US Next Generation Bomber Studies

[marauder2048]

Sorry for the delay in replying; it would have saved some debate. Boeing's LRSA effort cruised at 60,000+ ft. I thought the LRSA effort was well known 'round
these parts? Quite a few of the sub-systems were matured in the public domain.

Yes, there is all kinds of notional artwork floating around from the time but you sounded as though you had a very specific design in mind. Do you have any detail/artwork/something-that-says-this-specifically-is-Boeing's-design?

It is a very specific design (that's been referenced in a bunch of presos and papers) but I've never seen a notional depiction that has been explicitly matched to the specs. The Mach 2 weapons release done under HIFEX back in 2008 was part of the overall effort though.

 

[LowObservable]

NG was presenting supersonic options as well, through 2005 at least. Some of that had come out of DARPA's QSP project.


However, if you review the papers and research from that time, the magnitude of the tech demonstration work needed before you could think about launching a program was impressive. It would have been hard to envision a supersonic "2018 bomber" in 2006, and the AF didn't seem excited about it. Given that the 2018-oriented NGB was the goal until 2009 and that the LRS-B arose from its ashes in less than two years, it's also difficult to see how it could have gone supersonic in that time.


So it would be very surprising if LRSB is anything other than a subsonic BWB... and of course there are those pesky laws of physics to consider.

 

[Ian33]

I just want to see this roll out a stable to stun the world. Would make my aviation fandom complete.

 

[quellish]

So it would be very surprising if LRSB is anything other than a subsonic BWB... and of course there are those pesky laws of physics to consider.

I would have to find the references, but the conclusion reached was the supersonic options were the highest risk and highest life cycle costs - by a wide margin. That is why to focus shifted away from high speed bombers.


It is still possible that concepts like Persistor were pursued - and there is some information that supports that - but it is far more likely that both designs are subsonic wings.

 

[marauder2048]

I would have to find the references, but the conclusion reached was the supersonic options were the highest risk and highest life cycle costs - by a wide margin. That is why to focus shifted away from high speed bombers.

There was an Institute For Defense Analysis study that came to (almost verbatim) those conclusions.
IIRC, the recurring "knee in the curve" for greater than sub-sonic speed as a contributor to survivability was around Mach 3+.

 

[tacitblue]

So it would be very surprising if LRSB is anything other than a subsonic BWB... and of course there are those pesky laws of physics to consider.

I would have to find the references, but the conclusion reached was the supersonic options were the highest risk and highest life cycle costs - by a wide margin. That is why to focus shifted away from high speed bombers.


It is still possible that concepts like Persistor were pursued - and there is some information that supports that - but it is far more likely that both designs are subsonic wings.

There is more risk & costs designing a supersonic airplane versus subsonic That's not a shock to anyone who knows anything about aircraft design. Subsonic is cheaper. So let's build LO turboprops since they are cheaper then jets.

The DoD used to not care a subsonic AC was cheaper than a supersonic one if supersonic was what was needed.

 

[Sundog]

So it would be very surprising if LRSB is anything other than a subsonic BWB... and of course there are those pesky laws of physics to consider.

I would have to find the references, but the conclusion reached was the supersonic options were the highest risk and highest life cycle costs - by a wide margin. That is why to focus shifted away from high speed bombers.


It is still possible that concepts like Persistor were pursued - and there is some information that supports that - but it is far more likely that both designs are subsonic wings.

There is more risk & costs designing a supersonic airplane versus subsonic That's not a shock to anyone who knows anything about aircraft design. Subsonic is cheaper. So let's build LO turboprops since they are cheaper then jets.

The DoD used to not care a subsonic AC was cheaper than a supersonic one if supersonic was what was needed.

For the mission requirements, it turns out supersonic isn't needed and, when it comes to stealth, subsonic is much better than supersonic. Low boom tech isn't no boom tech.

 

[donnage99]

There is more risk & costs designing a supersonic airplane versus subsonic That's not a shock to anyone who knows anything about aircraft design. Subsonic is cheaper. So let's build LO turboprops since they are cheaper then jets.

The DoD used to not care a subsonic AC was cheaper than a supersonic one if supersonic was what was needed.

I think that's a slippery slope type of argument. Defining requirements has always been trying to figure out the middle ground between conflicting requirements, space, cost, not just going either extreme polar ends. And yes, cost is a factor. The cheaper it is, the more you can build, which does translate into mission effectiveness.

