US Next Generation Bomber Studies

[quellish]

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

Thanks,

Sure.
http://www.nap.edu/read/11743/chapter/1

 

[marauder2048]

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.

New materials were probably demonstrated on the B-2 itself under the LOSSM and earlier effortd.

 

[flateric]

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.

Good point. Still interesting that scaled demonstrators were included as part of LM HWB and NG ERA programs. X-48B/C/D comes to mind too.
Still thinking that NG will go with cranked kite design.

 

[Sundog]

Scaled demonstrators could be helpful from an advanced LO and structures point of view. As signature is related to size and new construction techniques have to be scale-able (sp?).

 

[DrRansom]

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

Thanks,

Sure.
http://www.nap.edu/read/11743/chapter/1

Thank you!

 

[bring_it_on]

AEI: LRS-B Acquisition Risk Tied To Centralized Management

Whether the Defense Department is successful at building and procuring a Long-Range Strike Bomber is dependent largely on the level of control the Air Force has to manage the program, according to an American Enterprise Institute report released this week.

The October report, which refers to the LRS-B as the B-3, poses that years of acquisition reform efforts within DOD have not led to the necessary improvement in weapon system procurement, and instead have made the system more centralized and arduous. The report links failures in past major acquisition programs -- including the B-1, B-2 and F-22 -- to this phenomenon and warns that LRS-B could be in danger of a similar fate.

"The prospects for successful B-3 procurement rest on the Air Force's ability to be left alone to manage the program -- and the service fulfilling that trust," the AEI report states. "The best way to do that is to focus on the need to field the B-3 within that 'mid-2020s' time frame; program urgency without program concurrency ought to stand as the B-3 creed."

The Air Force is expected to be responsible for the day-to-day management of the program, but large-scale budget control will fall to the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The report argues that under this construct, which gives centralized budget authority to OSD, the "central secretariat" will have the most influence on the program's success.

"The Air Force will, at best, be a junior partner under OSD direction," the report states, noting that if the program is delivered on time and on budget, that will be "despite the current procurement system, not because of it."

The report cautions against a drawn-out development effort, while acknowledging that the information released to date about the largely classified LRS-B indicates the service is relying heavily on already-proven technologies and that the competitors -- Northrop Grumman and a Boeing/Lockheed Martin team -- appear to have matured much of their designs through a rigorous and costly early development effort.

"The program is highly classified, but the very short time for 'down-select' between the two competing industry teams and the aggressive funding plan -- which ramps up to several billion dollars per year in very short order -- suggests to many observers not only that the technological hurdles are well understood but also that the competing contractors have built prototypes," the report states.

A contract award was expected last spring but has been delayed and is now expected before the end of the year, service officials have said.

The Air Force plans to purchase 100 new bombers, at least initially, at a cost of $550 million per aircraft. That unit price is a key performance parameter -- a feature that service officials have touted as an important cost-control mechanism.

But the service's apparent "reasonable approach" to technology and cost could increase the program's susceptibility to politics and bureaucracy, the AEI report states. It also notes that support for the program is "not necessarily deep," which could be owed to the level of secrecy DOD has maintained.

And without a deeper level of support, the program, dependent on a consistent funding stream, becomes more vulnerable to budget cuts.

"In the era of the Budget Control Act and with the Pentagon annually held under the threat of the law's sequestration provision, the program's funding profile is also optimistic, to put it gently," the report states.

Buying the B-3 Procurement Reform and the Long Range Strike Bomber
Thomas Donnelly, Anand Datla, and Robert Haffa


Report : https://www.scribd.com/doc/285025442/Buying-the-B-3

 

[quellish]

Scaled demonstrators could be helpful from an advanced LO and structures point of view. As signature is related to size and new construction techniques have to be scale-able (sp?).

Usually - but not always - the point of flying a LO/VLO demonstrator aircraft is to validate the dynamic radar cross section. An actual flying aircraft can be very different from a model on a pole. Things flex, go in an out of alignment, expand and contract, etc. Dynamic measurements taken in-flight are often very important to validating new signature reduction or construction/manufacturing techniques. Flying against threat systems and threat simulators is also important. Bird of Prey is an excellent example of all these things.


