively limited maneuverability and relatively slow speed. Or do you guys think it will be more like a successor to the "Bone" optimized for low alt penetration, speed on the deck, and a high degree of maneuverability (relatively speaking for a medium to big airplane).


There are (dis)advantages to both........ first being the flying wing is dead meat once (if) spotted crusing around at 45-55k with no place to hide. The low alt a/c wouldn't have the same degree of LO, but operating low between hills and geographical features doesn't have to contend with long rang SAMs, only threats within LoS and adversary AWACS guiding interceptors to target, and it would be shorter ranged operating in a denser altitude.



The B-2 made sense at the time in the 80s and 90s when stealth was in its infancy and counter-stealth was just a word on a napkin. I'm not so sure that a re-do of the flying wing bomber makes sense any longer.

There is still a tremendous fear factor for adversaries to think "something can be out there we cannot detect". My opinion is a VLO flying wing WITH defensive DEW capabilities.

My second choice is the aviation world is stunned when we roll out a M6+ hypersonic bomber.

 

[sferrin]

Flying wing, slow, low payload; sensors, avionics, engines, etc. all based on existing equipment.

I'm not so sure that a re-do of the flying wing bomber makes sense any longer.

Why? Because it's old fashioned?

 

[Ian33]

The B-2 made sense at the time in the 80s and 90s when stealth was in its infancy and counter-stealth was just a word on a napkin. I'm not so sure that a re-do of the flying wing bomber makes sense any longer.

Visual camouflage with an aggressive anti IR capability on a single sawtooth design with a system identical to the F35 giving it a full.wrap round situational awareness and EW capability.

 

[sublight_]

Flying wing, slow, low payload; sensors, avionics, engines, etc. all based on existing equipment.

Probably not. More like long thin wings, U2 like ceiling, great range, and loiter time. A second component, that will probably stay classified will deal with the VHF/DEW.

 

[sferrin]

Flying wing, slow, low payload; sensors, avionics, engines, etc. all based on existing equipment.

Probably not. More like long thin wings, U2 like ceiling, great range, and loiter time. A second component, that will probably stay classified will deal with the VHF/DEW.

Long thin wings in a flying wing configuration (which won't be going fast).

 

[sublight_]

Flying wing, slow, low payload; sensors, avionics, engines, etc. all based on existing equipment.

Probably not. More like long thin wings, U2 like ceiling, great range, and loiter time. A second component, that will probably stay classified will deal with the VHF/DEW.

Long thin wings in a flying wing configuration (which won't be going fast).

Yea, we're both saying the same thing, sorry. I dyslexic saw your "slow, low payload" as "low & slow"... Duh....

 

[Rhinocrates]

As there's a been lot of talk of it being part of a system, consider the roles played by the other classified/hypothetical elements for clues about what the B-3 will NOT be doing. I personally don't think that loiter will be a requirement as the job of the RQ-180 is to hang around looking for targets. Once a target is identified, another black platform - the rumoured "Penetrating Airborne Electronic Attack"/P-AEA - is used to neutralise defenses. After that, the B-3 delivers the bombs. I wouldn't say it with any certainty of course, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was relatively low payload with M 1.5 or thereabouts supercruise - not for dash capability, but to be on station over a long range rapidly to take advantage of a narrow window of opportunity in time when targets are often highly mobile.

 

[bring_it_on]

The U.S. Air Force on Monday said it aims to meet electronic warfare needs using next-generation aircraft such as Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 fighter and a new long-range bomber, rather than older planes like Boeing Co's EA-18G Growler.

 

[Dragon029]

I personally don't think that loiter will be a requirement is the job of the RQ-180 is to hang around looking for targets.

I'm pretty sure the USAF has stated that the LRS-B will have a greater non-strategic role however; yes it'll be capable of going off and bombing deep behind enemy lines, but as far as I'm aware, they also envisage it having a greater role in lower intensity conflicts, loitering and providing heavy air support similar to how B-1s are being used.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.military.com/video/aircraft/military-aircraft/afa-2014-next-generation-of-strike-bomber/3788272870001/

Thought I saw this video here but..........anyway at the 1:45 mark the talk is of the scope of technology possible to fulfil the bomber's need for stealth, speed and agility??? Notice how she hesitates when she says 'speed' did she 'oops' when she said that or am I reading too much into it?

This is a description of a FB-22 type platform leveraging F-35 sensor technologies IMHO.

 

[antigravite]

Hi there.

This is gonna be pretty old news and I could'nt find in this thread nor the entire forum any similar material.
A few months back, I took a screenshot of NIA's website homepage with a slider. BTW, NIA stands for "National Institute of Aerospace". And yep, they organized a 2015 symposium with NIAC -- obviously.

What struck me is the use of an artwork fitting well this thread. That's all. As I clean up my unarchived archives, I occasionally find this and that. And use the forum as a repository.

