US Next Generation Bomber Studies

[Triton]

http://www.defensenews.com/story/breaking-news/2015/09/02/new-air-force-bomber-testing-stealth-wind-test/71572050/

WASHINGTON — The two designs competing to be the US Air Force's next generation bomber have undergone extensive testing by the service and are far more mature than previously known, to a level nearly unheard of in the Pentagon before a contract award, Defense News has learned.

The designs also feature significantly improved stealth capabilities when compared to the B-2 and still feature plans for future certification of nuclear weaponry and the ability to be optionally manned.

Very interesting article. Thank you, bobbymike.

 

[Flyaway]

Good article. Wonder if it might be an F-111 sized craft going from what was said in it.

 

[sferrin]

Good article. Wonder if it might be an F-111 sized craft going from what was said in it.

I sure hope not. It's not like we'll be building a B-4 ten years down the road. This will likely be IT for half a century.

 

[Flyaway]

Good article. Wonder if it might be an F-111 sized craft going from what was said in it.

I sure hope not. It's not like we'll be building a B-4 ten years down the road. This will likely be IT for half a century.

Out of interest how big do you imagine it to be, larger than my suggestion then?

 

[sferrin]

Good article. Wonder if it might be an F-111 sized craft going from what was said in it.

I sure hope not. It's not like we'll be building a B-4 ten years down the road. This will likely be IT for half a century.

Out of interest how big do you imagine it to be, larger than my suggestion then?

What I think it will be and what I hope it will be are disappointingly far apart. I'd guess something B-47-ish in size/weight. Maybe 200,000 - 240,000lbs tops. Hopefully a weapons bay at least the size of one of the B-2s. (On the centerline obviously.) That way it could still carry an MOP albeit only one at a time.

 

[Flyaway]

Good article. Wonder if it might be an F-111 sized craft going from what was said in it.

I sure hope not. It's not like we'll be building a B-4 ten years down the road. This will likely be IT for half a century.

Out of interest how big do you imagine it to be, larger than my suggestion then?

What I think it will be and what I hope it will be are disappointingly far apart. I'd guess something B-47-ish in size/weight. Maybe 200,000 - 240,000lbs tops. Hopefully a weapons bay at least the size of one of the B-2s. (On the centerline obviously.) That way it could still carry an MOP albeit only one at a time.

My fear is that one way they may have found to keep the unit cost down will have been to shrink its size in the requirements.

 

[zaphd]

Rather interesting that according to that article lrs-b will have a robust onboard EA capability. Up until now most have been speculating that an unmanned part of the family of systems would take care of that potentially hazardous mission.

 

[LowObservable]

Unless this is self-defense (or even AC) while something else does standoff.


Or it could be that, by 2025, passive stealth, no matter how good it is, won't hack it.

 

[sferrin]

Or it could be that, by 2025, passive stealth, no matter how good it is, won't hack it.

It's all relative. An LO aircraft will always be more difficult to detect than a non-LO aircraft.

 

[bring_it_on]

RCS and other measures have been a factor in designing survivability for some time now, whether that is adding supersonic dash, maneuverability, electronic warfare, or aiding SA to avoid threats etc. It comes down to what mission you are likely to perform with a particular aircraft, and essentially how much survivability you require to get it done with a reasonable chance of success.

 

[Rhinocrates]

"Much of this technology has been “re-purposed” from other programs such as the F-35 fighter to hold down costs and speed development"

and

"the service has conducted far greater testing of the bomber designs than is normal for a pre-award program."

Hmmm, I wonder if extra requirements added to F-35 systems in anticipation of their use in the LRS-B and a bit of 'black accountancy' has been partly why the F-35 development costs have been so high?

 

[bobbymike]

We're all going to have to go back and possibly reassess all those sightings of 'triangle' aircraft.

 

[Flyaway]

It said the final designs hadn't flown yet but didn't say anything about un-finalised designs flying if you wanted to be pedantic.

Found it noteworthy that the RCO have been running this for some years now, a group noted for getting things done on time and under the radar.

 

[Rhinocrates]

Demonstrators proving specific systems that aren't in themselves representative of the final design, I'd guess. Since the most recent triangle sightings were of paired aircraft, perhaps in that case it might have been a test of formation flying between manned and unmanned variants. In combat for example, a strike force of several aircraft might take off, but only one is carrying humans.