 

[bring_it_on]

AFMagazine Oct15

The Future of Long-Range Strike

 

[Steve Pace]

They - AFA, like us, continue to speculate. -SP

 

[bring_it_on]

U.S. Weapons Buyer Says He's Likely to Allow Bomber Contract

The Pentagon’s top weapons buyer, Frank Kendall, says he’ll probably soon give the Air Force permission to award the contract for the next U.S. long-range bomber because extensive preparations have indicated “we have viable bids.”
The Air Force can proceed only after Kendall, undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, convenes a Defense Acquisition Board review to assess the service’s readiness to award a contract in the competition that pits Northrop Grumman Corp. against a team of Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp. Kendall said he hopes a date for the review, which often signals to investors that a contract award is coming within days, can be decided this month.
“When I look at a program, I look at whether it’s affordable, whether the program plan is executable -- is it a reasonable schedule, reasonable amount of money, reasonable requirements?” Kendall said in an interview. “I already did all that. So unless we learn something from the bids that changes some of those parameters, it’s merely a matter of verifying that those parameters were valid.”
“I do not consider this to be a difficult decision,” Kendall said. Asked to compare it with previous reviews for multibillion-dollar weapons systems, he said it’s far easier than the year-long negotiations he led with Lockheed, ending in 2012, for 32 F-35s in the fighter’s fifth production lot.

$800 Million Each


The Long-Range Strike Bomber may cost more $800 million each in today’s dollars when development costs are included, some analysts have estimated, and a fleet of 100 is planned. The bomber, scheduled for first deployment in the mid-2020s, will be one of the Pentagon’s biggest weapons systems over the next decade.
The House Armed Services Committee in May cut $460 million from the $1.25 billion fiscal 2016 request for the bomber because the selection had been delayed four months. The Senate Armed Services panel agreed.
The program has been shrouded in secrecy, including how much has been spent in the past three to four years on classified contracts to prepare the way. Air Force Secretary Deborah James has pledged to disclose more cost details when the contract is released.
Air Force officials have said that the competing contractors have been conducting development work since 2011 under classified contracts to minimize technology challenges.
“We’re comfortable with the risk reduction that’s been taking place,” Kendall said.
After the review board approves going ahead, the Air Force “will have to make a choice, then off we’ll go,” he said of the bomber competition.
The plane is envisioned as the eventual successor to the aging B-1B and B-52 bombers. It’s being designed to carry both guided conventional munitions and a planned new long-range nuclear cruise missile.

 

[quellish]

Subsonic is cheaper. So let's build LO turboprops since they are cheaper then jets.

The DoD used to not care a subsonic AC was cheaper than a supersonic one if supersonic was what was needed.

If turboprops meet all the requirements, why not?

 

[Flyaway]

First time I've seen this mentioned. It's not in the Bloomberg article up thread though I assume from the same event.

The program is also unusually advanced in terms of design and testing; the Air Force already has two robust prototypes in hand.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/10/06/usaf-final-closing-phase-bomber-contract/73450104/

Time to look again at those Amarillo photos?

 

[Dragon029]

This was already mentioned / posted a few pages back.

 

[Flyaway]

This was already mentioned / posted a few pages back.

Don't see how being as this was only just mentioned.

 

[Dragon029]

Apologies, I didn't notice the date in the link; I also misread the quote (assuming they're not making assumptions based on previous information). This is what I thought it was being quoted from:

The Bomber Countdown Has Started

The Air Force is within weeks of issuing a final request for proposals for the new Long-Range Strike Bomber and expects to choose a single contractor to build the airplane “nominally in about a year,” service acquisition executive William LaPlante told Air Force Magazine in an interview. A draft RFP has been out for some time, and while there are “still some iterations going on” between USAF and its contractors over what the final RFP will say, “hopefully that will wrap up soon,” LaPlante said. The downselect in Spring of 2015 will narrow the field of competitors to just one contractor or team, he said. The competition phase has not been limited to “paper studies,” he allowed, but includes flying demonstrators or better. “We will have variants of technical articles … if you want to call them ‘prototypes,’” he said, and this fact, though previously undisclosed, should be no surprise because the program is “relying on relatively mature technologies,” LaPlante explained. Some of these flying demonstrators are the product of “internal resources that industry has already; some of it is stuff that we have funded through various programs over the years.” The product will therefore be “a combination of government (and) … internal investment” from the contractors. A team of Boeing and Lockheed Martin has said it is pursuing the LRS-B contract, and Northrop Grumman is also expected to be in the running.​
—John A. Tirpak
5/29/2014

 

[sferrin]

"Some of these flying demonstrators "

Interesting. Hope we get to see them someday soon.