That said, the test and measurement capabilities have limitations. It can be very difficult (and sometimes impossible) for these dynamic measurement and threat systems to work with scaled demonstrators. Unlike a static RCS range these systems typically have more limited frequency ranges, etc. that make scaling signature data.... difficult. It depends on a lot of things.

 

[flateric]

Still conflicting info from various sources - first say of first five lots of 19-21 aircrafts total (and Lot 6 and following are mentioned as being oredeed at different contract principles), others say of five lots of 100 aircraft total with 20 in each lot (third say of 19-21 variations for every lot).

 

[phrenzy]

Looks like they're either gearing up to produce or restructuring to deal with the loss. Going on the thin information provided and my thinner knowledge and analysis I'd say it looks a little more like they're restructuring to become a systems and services company than a company that is organising to have a lathe combat aircraft section pulled together. Still, what do I know.


http://m.investing.com/news/stock-market-news/northrop-grumman-names-new-coo-as-part-of-streamlining-of-company-366210

Investing.com -- Northrop Grumman (N:NOC) named Gloria Flach as its new Chief Operating Officer on Wednesday as part of a host of leadership changes aimed at enhancing innovation across the company.
The global aerospace and defense technology company, based in Falls Church, Virginia, is among the largest defense contractors in the world. Flach, who joined Northrop Grumman in 1981, previously served as its corporate vice president and president of its defense electronics systems sector. As part of Flach's job responsibilities, she oversaw the company's operations in airspace management systems, navigation systems, radar and self-protection systems, marine systems, space systems, oceanic and naval systems, government systems and logistics services among others. Prior to that, Flach served as the company's president of its Enterprise Shared Services division.
In addition, Northrop Grumman announced that it will be streamlining its business sectors, while creating two new divisions. The sectors will be formed by merging its Electronic Systems, Information Systems and Technical Services segments. The new sector will be led by Chris Jones, a corporate vice president and president of Technical Services, the company said in a statement.
The company will also move its military and civil space hardware business in Azusa, California, to its Aerospace Systems sector. The division will still be headed by Tom Vice, the company said.
"These changes align more closely with the evolving missions of our customers in the global security markets we serve," said Wes Bush, chairman, chief executive officer and president, Northrop Grumman. "I am pleased that we have strong leadership in place and I look forward to working with them to continue to deliver top performance for our shareholders, customers and employees."
Northrop Grumman also announced on Wednesday that it will release its financial results from the third quarter of 2015 on Oct. 28.
Shares in Northrop Grumman fell 3.27 or 1.85% to 173.80 at the close of trading on Wednesday.

 

[tacitblue]

Looks like they're either gearing up to produce or restructuring to deal with the loss. Going on the thin information provided and my thinner knowledge and analysis I'd say it looks a little more like they're restructuring to become a systems and services company than a company that is organising to have a lathe combat aircraft section pulled together. Still, what do I know.


http://m.investing.com/news/stock-market-news/northrop-grumman-names-new-coo-as-part-of-streamlining-of-company-366210

Investing.com -- Northrop Grumman (N:NOC) named Gloria Flach as its new Chief Operating Officer on Wednesday as part of a host of leadership changes aimed at enhancing innovation across the company.
The global aerospace and defense technology company, based in Falls Church, Virginia, is among the largest defense contractors in the world. Flach, who joined Northrop Grumman in 1981, previously served as its corporate vice president and president of its defense electronics systems sector. As part of Flach's job responsibilities, she oversaw the company's operations in airspace management systems, navigation systems, radar and self-protection systems, marine systems, space systems, oceanic and naval systems, government systems and logistics services among others. Prior to that, Flach served as the company's president of its Enterprise Shared Services division.
In addition, Northrop Grumman announced that it will be streamlining its business sectors, while creating two new divisions. The sectors will be formed by merging its Electronic Systems, Information Systems and Technical Services segments. The new sector will be led by Chris Jones, a corporate vice president and president of Technical Services, the company said in a statement.
The company will also move its military and civil space hardware business in Azusa, California, to its Aerospace Systems sector. The division will still be headed by Tom Vice, the company said.
"These changes align more closely with the evolving missions of our customers in the global security markets we serve," said Wes Bush, chairman, chief executive officer and president, Northrop Grumman. "I am pleased that we have strong leadership in place and I look forward to working with them to continue to deliver top performance for our shareholders, customers and employees."
Northrop Grumman also announced on Wednesday that it will release its financial results from the third quarter of 2015 on Oct. 28.
Shares in Northrop Grumman fell 3.27 or 1.85% to 173.80 at the close of trading on Wednesday.