 

[bring_it_on]

USAF Offers Long-Awaited Peek At Secret Bomber Plans

In the 2-hr. briefing, the Air Force outlined a few key points about the procurement strategy behind what is expected to be an $80 billion-plus project to field 100 new, stealthy bombers. It was briefed under Chatham House Rules, meaning the information cannot be cited to a specific person. An Air Force spokesman present for the session declined to identify the briefer.

Only glimpses of the program were given. But they hint at a much more mature effort than previously stated and backed by government money doled out years ago to each team, meaning the forthcoming announcement of a development contract winner will not underpin a new-start program.....


A source briefed on the project is “astonished” to discover that the $550 million cost cited in recent years by the Air Force and Gates as a ceiling in fiscal year 2010 dollars for the flyaway cost is a key performance parameter. Air Force spokesman Ed Gulick confirmed that this price is a requirement.....


Since the 2011 Gates memo, both contractor teams have received risk-reduction funds for specific areas thought by the RCO to be the most risky, including integration of the propulsion system onto the aircraft and antenna design, a key challenge for any stealthy aircraft that is intolerant of protruding communications nodes, the source said. An Air Force spokesman declined to say how much money has been provided, but he confirmed both teams are funded. The briefer at the think tank meeting cited some wind tunnel testing, but no details on what was tested – subscale models, full demonstrators, subsystems – were provided. One source suggests the teams are already past the preliminary design review phase of the project, “years farther along” than previously acknowledged by the Air Force.

 

[sferrin]

Demonstrators proving specific systems that aren't in themselves representative of the final design, I'd guess. Since the most recent triangle sightings were of paired aircraft, perhaps in that case it might have been a test of formation flying between manned and unmanned variants. In combat for example, a strike force of several aircraft might take off, but only one is carrying humans.

It said that optionally manned was not a short-term goal.

 

[Ian33]

After seeing the manned Phantom Ray shaped aircraft, I'm still absolutely certain that what ever the bomber is, it will be rolled out for public daylight testing over Edwards, like the B2 was.

 

[sferrin]

After seeing the manned Phantom Ray shaped aircraft, I'm still absolutely certain that what ever the bomber is, it will be rolled out for public daylight testing over Edwards, like the B2 was.

No doubt with somebody standing by with Stingers for obnoxious reporters in aircraft.


"After seeing the manned Phantom Ray shaped aircraft,"

What manned Phantom Ray shaped aircraft? ???

 

[Ian33]

I saw it flying over the Moray Firth, headed north with F15 escort. Clear blue sky, 60x mag at contrails height.

 

[flanker]

We're all going to have to go back and possibly reassess all those sightings of 'triangle' aircraft.

I am not so sure. LRS-B not having flown =/= a LRS-B test bed hasnt flown.

 

[weavty1]

We're all going to have to go back and possibly reassess all those sightings of 'triangle' aircraft.

I am not so sure. LRS-B not having flown =/= a LRS-B test bed hasnt flown.

The LRS-B's *have* flown - They've flown in their current pre-production 'beta' and 'alpha' forms, as well as their test bed predecessors.

 

[tacitblue]

Smaller than a B-2 doesn't mean it is a scaled up A-12 Avenger. I would consider the SR-71 to be smaller than a B-2. Even though it is longer, overall it's a smaller AC IMHO. The B-2 really isn't a small AC. Given some public comments a while back from the AF about the requirement for speed and maneuverability, at least of the companies proposals may not be a flying triangle.

 

[Flyaway]

What's the betting that LM/Boeing entry looks not unlike the X-45 & the NG entry not unlike the X-47B.

 

[sferrin]

What's the betting that LM/Boeing entry looks not unlike the X-45 & the NG entry not unlike the X-47B.

I would say about 0.00%.

 

[Triton]

"USAF Offers Long-Awaited Peek At Secret Bomber Plans"
Amy Butler
Sep 2, 2015

Source:
http://aviationweek.com/LRSBpeek

As Washington eagerly awaits news of a winner for the new bomber development contract, the U.S. Air Force’s covert project is further along than officials have let on, with years worth of risk-reduction work already done.

The Air Force began to hint at this secretive history in a Sept. 1 Pentagon briefing to think tankers outlining a program rooted in negotiations with former Defense Secretary Robert Gates that fundamentally shaped an atypical acquisition approach to this effort.

