US Next Generation Bomber Studies

[sferrin]

What makes you think the F-22 was doing anything but receiving a set of GPS coordinates and dropping a bomb on it? (Somebody else did the hard part.) Oh, and on the subject of the A-10, "..., how well do YOU think a pair of A-10s would have been able to prosecute 40 different time-critical targets in the CAS environment simultaneously?"

Definitely. They have excellent loiter capability, so they're always near the fight and have the ability to carry all of the ordnance to do the job. That's one of the reasons the ground troops liked them so much over in the middle east. Which was a problem with the fast movers, they always had to leave to go top off at the tanker.

Just to be clear, you actually believe a pair of A-10s could prosecute 40 separate target positions at the same time?

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

HEY!!!

Anybody hear an announcement yet?

 

[sublight_]

HEY!!!

Anybody hear an announcement yet?

Not unless this counts....

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

;D

 

[Sundog]

What makes you think the F-22 was doing anything but receiving a set of GPS coordinates and dropping a bomb on it? (Somebody else did the hard part.) Oh, and on the subject of the A-10, "..., how well do YOU think a pair of A-10s would have been able to prosecute 40 different time-critical targets in the CAS environment simultaneously?"

Definitely. They have excellent loiter capability, so they're always near the fight and have the ability to carry all of the ordnance to do the job. That's one of the reasons the ground troops liked them so much over in the middle east. Which was a problem with the fast movers, they always had to leave to go top off at the tanker.

Just to be clear, you actually believe a pair of A-10s could prosecute 40 separate target positions at the same time?

Oh, I see what you're saying. No, but then neither could an F-35 or F-22 as they don't have the ordnance. I can see an LRSB doing that, however.

 

[Ian33]

Doubt there was ever any serious intent to make an announcement on a Friday. Half of official Washington is probably headed out of Dodge by 1 PM.

Won't be till the legal fights over.

 

[Flyaway]

These articles are coming thick & fast now.

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2015-09-22/source-selection-soon-americas-new-stealthy-bomber

From that article this clears up one matter.

In addition to potential activity at Groom Lake, the Air Force has prepared the remote South Base at Edwards AFB for LRS-B testing, AIN has learned.

 

[quellish]

The 2016 defense budget requested not just money for RDTE of LRS-B, but construction money for facilities to support LRS-B.


$77.1m for RDT&E facilities *other than buildings* as well as $3m for munitions storage.


So, before anyone says it (or publishes it as "news") this money is not paying for the "new hangar(s)" at Groom Lake. The money for that has been coming from elsewhere, and this money is for something that is not a building (or hangar, or scoot-n-hide shelter, or runway/ramp). It could be a range instrumentation upgrade, it could be a data center, etc. It would be a fairly large amount of money to upgrade the toilets at Plant 42 or do whatever it is that is supposedly going on at South Base.


One thing that's interesting about this is that the location is listed as "worldwide classified", while "CONUS classified" would be more typical for locations like Groom Lake, Edwards, etc. The "worldwide classified" location may be significant, or it may not.


I've been sitting on this for a while and figured it may help some of you kill time before any official announcement is made. Maybe some of you can find the construction contracts that the money went to, or find a location that is getting a munitions storage facility and a lot of new power lines put in.

 

[FighterJock]

Anyone got this months Air International? Because there is a mention of the LRS-B in Robert F. Dorr's news column in which he states that the announcement for the new bomber would be put of until years end, which could mean any time between now (end of September) and quite possibly into December.

 

[Steve Pace]

Anyone got this months Air International? Because there is a mention of the LRS-B in Robert F. Dorr's news column in which he states that the announcement for the new bomber would be put of until years end, which could mean any time between now (end of September) and quite possibly into December.

Mr. Dorr isn't always right. Neither am I for that matter. -SP

 

[flateric]

"Okay, LRSB. LRSB. Very soon, very soon we’re going to be done with the source selection. What I always tell people is if you read in the press, somebody -- and I’ve said this to the press -- somebody who says when the source selection is going to be done, they’re not -- don’t believe it other than if somebody says “soon,” because the people that actually know what’s going on are not talking, and people that are talking don’t know what’s going on. Okay? So, just remember that.

So, listen to what I say. It’s going to be done soon."