IMHO, IDK how you can read your conclusion into that report.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2015/10/15/why-america-cant-beat-china-without-a-new-bomber/

 

[bobbymike]

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/10/lrsb-when-will-the-bomber-drop/?utm_campaign=Breaking+Defense+Daily+Digest&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=23024872&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9uhgSQ6sbXw4nN7OcjzL6y1fzSafhx4aIRpAuZrOmIRNaWKxm5wzi5O5K1F-bHa-cTmImp-DwpWr_meRmfUNQiB9_rmg&_hsmi=23024872

 

[LowObservable]

Reads like a squib. Maybe we'll know more in a few hours. NOT expecting the announcement, but clues as to what the timing factors are.

 

[sferrin]

Reads like a squib. Maybe we'll know more in a few hours. NOT expecting the announcement, but clues as to what the timing factors are.

They'll make a big production out of it, get the press on the edge of their seats, and then announce that the new bomber is "officially designated B-3".

 

[TomS]

Nah, they'll call it the B-175 or some such nonesense. Anything to screw with the designation office at this point.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Actually, if they really wanted to troll people (especially us), they'd call it the B-5 and watch the conspiracy theories explode.

Or, for that old-skool feel, RS-76 or something like that.

I vote for KC-197.

 

[bring_it_on]

Courtesy Colin Clark - ‏@ColinDefense
#AirForce acquisition head LaPlante "we are not going to announce it today but we are very close”

Very veiled reference by #AIrForce LaPlante but there MAY be #LRSB prototypes flying or close to it. Confirms award for 21 planes in 5 lots

 

[Ian33]

Actually, if they really wanted to troll people (especially us), they'd call it the B-5 and watch the conspiracy theories explode.

Or, for that old-skool feel, RS-76 or something like that.

I heard the Northrop Grumman airframe being talked of as a possible YB-49 ll - Dominator.

 

[Ian33]

....and an unmanned airframe for UCLASS as RQ-47C Cuttlefish.

 

[sferrin]

Actually, if they really wanted to troll people (especially us), they'd call it the B-5 and watch the conspiracy theories explode.

Or, for that old-skool feel, RS-76 or something like that.

I heard the Northrop Grumman airframe being talked of as a possible YB-49 ll - Dominator.

Wouldn't that be the name of an LM airframe? Dominator 2. The Consolidated/Convair/General Dynamics/Lockheed Martin B-32 was the first "Dominator". ;D

 

[Steve Pace]

B-4 before what? =SP

 

[quellish]

Courtesy Colin Clark - ‏@ColinDefense
#AirForce acquisition head LaPlante "we are not going to announce it today but we are very close”

Very veiled reference by #AIrForce LaPlante but there MAY be #LRSB prototypes flying or close to it. Confirms award for 21 planes in 5 lots

Here's the thing about prototypes, especially for something larger than a fighter.
They have to be built someplace.
They have to be tested someplace.
They have to get from built place to testing place.
Subsystems need to be tested before they can fly - avionics, control laws, antennas, engines, etc.
Prototypes often require people with specialized skills to build and fly them.


So, for example, tracking the movements of avionics testbeds, test support assets like N105TB, variable stability aircraft, etc. can tell you a lot about wether there is a prototype in the works. And if a prototype was built it would have to be transported from Palmdale (or FL) to some test site - either over the road or in an aircraft. Both of these options are difficult as the aircraft gets larger (and/or has a lower RCS).


Scaling down may not be an option because whatever needs to be proven may not be feasible or relevant at a reduced size.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3243491/Prototypes-new-long-range-stealth-bombers-built-tested-spending-project-jumps-1bn.html

 

[quellish]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3243491/Prototypes-new-long-range-stealth-bombers-built-tested-spending-project-jumps-1bn.html

The Daily Mail article is mostly quoting The Daily Beast, which is.... pulling numbers out of thin air.


1B is how much was requested at the beginning of the year, so... not exactly "jumping".