On another note:

"The LRS-B will extend American air dominance against next generation capabilities in an anti-access environment by its long-range, significant payload and survivability.” "

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/167600/usaf-leaders-testify-on-bomber-structure%2C-plans.html

So I wonder if he means in comparison to fighters or that he's implying it's going to be more like B-1B/B-2/B-52 class in payload? ???

 

[LowObservable]

One B83 is "significant".


I think all we can deduce from that is "more than you routinely see on a fighter" or >6000 lb. Which we knew already.


And if they don't show the prototypes, doesn't that mean that the responsible people have made the right decisions about secrecy? I seem to recall a discussion on those lines a few pages back.

 

[sferrin]

One B83 is "significant".

100% certain that was not the definition he was using.

I think all we can deduce from that is "more than you routinely see on a fighter" or >6000 lb. Which we knew already.

Given they've said nothing specific about the payload prior there was no reason to believe that. If you have numbers I'd love to see them.

And if they don't show the prototypes, doesn't that mean that the responsible people have made the right decisions about secrecy? I seem to recall a discussion on those lines a few pages back.

I trust you know the difference between "I hope we get to see them" and "I think we have a right to see them"?

 

[Sundog]

Based on what has been said previously, I assume these prototypes are what Edwards south base is preparing for? My question, then, is will we also see the design/prototype flown by the losing team? It would be nice to compare/contrast the designs. Of course, if the vehicle(s) in question are privately funded, then they are proprietary technology and it would be partially up to the company to allow it/them to be revealed provided the government approved it with regard to their classification status.


Still, it would be nice to see both the proposed final designs and the competing prototype/demonstrators.

 

[sferrin]

I don't get the impression they're prototype bombers in the vein of the YF-22/23, but more like demonstrators for particular technologies. Think Tacit Blue, X-36, Bird of Prey, etc.

 

[Steve Pace]

Based on what has been said previously, I assume these prototypes are what Edwards south base is preparing for? My question, then, is will we also see the design/prototype flown by the losing team? It would be nice to compare/contrast the designs. Of course, if the vehicle(s) in question are privately funded, then they are proprietary technology and it would be partially up to the company to allow it/them to be revealed provided the government approved it with regard to their classification status.


Still, it would be nice to see both the proposed final designs and the competing prototype/demonstrators.

Lockheed Martin is still extremely tight-lipped about its losing ATB - Senior Peg. -SP

 

[marauder2048]

One B83 is "significant".

100% certain that was not the definition he was using.

It would be an especially baffling definition given that the the B83 is scheduled to be out of the inventory by the time LRS-B undergoes nuclear certification.

 

[sferrin]

It would be an especially baffling definition given that the the B83 is scheduled to be out of the inventory by the time LRS-B undergoes nuclear certification.

Yet another brilliant move. Death by a thousand cuts.

 

[marauder2048]

It would be an especially baffling definition given that the the B83 is scheduled to be out of the inventory by the time LRS-B undergoes nuclear certification.

Yet another brilliant move. Death by a thousand cuts.

My understanding is that it's contingent on the B61-12 entering inventory in sufficient numbers. But I agree that it's not wise to give up your
hardened silo killer while Ivan is treating INF like it's FIN

 

[quellish]

I don't get the impression they're prototype bombers in the vein of the YF-22/23, but more like demonstrators for particular technologies. Think Tacit Blue, X-36, Bird of Prey, etc.

 

[xstatic3000]

I don't get the impression they're prototype bombers in the vein of the YF-22/23, but more like demonstrators for particular technologies. Think Tacit Blue, X-36, Bird of Prey, etc.

 

[sferrin]

It would be an especially baffling definition given that the the B83 is scheduled to be out of the inventory by the time LRS-B undergoes nuclear certification.

Yet another brilliant move. Death by a thousand cuts.