And if it has already been posted somewhere else, here, earlier, please do accept my apologies for the duplicate.

A.

 

[sferrin]

Looks a bit clunky compared to the B-2.

 

[flateric]

What struck me is the use of an artwork fitting well this thread. That's all. As I clean up my unarchived archives, I occasionally find this and that. And use the forum as a repository.

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/greener_aircraft.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/01/pictures-northrop-adapts-b-2s/
https://www.aiaa.org/uploadedFiles/About-AIAA/Press-Room/Key_Speeches-Reports-and-Presentations/2012/Drake-Northrop-AVC-AIAA-GEPC2.pdf

 

[flateric]

at the 1:45 mark the talk is of the scope of technology possible to fulfil the bomber's need for stealth, speed and agility??? Notice how she hesitates when she says 'speed' did she 'oops' when she said that or am I reading too much into it?

You are. This is universal mantra, repeated in connection to any stealth platform by DoD officials for ages on Pavlov's dog reflex.

 

[antigravite]

What struck me is the use of an artwork fitting well this thread. That's all. As I clean up my unarchived archives, I occasionally find this and that. And use the forum as a repository.

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/greener_aircraft.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/01/pictures-northrop-adapts-b-2s/
https://www.aiaa.org/uploadedFiles/About-AIAA/Press-Room/Key_Speeches-Reports-and-Presentations/2012/Drake-Northrop-AVC-AIAA-GEPC2.pdf

Thx as always for clarifying it up.
A.

 

[DrRansom]

From the descriptions here, it seems like the LRS-B is heading towards the ultimate expression of subsonic all-aspect stealth?

That is interesting, as it may be the last large all-aspect stealth aircraft if counter-stealth increases at the rate people expect. The ultimate example of a technological direction which is coming to an end.

 

[Flyaway]

I personally don't think that loiter will be a requirement is the job of the RQ-180 is to hang around looking for targets.

I'm pretty sure the USAF has stated that the LRS-B will have a greater non-strategic role however; yes it'll be capable of going off and bombing deep behind enemy lines, but as far as I'm aware, they also envisage it having a greater role in lower intensity conflicts, loitering and providing heavy air support similar to how B-1s are being used.

Isn't the RA-180 supposed to have a strike capability. So it almost sounds like they can interchange roles as needed.

 

[FighterJock]

I personally don't think that loiter will be a requirement is the job of the RQ-180 is to hang around looking for targets.

I'm pretty sure the USAF has stated that the LRS-B will have a greater non-strategic role however; yes it'll be capable of going off and bombing deep behind enemy lines, but as far as I'm aware, they also envisage it having a greater role in lower intensity conflicts, loitering and providing heavy air support similar to how B-1s are being used.

Isn't the RA-180 supposed to have a strike capability. So it almost sounds like they can interchange roles as needed.

That is news to me, as I always thought that the RQ-180 was designed for the Reconnaissance role.

 

[sferrin]

The ultimate example of a technological direction which is coming to an end.

They said the same thing about aircraft back in the '50s. I can't think of a situation wherein a lower RCS is not advantageous.

 

[Flyaway]

I personally don't think that loiter will be a requirement is the job of the RQ-180 is to hang around looking for targets.

I'm pretty sure the USAF has stated that the LRS-B will have a greater non-strategic role however; yes it'll be capable of going off and bombing deep behind enemy lines, but as far as I'm aware, they also envisage it having a greater role in lower intensity conflicts, loitering and providing heavy air support similar to how B-1s are being used.

Isn't the RA-180 supposed to have a strike capability. So it almost sounds like they can interchange roles as needed.

That is news to me, as I always thought that the RQ-180 was designed for the Reconnaissance role.

Reconnaissance with limited strike capability I seen speculated, we aren't talking an attack platform I wouldn't have thought.

 

[DrRansom]

The ultimate example of a technological direction which is coming to an end.

They said the same thing about aircraft back in the '50s. I can't think of a situation wherein a lower RCS is not advantageous.

Sorry, aircraft survivability through pure stealth. This is different from the emerging idea of survivability through stealth + active defense (new idea) or stealth + high speed or pure high speed. Which, to be fair, the LRS-B will have as well.

 

[sublight_]

The ultimate example of a technological direction which is coming to an end.

No, not really. Did you know you can defeat VHF/DEW by going bigger?

 

[Rhinocrates]

I personally don't think that loiter will be a requirement is the job of the RQ-180 is to hang around looking for targets.

I'm pretty sure the USAF has stated that the LRS-B will have a greater non-strategic role however; yes it'll be capable of going off and bombing deep behind enemy lines, but as far as I'm aware, they also envisage it having a greater role in lower intensity conflicts, loitering and providing heavy air support similar to how B-1s are being used.

Isn't the RA-180 supposed to have a strike capability. So it almost sounds like they can interchange roles as needed.