LRS spending in 2012 was not 200m as quoted.


Between LRS,NGB, and LRS-B, *far* more has been spent than is being acknowledged. When NGB was "cancelled" and LRS-B was "started" as a classified program not only was it performing all the same tasks, it was using the same funding profiles and PE codes. They are the same program, but the "cancellation" allows DoD to claim that money spent on NGB was not part of LRS-B, thus lower flyaway costs.

 

[bobbymike]

Keep It Rapid


—John A. Tirpak

​The Pentagon’s Rapid Capabilities Office (RCO) has managed the Long-Range Strike Bomber since its 2011 inception, and will continue to do so after the contract is awarded, USAF acquisition chief William LaPlante told reporters Wednesday. Giving background on the program before contract award, which LaPlante said will be made soon, he said LRS-B requirements were set after all the services had a chance to participate in the process, so the bomber is a DOD-wide requirement, and not just an Air Force need. The RCO has kept the project “lean and mean” by limiting the program staff to just 80 people, and there are no plans to shift program management to a formal system program office at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, he said. Even so, the RCO has routinely briefed its boss, Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall, as well as LaPlante, the Secretary of the Air Force, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and members of the various defense committees on Capitol Hill, so it has “plenty of oversight.” LaPlante noted that the RCO has reduced risk by re-using technologies “already flying” on other projects, some of which he hinted are classified, but have been built in some numbers

Hope they give the GBSD to the RCO as well.

 

[Flyaway]

Maybe that means there has been an interchange of technologies between it & the RQ-180.

 

[Orphic]

seen on Twitter
Tara Copp ‏@TaraCopp 14h14 hours ago Expect .@usairforce #LRSB announcement this week "We’re really, really close to the announcement of the bomber," LePlante tells reporters

 

[bring_it_on]

USAF: Bomber Decision 'Really, Really Close'

Announcement of the Pentagon’s choice of a contractor to build the Long-Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B) is “really, really close,” U.S. Air Force assistant secretary for acquisition William LaPlante said at a Pentagon media briefing Oct. 21.

He also suggested the production rate could be as low as seven or eight aircraft per year and that development aircraft might be flying earlier than some people expect.

LaPlante, who has previously been noncommittal about the timing of an announcement, said that his words were carefully chosen. “I did not say ‘months’ and I did not say ‘soon’,” LaPlante said.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/usaf-bomber-decision-really-really-close

 

[sferrin]

seen on Twitter
Tara Copp ‏@TaraCopp 14h14 hours ago Expect .@usairforce #LRSB announcement this week "We’re really, really close to the announcement of the bomber," LePlante tells reporters

My money is we might see who's getting the contract and we might see "it's called B-3" (with probably some nice, politically correct, focus grouped name), but that's it. Don't expect pictures or any insight into what these "demonstrators" either are or look like. In other words, very little new information.

 

[sferrin]

seen on Twitter
Tara Copp ‏@TaraCopp 14h14 hours ago Expect .@usairforce #LRSB announcement this week "We’re really, really close to the announcement of the bomber," LePlante tells reporters

My money is we might see who's getting the contract and we might see "it's called B-3" (with probably some nice, politically correct, focus grouped name), but that's it. Don't expect pictures or any insight into what these "demonstrators" either are or look like. In other words, very little new information.

How very insightful. Tell us more oh great swami!

Do you want to make a wager?

 

[Ian33]

seen on Twitter
Tara Copp ‏@TaraCopp 14h14 hours ago Expect .@usairforce #LRSB announcement this week "We’re really, really close to the announcement of the bomber," LePlante tells reporters

My money is we might see who's getting the contract and we might see "it's called B-3" (with probably some nice, politically correct, focus grouped name), but that's it. Don't expect pictures or any insight into what these "demonstrators" either are or look like. In other words, very little new information.

How very insightful. Tell us more oh great swami!

Do you want to make a wager?

First white world use of colour changing skins.

 

[sferrin]

seen on Twitter
Tara Copp ‏@TaraCopp 14h14 hours ago Expect .@usairforce #LRSB announcement this week "We’re really, really close to the announcement of the bomber," LePlante tells reporters

My money is we might see who's getting the contract and we might see "it's called B-3" (with probably some nice, politically correct, focus grouped name), but that's it. Don't expect pictures or any insight into what these "demonstrators" either are or look like. In other words, very little new information.