This appears to be the beginning of an unusually savvy communications strategy by the Air Force leading up to an announcement that could come in days, or possibly weeks, on which team will build the Long-Range Strike Bomber – Northrop Grumman or Boeing/Lockheed Martin. It could also be a response to some that suggest its unconventional approach was an indictment of the service’s acquisition corps, which made major missteps in program management in the last decade.

In the 2-hr. briefing, the Air Force outlined a few key points about the procurement strategy behind what is expected to be an $80 billion-plus project to field 100 new, stealthy bombers. It was briefed under Chatham House Rules, meaning the information cannot be cited to a specific person. An Air Force spokesman present for the session declined to identify the briefer.

Only glimpses of the program were given. But they hint at a much more mature effort than previously stated and backed by government money doled out years ago to each team, meaning the forthcoming announcement of a development contract winner will not underpin a new-start program.

At the forefront of this quiet outreach is an Air Force push to show costs will be contained on this project; this will not be another B-2 or F-35 program mired in technical challenges and high prices, multiple sources familiar with the briefing claim. A source briefed on the project is “astonished” to discover that the $550 million cost cited in recent years by the Air Force and Gates as a ceiling in fiscal year 2010 dollars for the flyaway cost is a key performance parameter. Air Force spokesman Ed Gulick confirmed that this price is a requirement.

The development will be managed by a cost-plus-incentive-fee contract, meaning the government assumes some risk but will include incentive milestones to ensure the contractor does not earn profit without performing. Multiple sources said the Air Force plans to issue fixed-price-incentive-fee contracts for the first five lots of aircraft, between 19-21 bombers total. The first four lots will be fixed price. Lot 5 will be a not-to-exceed price and the service will renegotiate terms in Lot 6 and beyond, they said. This puts significant pressure on the winning contractor to keep cost down, as overages could affect their own books when production begins.

An undisclosed number of aircraft will be purchased in the development phase, as is typical, to support ground- and flight-testing requirements leading up to operational use.

This contracting structure indicates a high level of confidence by overseers as to the maturity of the technology feeding into the new bomber, this source says.

While Washington has been on the edge of its seat to discover which team will nab the contract, the Air Force’s Rapid Capabilities Office (RCO) has apparently been hard at work managing risk reduction with both contractors for the program since Gates issued a classified memo launching LRS-B in February 2011, according to a source briefed on the project.

Gates terminated the Next-Generation Bomber, the precursor to LRS-B. That earlier project was far more ambitious and expensive, in part because of the assumption that the aircraft would operate nearly independently, which drove requirements up. NGB would have needed to be capable of its own intelligence and other functions that LRS-B will get through support from a network of already fielded Air Force platforms. Ever skeptical of high-tech promises, Gates restarted the project with a lower-cost, reduced-risk approach. This decision was made as the F-35 was struggling with major cost and technical issues, prompting skepticism from Pentagon leaders.

This likely led to the choice of the RCO as the procurement overseer, bypassing the Air Force’s standard acquisition corps, which is typically used to manage fighter, bomber and weapons programs. The RCO reports to a board of directors chaired by Pentagon procurement chief Frank Kendall; Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James, Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh and service acquisition head William LaPlante are also on the board. With Kendall as head, the Office of the Secretary of Defense has unusually deep insight into the ins and outs of the project, perhaps a strategy backed by Gates by design to guard against requirements creep.

Because the RCO is designed to quickly integrate and field technologies, it is often closer to the art of the available than other procurement agents may be. It is also, most likely, briefed on available classified technologies, potentially to include the classified work behind the RQ-180 intelligence aircraft built by Northrop Grumman for intelligence collection. This stealthy, penetrating spy aircraft likely will work hand-in-hand with LRS-B to collect and relay intelligence and bomb damage assessments on missions in protected airspace.

At the time the RCO was chosen, the service’s procurement corps was saddled with criticism for missteps in buying both a KC-135 and HH-60G replacement, so it could have been a political move to insulate LRS-B from similar scrutiny. The office was established in 2003 to quickly upgrade the air defense system protecting Washington after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. It is led by Randall Walden (who formerly oversaw procurement of intelligence aircraft such as the U-2, Global Hawk and Reaper).