2015 Air and Space Conference
Dr. William LaPlante
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, Acquisition
September 15, 2015

 

[The Artist]

"Okay, LRSB. LRSB. Very soon, very soon we’re going to be done with the source selection. What I always tell people is if you read in the press, somebody -- and I’ve said this to the press -- somebody who says when the source selection is going to be done, they’re not -- don’t believe it other than if somebody says “soon,” because the people that actually know what’s going on are not talking, and people that are talking don’t know what’s going on. Okay? So, just remember that.

So, listen to what I say. It’s going to be done soon."

2015 Air and Space Conference
Dr. William LaPlante
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, Acquisition
September 15, 2015

Translation (of all going on with this) borrowed from the movie "The Agony and the Ecstasy"

"When will you make an end of it?"

"When I am finished."

 

[Moose]

New fiscal year starts Oct 1, might be a good time for an announcement.

 

[Steve Pace]

New fiscal year starts Oct 1, might be a good time for an announcement.

...and China's president and the Pope will be back in their respective homes. -SP

 

[bring_it_on]

And there may not be a budget ..

 

[bring_it_on]

Even the articles are now just recycling old stuff (and not very accurate stuff at that)

Defense industry giants await Long Range Strike Bomber award, but competition is still a toss-up

Any day now the U.S. Air Force is going to award the contract for the much-anticipated Long Range Strike Bomber(LRS-B) in a competition featuring defense industry titans.
On one end is Falls Church-based Northrop Grumman Corp. (NYSE: NOC) and on the other is a super team comprised of Bethesda-based Lockheed Martin Corp. (NYSE: LMT) and Boeing Co. (NYSE: BA).

It’s still hard to tell who exactly has the edge. The highly secretive nature of the competition has left observers in the dark as to what the design will be, and that makes it nearly impossible to pick a winner ahead of time.

You have no idea what these proposals look like, there’s been a very high level of secrecy relative to previous aircraft programs, and for the men and women who make this decision, the overwhelming bulk of the criteria are merit of design,” said Richard Aboulafia, vice president of analysis at Fairfax-based Teal Group, an aerospace and defense analyst firm. “So, you could talk about the tangential stuff in which case, boy it looks like a wash to me, 50-50.”
The “tangential stuff” Aboulafia is referring to is what each name brings to the competition.
The LRS-B program is an effort by the Air Force to replace a large portion of the aging bomber craft fleet. According to Jeremiah Gertler, a specialist in military aviation for the Congressional Research Center, the U.S. bomber fleet is made up of 76 B-52 Stratofortresses at an average age of 50 years old, and 63 B-1s at an average age of 28.
The Air Force is planning for a delivery of 80 to 100 bombers as a combination of about 150 legacy bombers are taken out of service.
Northrop’s edge comes from the fact that it designed the most modern stealth bomber with the B-2 Spirit. The LRS-B program attempts to essentially modernize the B-2, and who better to do that than its original creator, Northrop and its supporters would argue.

Then there’s the Lockheed-Boeing team.
“The advantage Lockheed Martin and Boeing have is that it’s kind of a dream team,” Aboulafia said. “You’ve got the legendary Skunk Works on the design and you’ve got Boeing’s ability to produce.”
Lockheed has an advantage with stealth design, having produced the two most recent generation of stealth fighters with the F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II. Boeing has a reputation of delivering large aircraft in a cost-effective manner, which is imperative because the Air Force has made clear it will not award the contract to a competitor who can’t keep the cost per plane under $550 million.
But both competitors have their disadvantages.
Northrop on its own is expected to manage both design and production against a team that features the gold standard players in each. Northrop is also disadvantaged in that it is not currently a prime contractor on a military aircraft program. Lockheed has the F-35, and Boeing has the KC-46 Pegasus tanker.
The Lockheed-Boeing “dream team” is not without its flaws. Lockheed knows stealth design and in the history of its “Skunk Works” program, it produced the so-called “father of stealth,” Ben Rich. But that legacy extends to fighters, not bombers.
Boeing’s status as an economical aircraft designer, meanwhile, is facing tremendous struggles at the moment as it stares down billion-dollar cost overruns in the production of the KC-46.

 

[Flyaway]

Wonder if the hold up is because there isn't much in the two craft, or because there is some kind of legal challenge going on behind the scenes.

 

[LowObservable]

Teams of lawyers wargaming every protest scenario they can think of.