How very insightful. Tell us more oh great swami!

Do you want to make a wager?

First white world use of colour changing skins.

I would think that if an enemy fighter is close enough to eyeball the thing the game is probably over. (Unless the color changing also takes into account IR?)

 

[lastdingo]

Changing colours is not helping, you need to change brightness to hide against the human eye at a distance (see project Yehudi).

Heat by avionics and friction may possibly be hidden for a short duration with some active electrics stuff (I forgot the physics principle's name). That would likely be more of a flares replacement than one for camouflage paintjobs, though: Rather about making a lock-on slower or breaking a lock rather than hiding entirely.

I doubt any solution to hiding the engine nozzle heat will be found, and it's imaginable that sooner or later lasers or other sensors may detect the CO2 and water vapor trail (even without contril formation) anyway, similar to how lasers were used since the 90's to investigate whether low level clouds contain chemical agents.

 

[LowObservable]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty31QY5ZGHo

 

[Flyaway]

seen on Twitter
Tara Copp ‏@TaraCopp 14h14 hours ago Expect .@usairforce #LRSB announcement this week "We’re really, really close to the announcement of the bomber," LePlante tells reporters

My money is we might see who's getting the contract and we might see "it's called B-3" (with probably some nice, politically correct, focus grouped name), but that's it. Don't expect pictures or any insight into what these "demonstrators" either are or look like. In other words, very little new information.

Yeah like that's going to sell it too the people who actually at the end of the day are paying for this.

 

[Steve Pace]

The DOD news site says Press Secretary Peter Cook will brief the media at 1:30 pm EDT today - no subject given. Could this be it? -SP

 

[sferrin]

seen on Twitter
Tara Copp ‏@TaraCopp 14h14 hours ago Expect .@usairforce #LRSB announcement this week "We’re really, really close to the announcement of the bomber," LePlante tells reporters

My money is we might see who's getting the contract and we might see "it's called B-3" (with probably some nice, politically correct, focus grouped name), but that's it. Don't expect pictures or any insight into what these "demonstrators" either are or look like. In other words, very little new information.

Yeah like that's going to sell it too the people who actually at the end of the day are paying for this.

They bought the Blackbird without knowing what it was. Hell, most people today don't know what a B-2 is. So yeah, not saying much will sell just fine.

 

[sublight_]

The DOD news site says Press Secretary Peter Cook will brief the media at 1:30 pm EDT today - no subject given. Could this be it? -SP

That came and went....

 

[Steve Pace]

The DOD news site says Press Secretary Peter Cook will brief the media at 1:30 pm EDT today - no subject given. Could this be it? -SP

That came and went....

Yeah, what a bummer. -SP

 

[TomS]

The DOD news site says Press Secretary Peter Cook will brief the media at 1:30 pm EDT today - no subject given. Could this be it? -SP

That's the usual format for a routine briefing -- they happen at least every week or so. You'll see several announcements with the exact same wording here:


http://www.defense.gov/News/Press-Advisories


When a major official will be briefing, they'll be named in the announcement, and you can be sure that LRS-B will be announced by some big names (AF Chief of Staff and Secretary will be there, as well as the head of the acquisition program). A major acquisition program will also be named specifically in the announcement. It won't be slipped out quietly.


For reference, here's the announcement that was issued before the JSF downselect (I was looking for the final selection, but I'm sure it was similar):

IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Release No: 319-96
November 15, 1996
REVISED DATE AND TIME for Joint Strike Fighter Announcement
REVISED DATE AND TIME REVISED DATE AND TIMESecretary of Defense William J. Perry will announce the selection of two aerospace companies to build and fly demonstration aircraft for the Joint Strike Fighter at NOON (EST), SATURDAY, NOV. 16, 1996, DoD briefing studio, room 2E781, the Pentagon. This is a change from the previously announced date and time.

Also participating in the briefing is Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology Paul G. Kaminski, Secretary of the Air Force Sheila Widnall, Secretary of the Navy John Dalton, and Sir John Kerr, British ambassador to the United States.

For more information, news media may contact Lt. Col. Joan Ferguson, Directorate for Defense Information, at (703) 695-0192.