Since the 2011 Gates memo, both contractor teams have received risk-reduction funds for specific areas thought by the RCO to be the most risky, including integration of the propulsion system onto the aircraft and antenna design, a key challenge for any stealthy aircraft that is intolerant of protruding communications nodes, the source said. An Air Force spokesman declined to say how much money has been provided, but he confirmed both teams are funded. The briefer at the think tank meeting cited some wind tunnel testing, but no details on what was tested – subscale models, full demonstrators, subsystems – were provided. One source suggests the teams are already past the preliminary design review phase of the project, “years farther along” than previously acknowledged by the Air Force.

The briefer indicated the bomber would be optionally manned, not a surprising design choice. The relatively large size of a heavy bomber means the size/weight/power penalty for a cockpit is fairly low. Also, service officials would want a piloted aircraft for testing, as unmanned testing is subject to thornier constraints. “Unmanning” the bomber by equipping it with proper command and control and software would be a relatively simple addition, and hooks are built in to do so if desired. But for the near term the bomber will be manned.

There was apparently no discussion in the briefing of the weapons to be integrated for use on the bomber and when they would be operational. Range, speed and payload also were not disclosed.

A small number of aircraft will be siphoned away from the program to fulfill nuclear certification testing, a rigorous and time-consuming venture. But that will be done separately and in parallel to fielding the conventional version in the mid 2020s, the source said. The service did not want the operational debut to be held hostage by the challenging nuclear certification requirements. U.S. Strategic Command chief Adm. Cecil Haney said he hopes to have a nuclear-capable LRS-B operational around 2030.

The wiring, redundancy and hardening needed to fulfill the nuclear certification requirements will be built into the bomber from the start, meaning there will not be different “variants” for conventional and nuclear missions.

Air Force officials say the 10-year cost estimate for LRS-B is $41.7 billion; it is likely to be operational for at least 30 years.

The imperative behind the program remains what it has been in earlier bomber efforts – high confidence in attacking the most problematic mobile targets as well as those that are hardened and deeply buried. This points to mobile air defenses as well as nuclear weapons facilities and underground command-and-control nodes of adversaries operating in well-defended airspace. The need is not only to actually plan for attacking them; it also is key to U.S. deterrence strategy.

 

[Flyaway]

What's the betting that LM/Boeing entry looks not unlike the X-45 & the NG entry not unlike the X-47B.

I would say about 0.00%.

I wouldn't be so certain on that.

 

[Mat Parry]

What's the betting that we will see anything at all about the losing design? (At least in the short term, we are hardly drowning in data on senior peg after all).

 

[sferrin]

What's the betting that LM/Boeing entry looks not unlike the X-45 & the NG entry not unlike the X-47B.

I would say about 0.00%.

I think you'll be wrong in that.

Time will tell.

 

[bring_it_on]

Bomber Contract Still Tossup But This May Hurt Boeing

Who will win the long-range strike bomber contract to replace aging Boeing (NYSE:BA) B-52s — a giant in both consumer and defense aerospace, or a weapons contractor known for its drones, stealth bomber and high-tech sensors?
The contest is still too close to call, according to some analysts, as the decision by the Air Force nears, but Boeing may have lost points over development issues with the KC-46 aerial refueling tanker.
An announcement on the bomber contract, which could be worth $50 billion-$80 billion, is expected soon. But it might not be made until September.

The stakes are sky-high: The bomber will be the only contract of note for a sophisticated military aircraft in the next 10 years, and the loser — Boeing or Northrop Grumman (NYSE:NOC) — could be forced to leave the combat airframe business.
"This isn't like the Joint Strike Fighter, where you know what the teams involved were offering," said analyst Richard Aboulafia of aerospace and defense information firm Teal Group. "The best info we have on the design is a Super Bowl ad of a plane with a sheet over it."
But he noted that Northrop Grumman tops a rival Boeing-Lockheed Martin (NYSE:LMT) team when considering factors like the industrial base, political clout and other issues that may play only tangential roles in the decision-making process.
Mark Bobbi, an aerospace, defense and security analyst at consultancy IHS, says that he's always expected Northrop to win the award, citing its legacy with the B-2 stealth bomber and track record with the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye for the Navy.
He also sees Boeing's "atrocious performance" with building the tanker as affecting its score. The tanker problems "clearly show a total disconnect of Boeing military and commercial program processes. ... The risk to the Air Force is too great for them to select the Boeing/Lockheed team," he told IBD in an email.
In July Boeing took a $536 million after-tax charge in Q2, or 77 cents per share, on higher estimated engineering and manufacturing costs for the tanker. It was the second charge that Boeing has taken on the tanker, bringing the total after-tax charges to over $800 million.
In the Q2 conference call, CEO Dennis Muilenburg said that the tanker issues are "well-defined and understood."
But then earlier this month, Boeing said that the first flight for its KC-46 would be delayed by a month after the wrong fuel substitute was put into the plane's system.