 

[Ian33]

Wonder if the hold up is because there isn't much in the two craft, or because there is some kind of legal challenge going on behind the scenes.

Legal fight, and an explosive one at that.

 

[TomS]

More like trying to immunize against a legal fight.

If the bidders had been officially informed of a loss or win on a contract of this scale it would be what the SEC calls a material fact, which needs to be disclosed promptly to investors. Since no one has said anything about losing a major DOD contract, it's safe to assume no formal award has been made and so no legal challenge has been mounted. But I'm sure the evaluators have a competition Red Team looking for potential points where the award could be challenged and pushing the award team to address them. Based on any followup question from the evaluators, the bidders probably have a fair idea who won right now but they probably don't know for sure yet.

 

[sferrin]

The problem I could see is the loser going after "gray" areas. Performance and price are going to be hard numbers. "Company A gives us a bit more of a warm fuzzy because of past performance" is going to be more subjective. So if the performance and price are close enough to make no difference, and it's decided based on those other criteria, I could see the loser trying to make a case. IMO neither side has covered themselves in glory there though.

 

[bobbymike]

The problem I could see is the loser going after "gray" areas. Performance and price are going to be hard numbers. "Company A gives us a bit more of a warm fuzzy because of past performance" is going to be more subjective. So if the performance and price are close enough to make no difference, and it's decided based on those other criteria, I could see the loser trying to make a case. IMO neither side has covered themselves in glory there though.

So what if we have a VLO sub-sonic flying wing vs. a LO (Mach 2+ dash speed) "larger F-22" (sorry that's a bad description but trying to get the gist)

 

[LowObservable]

In that case someone would have bleeped up the requirements. Industry initiative is a wonderful thing but if you ain't got the spec locked up better than that at this stage, it's time to start over.

 

[Ian33]

" Prepare to watch LRS-B and UCLASS get canned and an F-35 supporting UAS be slotted in. A flying LO jamming escort. The public wil get told 'We are saving billions by sacrificing a small capability that is no longer needed. The F-35 is perfectly capable.' Watch that space folks, as they already canned top tier BVR missile carrying UCLASS because it threatened the 35."

This from a guy who works flight line F22.

 

[Mat Parry]

Time will tell of course, however I do wonder about Lockheed's unsolicited TR-X (stealthy U2 replacement), fusion reactor research and all the SR-72 noise. If they'd won LRS-B then this and the F-35 pantomime would presumably keep them busy enough without looking for more business?... Do they already know they've lost?

 

[marauder2048]

In that case someone would have bleeped up the requirements. Industry initiative is a wonderful thing but if you ain't got the spec locked up better than that at this stage, it's time to start over.

But LRS-B doesn't exist in a vacuum; the lesser known LRSW effort that accompanied the earlier LRSA effort (where Boeing's concept was in fact a Mach 2.0 cruiser with a 6000 nmi range) is still kicking; the wide range of propulsion options the Air Force is entertaining
for LRSO is interesting in that regard.

 

[sferrin]

In that case someone would have bleeped up the requirements. Industry initiative is a wonderful thing but if you ain't got the spec locked up better than that at this stage, it's time to start over.

But LRS-B doesn't exist in a vacuum; the lesser known LRSW effort that accompanied the earlier LRSA effort (where Boeing's concept was in fact a Mach 2.0 cruiser with a 6000 nmi range) is still kicking; the wide range of propulsion options the Air Force is entertaining
for LRSO is interesting in that regard.

Do you have any detail on this?

 

[DrRansom]

Mach 2 cruiser? Sign me up.

 

[Steve Pace]

I feel in my gut that the LRSB decision is near and I check every entry on this thread hoping that it the decision has been made. I need to include this info in my X-Bombers and X-Fighters book by October 15th or it'll be too late to add. "More's the pity." -SP

 

[tacitblue]

Mach 2 cruiser? Sign me up.

LO low altitude high speed penetrator would be a hard nut to crack. Can't keep churning out subsonic flying wings forever; once spotted they are simply dead meat.

 

[Sundog]

Mach 2 cruiser? Sign me up.

LO low altitude high speed penetrator would be a hard nut to crack. Can't keep churning out subsonic flying wings forever; once spotted they are simply dead meat.

Which is why they can avoid being spotted. The only other main question is what their self defense capabilities are/will be.

 

[quellish]

LO low altitude high speed penetrator would be a hard nut to crack. Can't keep churning out subsonic flying wings forever; once spotted they are simply dead meat.