That is news to me, as I always thought that the RQ-180 was designed for the Reconnaissance role.

Reconnaissance with limited strike capability I seen speculated, we aren't talking an attack platform I wouldn't have thought.

Hmm, the intended designation of the SR-71 was RS-71 for "Reconnaissance Strike". It was never used in the strike role, but the capability was there.

 

[Rhinocrates]

I personally don't think that loiter will be a requirement is the job of the RQ-180 is to hang around looking for targets.

I'm pretty sure the USAF has stated that the LRS-B will have a greater non-strategic role however; yes it'll be capable of going off and bombing deep behind enemy lines, but as far as I'm aware, they also envisage it having a greater role in lower intensity conflicts, loitering and providing heavy air support similar to how B-1s are being used.

Good point - I suppose a medium bomber such as LRS-B would suit that role better than a heavy strategic bomber.

 

[bobbymike]

So with all the speculation let me add a point, is the delay of contractor selection partially due to very large differences in the proposals? One a large VLO, large payload flying wing, one a more 'Regional Bomber' LO with high dash speed and lower payload?

 

[tacitblue]

So with all the speculation let me add a point, is the delay of contractor selection partially due to very large differences in the proposals? One a large VLO, large payload flying wing, one a more 'Regional Bomber' LO with high dash speed and lower payload?

Do you think we will get some official artwork released in September, or when we will that happen? I know it's a bad idea to telegraph what the plans are too far in advance... Or are they going to wait until the day of rollout? I remember the day back in 1990 when the first official artwork was released (saw in pop sci) for the -22 and -23 which wasn't terribly long before the AC were rolled out. Whereas the -35 and -32 were by comparison developed in the open from day 0.

 

[sferrin]

I remember the day back in 1990 when the first official artwork was released (saw in pop sci) for the -22 and -23 which wasn't terribly long before the AC were rolled out.

I remember that same article. ;D And I remember thinking, "please God, don't let them choose that ugly ass butterfly tail thing". How wrong I was. :'(

 

[tacitblue]

I remember the day back in 1990 when the first official artwork was released (saw in pop sci) for the -22 and -23 which wasn't terribly long before the AC were rolled out.

I remember that same article. ;D And I remember thinking, "please God, don't let them choose that ugly ass butterfly tail thing". How wrong I was. :'(

My thought process was, "What's that thing with the V-tail, and why'd they paint an F-15 to look like an F-16?" It took a couple of moments to realize Lockheed went with a classic layout versus all the artwork ever released about the ATF.

 

[flanker]

I remember the day back in 1990 when the first official artwork was released (saw in pop sci) for the -22 and -23 which wasn't terribly long before the AC were rolled out.

I remember that same article. ;D And I remember thinking, "please God, don't let them choose that ugly ass butterfly tail thing". How wrong I was. :'(

Dude. I will remember this and never forgive you. This is even worse than your preference of J-20 over T-50. ;D YF-23 is sacred, sacred i say! (sorry for the off topic)

 

[bring_it_on]

Hi there.

This is gonna be pretty old news and I could'nt find in this thread nor the entire forum any similar material.
A few months back, I took a screenshot of NIA's website homepage with a slider. BTW, NIA stands for "National Institute of Aerospace". And yep, they organized a 2015 symposium with NIAC -- obviously.

What struck me is the use of an artwork fitting well this thread. That's all. As I clean up my unarchived archives, I occasionally find this and that. And use the forum as a repository.

And if it has already been posted somewhere else, here, earlier, please do accept my apologies for the duplicate.

A.

In addition to the stuff already posted ...See Page 40 onwards here -

https://www.scribd.com/doc/274453894/197272631-Aerospace-America-2013-07-08

 

[bobbymike]

LRS-B Lots and Cost

—John A. Tirpak

8/19/2015

​The Long-Range Strike Bomber contract—expected to be awarded in September—will be a cost-plus arrangement, but will include options for "five aircraft production lots," which will be on a fixed-price basis, Air Force officials told Air Force Magazine. If the Air Force sticks to its plan to buy 80-100 LRS-Bs, that means production lots of potentially 16-20 aircraft each. Officials didn't elaborate on whether the lots would all be evenly sized, or when production would start. Also, in the latest "1043 report"—an annual report to Congress detailing the Pentagon's 10-year plans for nuclear weapons, delivery systems, and the "nuclear weapons complex"—the Air Force stated a figure for the LRS-B of $58.4 billion. That number was incorrect, however. The service has stated the revised figure as $41.7 billion. According to the report, the number includes research, development, test and evaluation, operations and support, and personnel, but not overhead, "such as personnel assigned to higher headquarters who work on nuclear deterrence-related issues." The stated figure also doesn't necessarily cover all the LRS-Bs to be built, but USAF has said from the outset that it will set a hard figure of $550 million flyaway cost for each bomber (in 2010 dollars) as a contract requirement.