 

[bring_it_on]

Long Range Strike Bomber Begins to Emerge

Jeremiah Gertler, Specialist in Military Aviation

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/IN10351.pdf

Also, HASC hearing on the Long range strike is on September 9 at 2 PM (COURTESY Colin Clark on twitter)

Rather interesting that according to that article lrs-b will have a robust onboard EA capability. Up until now most have been speculating that an unmanned part of the family of systems would take care of that potentially hazardous mission.

Senior USAF leadership has in the past indicated robust EA/EW capabilities inherent in the LRS-B to an extent that it will carry forward aspects of the overall EA mission for the service going forward.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,191.msg256532.html#msg256532

 

[mz]

Good article. Wonder if it might be an F-111 sized craft going from what was said in it.

I sure hope not. It's not like we'll be building a B-4 ten years down the road. This will likely be IT for half a century.

Out of interest how big do you imagine it to be, larger than my suggestion then?

What I think it will be and what I hope it will be are disappointingly far apart. I'd guess something B-47-ish in size/weight. Maybe 200,000 - 240,000lbs tops. Hopefully a weapons bay at least the size of one of the B-2s. (On the centerline obviously.) That way it could still carry an MOP albeit only one at a time.

Well, it's going to be medium sized with two F135:s or four F414:s? Assuming they want to be frugal and don't want to develop new engines. Or at least no new engine sizes...

- B-2 max takeoff weight is 170 t, thrust is 4xF118, each 8.5 t meaning total thrust 34 t. T/W = 1/5
- The F135 is 13 t dry so two are 26 t. With T/W 1/5 that would mean a 130 t aircraft, meaning 75% of B-2.
- The F414 is 5,9 t dry, so four are 24t. 120t aircraft, 70% of B-2.

A partial redesign of either engine could upgrade subsonic thrust though...
If it's a faster design, then it's going to be smaller or have more / bigger engines.

Max takeoff weight might not be the best metric. Hope I got the F135 thrust right.
http://www.pw.utc.com/Content/Press_Kits/pdf/me_f135_ctol_pCard.pdf

 

[Ian33]

Was this not the first platform for ADVENT engine?

 

[mz]

Was this not the first platform for ADVENT engine?

I think it would make a lot of sense to select an existing size class for ADVENT technologies.

 

[Ian33]

No I just found the screen grab I needed. GE were the people who said they had a full engine for a bomber project.

 

[bring_it_on]

Bidders Submit Designs for New U.S. Air Force Bomb

Air Force officials at the briefing said the award for the bomber contract is expected in October, although one of them added, “I’ve been saying ‘a couple of months’ for five or six months now,’” Gertler wrote in the assessment published Wednesday. Frank Kendall, the Pentagon’s top weapons buyer, will be responsible for selecting the contest winner, according to the report.

Attendees at the briefing, which was reported earlier by Defense News, also included Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute; Andrew Hunter of the Center For Strategic and International Studies; Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group; Mark Lorell of the Rand Corp.; Rebecca Grant, an independent aerospace consultant; Moshe Schwartz, an acquisition analyst with the CRS; and James McAleese of McAleese & Associates.

^ Earlier in the year William LaPlante hinted that they'd make more stuff available later in the year. Hope there is more stuff to reveal

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-02/u-s-air-force-has-bomber-designs-in-hand-before-picking-winner

 

[bring_it_on]

Its posted just above your post

 

[bobbymike]

Its posted just above your post

Oops Mods fell free to remove my prior post.

 

[Flyaway]

I can only assume that the delay in awarding is down in a good part to making it bulletproof from a loser's challenge.

 

[Steve Pace]

Yes, after the Northrop Grumman KC-45A/Boeing KC-46A fiasco the DOD needs to be sure. "If you know you're right, then go ahead." - Davy Crockett -SP