US Next Generation Bomber Studies

[FighterJock]

Will LRS-B be a winner takes all situation like the F-35 program, or will they hand out specific parts of the winning design to the other competitors?

 

[sferrin]

Will LRS-B be a winner takes all situation like the F-35 program, or will they hand out specific parts of the winning design to the other competitors?

I think you're a little confused about what "winner takes all" encompasses. In the case of the F-35 it was "winner takes all" in that they weren't building any X-32s BUT Lockheed then subcontracted out significant portions of the aircraft, both at the structural level and the component level. It will almost certainly be the same here (particularly if it's LM/Boeing selected).

 

[flanker]

AFAIR, in LRS-B case it was strictly winner(s) take all solution.

That means they won't build half of one companies bomber design and the other half from the other companies design. Just like the JSF was winner take all, Northrop builds large sub-assemblies for the F-35. I think they build the center fuselage structure, IIRC.

It was - again, AFAIR, - strictly in the meaning I previously mentioned. Not a piece goes to looser.

 

[Ian33]

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

I have a funny feeling this delay is because a legal challenge is on the table being thrashed out as we speak.

I'm a betting man, and I'd wager that this delay when history books by Steve Pace are written in a decade, will be because Northrop immediately contested the decision.after Lockheed and Boeing threw a party.

 

[Sundog]

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

I have a funny feeling this delay is because a legal challenge is on the table being thrashed out as we speak.

I'm a betting man, and I'd wager that this delay when history books by Steve Pace are written in a decade, will be because Northrop immediately contested the decision.after Lockheed and Boeing threw a party.

The USAF stated some months ago that they would take all the time they need to do it right in order to avoid any challenges delaying the program itself. Based on what was said in the briefings, I don't think it will will be too hard for them to defend their decision, as they said both design teams came up with distinctly different solutions. If the designs were very similar, I think it would be that much more difficult, and I'm not implying in any way that it will be an easy decision, based on the level of detail both proposals went to regarding their designs. Just that once the decision is made, I think there will be clear and concise reasons on why the specific winner was chosen.

 

[Triton]

The United States Air Force seems to have gone to great lengths to reduce the risk of the LRS-B program. I am skeptical that the delay in announcing the contract is related to a protest. As Steve Pace pointed out, the Air Force can't afford to have another program go the way of the KC-X competition.

 

[marauder2048]

From the Bloomberg piece:

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.

Now that's just cruel.

 

[bring_it_on]

As Industry Awaits Bomber Contract, New Details Emerge

 

[LowObservable]

Not so much cruel as weird, M2048. Maybe it's a dry run for a media briefing.


On the other hand, if it contains such gems as "bigger than a UCLASS but smaller than a B-2" it's probably just as well they don't try it in public.


Not to mention "open architecture... similar to the F-22". Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

 

[bobbymike]

The United States Air Force seems to have gone to great lengths to reduce the risk of the LRS-B program. I am skeptical that the delay in announcing the contract is related to a protest. As Steve Pace pointed out, the Air Force can't afford to have another program go the way of the KC-X competition.

I mentioned up the thread my pure speculation that the delay was due to great differences in the designs? Is Boeing/LM offering something more radical? VLO with a high dash speed or something, defensive DEW?

 

[jsport]

Not to mention "open architecture... similar to the F-22". Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

yes WTF Over

 

[Moose]

They're talking software. DoD is going hard into OA software.

 

[Steve Pace]

The USAF turns 68 on 18 September which would be an appropriate time to announce the winner of LRSB competition. I hope the announcement comes sooner, no later than that date. -SP

 

[FighterJock]

The USAF turns 68 on 18 September which would be an appropriate time to announce the winner of LRSB competition. I hope the announcement comes sooner, no later than that date. -SP

I hope that it does not slip into October, 18 September would make a lot of sense. Keeping my fingers crossed.

 

[bring_it_on]

Early October would be my guess..

 

[bobbymike]

A bit of new info;

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/new-details-emerge-about-lrs-b-as-contract-announcem-416426/

 

[marauder2048]

Not to mention "open architecture... similar to the F-22". Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

yes WTF Over

The F-22 is an open architecture to those who have access to pre-Alpha VAX/VMS workstations, routers that support DECnet and who have
scored a "4" or higher on any version of the AP Computer Science exam offered before 1999.