My understanding is that it's contingent on the B61-12 entering inventory in sufficient numbers. But I agree that it's not wise to give up your
hardened silo killer while Ivan is treating INF like it's FIN

Isn't the B61-12 just a modification of already existing bombs? It's not like we're building NEW bombs. Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure the last new nuclear warhead we built was a W88 right before the Feds shut down the facility back in the 80s. And, of course, China swiped the design. . .

 

[bobbymike]

It would be an especially baffling definition given that the the B83 is scheduled to be out of the inventory by the time LRS-B undergoes nuclear certification.

Yet another brilliant move. Death by a thousand cuts.

My understanding is that it's contingent on the B61-12 entering inventory in sufficient numbers. But I agree that it's not wise to give up your
hardened silo killer while Ivan is treating INF like it's FIN

Isn't the B61-12 just a modification of already existing bombs? It's not like we're building NEW bombs. Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure the last new nuclear warhead we built was a W88 right before the Feds shut down the facility back in the 80s. And, of course, China swiped the design. . .

Not only that but language in the NDAA explicitly prohibits work on new weapons/designs. The only nuclear power that tells it's scientists to not develop anything new.

 

[sferrin]

Not only that but language in the NDAA explicitly prohibits work on new weapons/designs. The only nuclear power that tells it's scientists to not develop anything new.

One could be forgiven for thinking Washington wants to run the country off a cliff.

 

[Flyaway]

I don't get the impression they're prototype bombers in the vein of the YF-22/23, but more like demonstrators for particular technologies. Think Tacit Blue, X-36, Bird of Prey, etc.

That would seem a rather long way round to get to their end point. After all if that was a more agreeable solution then surely other competitions would adopt this method rather than the more full blooded prototypes actually seen such as the YF-22/23 & I don't see why this should be any different.

 

[bring_it_on]

...

 

[Mat Parry]

I don't get the impression they're prototype bombers in the vein of the YF-22/23, but more like demonstrators for particular technologies. Think Tacit Blue, X-36, Bird of Prey, etc.

That would seem a rather long way round to get to their end point. After all if that was a more agreeable solution then surely other competitions would adopt this method rather than the more full blooded prototypes actually seen such as the YF-22/23 & I don't see why this should be any different.

Is there any evidence to suggest flying demonstrators were built for the ATB (that lead to the B-2)?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Tacit Blue demonstrated the core technologies for B-2. The YF-22 and YF-23 weren't true prototypes either but technology demonstrators for selected technologies.

 

[DrRansom]

Quellish - do you have links to any studies which looked at speed vs stealth in aircraft survivability?

Thanks,

 

[sferrin]

Tacit Blue demonstrated the core technologies for B-2. The YF-22 and YF-23 weren't true prototypes either but technology demonstrators for selected technologies.

And don't forget all the demonstrators for various things leading up to them like the AFTI F-16/F-111, X-29, F-15 SMTD etc.

 

[Flyaway]

I don't get the impression they're prototype bombers in the vein of the YF-22/23, but more like demonstrators for particular technologies. Think Tacit Blue, X-36, Bird of Prey, etc.

That would seem a rather long way round to get to their end point. After all if that was a more agreeable solution then surely other competitions would adopt this method rather than the more full blooded prototypes actually seen such as the YF-22/23 & I don't see why this should be any different.

Is there any evidence to suggest flying demonstrators were built for the ATB (that lead to the B-2)?

Wasn't there supposed to be a classified subscale version of the B-2, I'm sure that was mentioned on here ages back?

 

[Mat Parry]

MY point is, if there are 2 prototypes flying for LRS-B then it is far from certain we will ever see them (ie. ATB prototype rumours)

 

[Steve Pace]

MY point is, if there are 2 prototypes flying for LRS-B then it is far from certain we will ever see them (ie. ATB prototype rumours)

Here's a thought: If indeed prototypes are flying what are they designated - XB/YB-3 and XB/YB-4 or what? -SP

 

[xstatic3000]

As posted previously, many of the UAV demonstrators that we have seen in the past 10 years - particularly from Lockheed - have been prototypes to reduce risk for a potential NGB bid. It's entirely possible that there have been others technology demonstrators in addition to Polecat I and II, BFF, and MUTT. There have been so many advancements in engineering since the B2 that it's highly unlikely that a prototype of an actual NGB would need to be constructed - at great expense - and flown. Unless there is some sort of breakthrough that we don't know about - which is not reflected in the requirements - I don't really see the value in a full scale Proof of Concept demonstrator.