Getting closer to the emitter and terrain reflections is not a winning plan. At low altitude trigonometry is your enemy, at high altitude it is your friend.

 

[tacitblue]

LO low altitude high speed penetrator would be a hard nut to crack. Can't keep churning out subsonic flying wings forever; once spotted they are simply dead meat.

Getting closer to the emitter and terrain reflections is not a winning plan. At low altitude trigonometry is your enemy, at high altitude it is your friend.

It's precisely for trigonometry that you want to go low, especially when releasing cruise missiles as opposed to gravity bombs. (obviously not all land is created equal)

 

[Ian33]

Did they not come to the decision that to survive, the B-2B had to be a very capable low level airframe? Hence the extra weddges at the rear and that beaver tail?

 

[tacitblue]

Did they not come to the decision that to survive, the B-2B had to be a very capable low level airframe? Hence the extra weddges at the rear and that beaver tail?

Yes, they changed the ATB requirements to include low level penetration. That's why the tail end is so serrated.

 

[Steve Pace]

Did they not come to the decision that to survive, the B-2B had to be a very capable low level airframe? Hence the extra weddges at the rear and that beaver tail?

B-2B?

 

[quellish]

Did they not come to the decision that to survive, the B-2B had to be a very capable low level airframe? Hence the extra weddges at the rear and that beaver tail?

From "B-2 Systems Engineering Case Study":


> The evaluation of the contractors’ proposals proceeded on site at the contractors’ facilities throughout December 1980, through January and into February 1981. The Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC) received regular briefings on the progress of the evaluation and the outcome of the ongoing survivability assessment. The SSAC concluded that growth provisions for low altitude capability would be a prudent hedge against an ever-changing and maturing radar threat operational throughout the Soviet Union.


At the time, this was not actually based on a Red Team assessment but on (speculative) intelligence estimates. The thinking here was that the if the Soviets developed a counter to the B-2 at high altitude it could be shifted to low altitude.

It's precisely for trigonometry that you want to go low, especially when releasing cruise missiles as opposed to gravity bombs. (obviously not all land is created equal)

From "Route Planning Issues for Low Observable Aircraft and Cruise Missiles":


> In some high, overlapping threat environments, the effects of background clutter and propagation phenomena (such as multipath and ducting) on the performance of acquisition radars may also be important in route planning low- altitude, terrain-following LO platforms. For example, without taking into consideration background clutter, the threat penetration analysis for a well-
defended target, located in a narrow valley, may show that there are no low-risk routes into the target.


> Obviously, to deternine the effects of background clutier and propagation phenomena on route planning, operators must be provided with !he necessary
data, to create clutter and refl;ectivity maps, and with the appropriate threat penetration models. However, because of difficulties in creating high delily clutter and refiectivity maps, variabilities in background clutter and reflectivity (generic models may not suffice), time constraiints (extensive computations are required), and the desire to be offense conservative, most route planning procedures assumne no, background clutter or propogation effects on enemay defenses


Lincoln Laboratory and the DoD Red Team studied this to death from the late 1970s through the 1990s. This is why the AGM-129 did not penetrate at low level - low level was reserved for the run in to the target primarily because of terminal guidance needs. It was also not released at low altitude.




Low altitude penetration:


1. Puts the aircraft much closer to the threat.
2. Gives the threat more favorable viewing aspects.
3. Increases the effects of terrain, etc. reflections. This drastically reduces the effects of low observable design.
4. Makes route planning much, much more difficult and requires very precise emitter information and modeling.
5. Changes the enemy kill chain significantly. AAA and airborne intercept are more of a concern, RF SAMs less so.


These concerns (and more) were raised by USAF during their assessments of the A-12 program as well.

 

[Ian33]

Awesome. I learnt something both new and useful today. Thanks Quellish.

 

[tacitblue]

Much of the above post is true, if using "bombs" and approaching a target to drop them on. Using ALCMs, not so much value in that assessment. There is a reason why ALCMs fly low.

 

[quellish]

Much of the above post is true, if using "bombs" and approaching a target to drop them on. Using ALCMs, not so much value in that assessment. There is a reason why ALCMs fly low.

There is also a reason the ACM was developed, and a reason the B-2 carried neither.
Radars for the Detection and Tracking of Cruise Missiles