 

[bring_it_on]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKkJbo2ZCY4

 

[bobbymike]

My favorite part of the video "we will need more than 80 to 100 LRS-Bs to replace out current fleet of bombers."

I suggest around 200 to 300 hundred

 

[sublight_]

The best part was when they admitted cutting F-22 production was one of the worst mistakes they had ever made. They're finally learning.

 

[sferrin]

The best part was when they admitted cutting F-22 production was one of the worst mistakes they had ever made. They're finally learning.

If only they could learn before the horse had been out of the barn for years. Gates was every bit as arrogant as MacNamara.

 

[sferrin]

My favorite part of the video "we will need more than 80 to 100 LRS-Bs to replace out current fleet of bombers."

I suggest around 200 to 300 hundred

Given that it likely won't come anywhere near matching the payload/range of any of the three current US bombers, I'm right there with ya. I'd think a 2-3 to 1 might do it.

 

[bobbymike]

My favorite part of the video "we will need more than 80 to 100 LRS-Bs to replace out current fleet of bombers."

I suggest around 200 to 300 hundred

Given that it likely won't come anywhere near matching the payload/range of any of the three current US bombers, I'm right there with ya. I'd think a 2-3 to 1 might do it.

It will be interesting as the three witnesses in the video all repeated long range large payload many times. I put the most faith in the retired military gentlemen who indicated he had intimate knowledge of the 2018 bomber so IMHO would know and understand what tech was in the pipeline and ready for the LRS-B.

If I was a betting man I am predicting 75 to 80% of B-2, size and payload.

 

[bring_it_on]

Mark Gunzinger played an important role in the 2010 QDR..Lt. General Elder is going to have a lot of in-depth knowledge on what sort of systems are needed. Given his background one would take what he has to say very very seriously. Also, Dr. Grant was present at the only Air Force briefing on the LRS-B.

 

[marauder2048]

The best part was when they admitted cutting F-22 production was one of the worst mistakes they had ever made. They're finally learning.

If only they could learn before the horse had been out of the barn for years. Gates was every bit as arrogant as MacNamara.

For all of his faults, McNamara did at least authorize F-X which became the F-15.

 

[sferrin]

My favorite part of the video "we will need more than 80 to 100 LRS-Bs to replace out current fleet of bombers."

I suggest around 200 to 300 hundred

Given that it likely won't come anywhere near matching the payload/range of any of the three current US bombers, I'm right there with ya. I'd think a 2-3 to 1 might do it.

It will be interesting as the three witnesses in the video all repeated long range large payload many times. I put the most faith in the retired military gentlemen who indicated he had intimate knowledge of the 2018 bomber so IMHO would know and understand what tech was in the pipeline and ready for the LRS-B.

If I was a betting man I am predicting 75 to 80% of B-2, size and payload.

One can hope.

 

[flanker]

I don't see how LSR-B needs to necessarily carry as much as B-2. F-22 can carry a whole less than B-24 yet it is able to take out more targets in one mission than B-24. The days of carpet bombing are long gone.

 

[DrRansom]

flanker - the counter argument is that the cost of penetrating an ADN is going to be increasing (in the near term). If every LRS-B sortie requires: SEAD support via drones, expendable decoys to confuse radars, fighter sweeps, etc. etc., then you'd hope that each bomber is able to hit a reasonable number of targets.

There's also the longer term issue of hostile air defenses getting anti-PGM capability. (See Tanguska, TOR-M1, etc.) This will require that bombers increase the number of bombs per target.

 

[sferrin]

I don't see how LSR-B needs to necessarily carry as much as B-2. F-22 can carry a whole less than B-24 yet it is able to take out more targets in one mission than B-24. The days of carpet bombing are long gone.

Who said anything about "carpet bombing"? : If you want to carry cruise missiles in useful numbers, have the flexibility of carrying larger munitions (MOP, Skybolt, etc.), while having a decent range, and/or hitting multiple targets per mission, you need a big plane. Period. For example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdzJWciha4A

 

[Ian33]

During the early days of Afghanistan campaign, my friend (British Commando) was attached to a US unit.

There were twelve of them, and they were on a peak looking down. They called for an air support and asked how many precision JDAM were available. 40 weapons were dropped in one overhead pass. This prevented the Northern Alliance troops getting massacred in the valley below, and allowed my friends and the team to really have utmost confidence in the available fire power.

I'm adding this as even in a low intesnsity conflict, high numbers of weapons are some times needed in one fell swoop.

 

[Flyaway]

No Bomber Talk As SecDef Visits Boeing; Carter Opens DARPA Do

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/09/no-bomber-talk-as-secdef-visits-boeing-carter-opens-darpa-do/

 

[bobbymike]

I don't see how LSR-B needs to necessarily carry as much as B-2. F-22 can carry a whole less than B-24 yet it is able to take out more targets in one mission than B-24. The days of carpet bombing are long gone.

Who said anything about "carpet bombing"? : If you want to carry cruise missiles in useful numbers, have the flexibility of carrying larger munitions (MOP, Skybolt, etc.), while having a decent range, and/or hitting multiple targets per mission, you need a big plane. Period. For example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdzJWciha4A

That is just insane accuracy, incredible precision.

 

[bring_it_on]

BEYOND THE "BOMBER":
The New Long-Range Sensor-Shooter Aircraft
and United States National Security
Lieutenant

https://www.scribd.com/doc/280049207/Beyond-the-Bomber-MIAS

 

[sublight_]

I don't see how LSR-B needs to necessarily carry as much as B-2. F-22 can carry a whole less than B-24 yet it is able to take out more targets in one mission than B-24. The days of carpet bombing are long gone.

Who said anything about "carpet bombing"? : If you want to carry cruise missiles in useful numbers, have the flexibility of carrying larger munitions (MOP, Skybolt, etc.), while having a decent range, and/or hitting multiple targets per mission, you need a big plane. Period. For example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdzJWciha4A

The only problem is that for the entire minute the doors are open, the B2 is very not stealthy. In the scenario they show SAM's as one of the targets, which you would want to take out BEFORE leaving your doors open for an entire minute.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Those JDAMs were dropped virtually from directly above and most SAM radars & missiles cannot detect, guide, & shoot straight up.


The B-2 was also flying at 40k which is outside the SA-6's engagement envelope.

 

[flateric]

During a part of the visit closed to reporters, Carter was scheduled to observe Boeing's "Black Diamond" manufacturing concept, which has been described in industry circles as the company's "secret weapon" for the bomber competition.

The visit is notable as advanced manufacturing capabilities are a key part of the Pentagon's approach to the LRS-B program.Speaking to reporters during the visit, Stu Voboril, director of strategy & program development for Boeing's Phantom Works division, described advanced manufacturing as "the cornerstone of almost everything we do."Voboril also showed off some of the advanced modeling and simulation capabilities of the facility, including the Immersive Development Center where Boeing designers use 3-D imaging to speed up the modeling of new designs.

While Voboril would not confirm that Phantom Works had a hand in the LRS-B design, the design group has become central to Boeing's military concepts, and hence it is highly unlikely it would have been sidelined on such a technologically advanced program.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/industry/2015/09/10/lrs-b-dominates-carter-boeing-visit/71980558/

 

[Steve Pace]

It's like waiting for Christmas morning... -SP

 

[bring_it_on]

Carter Tours Boeing’s Black Diamond; Is It Key to LRSB?

ST. LOUIS: Boeing opened the doors of its Phantom Works’ Virtual Warfare Center to reporters for the first time during Defense Secretary Ash Carter’s visit, showing us tantalizing glimpses of advanced technologies such as its Talon HATE project to improve communications between the F-22 and efforts to double to 16 the air-to-air missile load of an F-15.

But a key focus of the visit — from Boeing’s point of view — was its Black Diamond facility. Carter received a half-hour of the facility; the press was not invited. Boeing representatives who spoke with the press would not discuss the facility. I understand it includes a variety of manufacturing technologies designed to greatly reduce costs on large and highly complex programs such as fighters, bombers and large advanced commercial airliners. Stu Voboril, Phantom Work’s director of strategy and program development, talked with reporters quite a bit while Carter was getting his tour about efforts to reduce productions costs but he did not discuss Black Diamond.

Aviation Week reports that the facility is not subject to government security regulations as Boeing paid to develop it. (Of course, that will only remain true for as long as the facility is not involved with classified programs.) The Aviation Week story also claims the technologies involved could be very useful for the production of stealth aircraft, such as the Long Range Strike Bomber (LRSB). However, Carter denied publicly during his tour that he discussed any aspect of the LRSB program. If the Black Diamond’s technologies were touted as helpful to the possible production of LRSB by the Boeing folks, but Carter did not discuss it, that would have suited both sides. The secretary is a pretty avid technologist and the prospect of a system that could substantially reduce the costs of military production would be of great interest to him both personally and professionally.

Carter’s visit here was a two-pronged effort. On the one hand, Carter flew here to deliver the keynote to a DARPA conference intended to help kindle the flame of innovation among a group of technologists who don’t normally even think of working with the Defense Department.

But his visit to Boeing was a clear nod to the established defense companies that they do yeoman’s work and deserve recognition for their advanced technology work, even though senior Penrtagn leaders contonue to push the big companies to spend more on IRAD, as their self-funded research and development is known.

There’s been grumbling from defense executives about the IRAD issue, as Breaking D readers know, and about the strong push by the Pentagon to entice the Silican valley types to work more closely with the miltiary. The vereran defense types say they’ve contributed enornously to the supremacy of American arms and deserve recognition for it.

Carter recognized the second biggest defense company today with his visit, something sure to be noted by Boeing’s fellow primes.

The crowd of 1,200 DARPA conference — entitled “Wait? What? — made it very clear that Carter is gaining traction with his technology push. It may be that the audience wasn’t as “sophisticated” as those at regular defense conferences. Or it may be that the fact it was held in St. Louis and not Washington meant the crowd was more alive and less restrained. But I’ve never seen a defense secretary greeted by woo hoos and a cheering standing ovation.

 

[Sundog]

I think they've already noted that it's key to their T-X submission. However, given what it represents, I can't see how it wouldn't be part of the LRSB as well on any other program going forward.

 

[bobbymike]

Beyond the Family of Systems

—Marc V. Schanz 9/11/2015

​Although the Long-Range Strike Bomber will be a critical component of the “family of systems” strike concept, it has the potential to evolve beyond that, Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies Dean retired Lt. Gen. David Deptula told a Capitol Hill audience Sept. 10. The family of systems conversation tends to reflect some “old think,” reflecting a desire to kluge “stovepiped systems” together, said Deptula, discussing his new study, “Beyond the Bomber.” In the future, a “combat cloud” information network would introduce the notion of ubiquitous sharing of information across all elements of the strike enterprise, an admittedly “lofty and challenging goal,” he acknowledged, but one that takes the family of systems concept “to the next level” and truly realizes the LRS-B’s potential. Deptula said any discussion about the size of the bomber force should remain informed by national security strategy. If the US maintains the current strategy, which states that forces must be globally engaged as well as capable of fighting expeditionary wars when compelled, forces must be shaped to do this, he said. With 10 Air Expeditionary Forces in USAF today, this would necessitate a force closer to 175 bombers (counting training assets and attrition reserve), said Deptula. However, any number should be a figure based on a balance between risk, capability, and goals of a strategy, he added.


Senators Endorse Need for Bomber Recap

—Marc V. Schanz 9/11/2015

​The Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies on Sept. 10 rolled out a new study exploring the need for and capabilities of a next generation long-range strike aircraft. The report is authored by Mitchell’s dean, retired Lt. Gen. David Deptula. A bipartisan group of senators and congressmen also offered remarks during the Capitol Hill event, saying the US must ensure the success of the Long-Range Strike Bomber. Bombers bring enormous value to the United States and its ability to project power around the globe, including long-range strike and loiter capability, the ability to reassure and shape pre-conflict scenarios, unrivaled capacity, and limited vulnerability to adversary attack, said Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.). The bomber forces, and air superiority, are key to maintaining the overmatch against potential adversaries around the world, and preserving this is vital to shaping potential global threats, he added. Rounds praised the study, adding it would inform the “doctrinal underpinnings” of how the LRS-B will be acquired and employed, helping to keep America’s bomber force credible. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) noted the US bomber force is vital to maintaining a credible strategic deterrent to de-escalate tensions, pointing to a ​2013 B-2 mission to South Korea. “It is in fact the deterrent effect … that is such a powerful message,” she added. (Read the full study; Caution, large-sized file.)