US Next Generation Bomber Studies

[RadicalDisconnect]

Northrop Grumman, GE, 2 engines.

 

[Mat Parry]

]I rarely turn down an opportunity to embarrass myself by rampant speculation so here goes... :-[


Northrop Grumman win. However, all we will hear tomorrow & for the foreseeable future is who has won, no renderings & no technical detail (quite right too IMHO).

When the aircraft is finally unveiled

*2 engines, derived from P&W F-135 including the STOVL variant's drive shafts (for electrical power generation, not for STOVL performance)

*Clear roadmap to "drop in" ADVENT engines when mature.

*Cranked kite planform, the one with the wings further forward as illustrated in the recently discussed patents (LRS-B has no need to accommodate X-47B's simple wing fold). See the 2 images below

*No retractable blown canards (STOL is not a requirement)

*Subsonic

*Strong family resemblance to RQ-180

*Northrop's performance on RQ-180 helped them win the bomber contract

*Northrop announced a re-organisation within the last 2 week (see reply #2168 in this discussion) my guess is they did this so that when they are announced as winners and (co-inncidentally? when they report their quarterly performance tomorrow), The message is clear & all good news to prospective shareholders ..."buy buy buy"!

*Boeing's KC-46A & Lockheed's F-35 execution hurt their bid.


*This cranked kite planform

Not this cranked kite planform

 

[flateric]

...

 

[LowObservable]

Mr Gatial and I designed that one. Bet we won't get a royalty.

 

[sferrin]

Mr Gatial and I designed that one. Bet we won't get a royalty.

A bit like me saying I designed the Chinese ASBM because I suggested using Pershing II for continental antiship missions back in the 90s. And if I suggested it for sea control over the Arctic I'd be accused of copying the Chinese.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Sold! I'll take it!

 

[DrRansom]

My predictions: Northrup, 2 ADVENT type engines.

Out of left field prediction, one of the two will have supersonic dash, but not both...

 

[Mat Parry]

I'll leave this here not because I believe this is a likely outcome but just as an observation on a route that Northrop may have considered... Just in case.

From some of Northrops concept art on F-X -- NGAD (Next Generation Air Dominance) -- F/A-XX.

See Reply #264
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3536.msg141688.html#msg141688

It would appear that Northrop has been toying with the idea of a "common centre body" with interchangeable wings.

With an X-47B type cranked kite planform (the one that allows the simple wing fold), Northrop could choose to have long slender wings fitted for long range/loitering missions or swap these (on the ground of course) for small triangular tips to yield an X-47A Pegasus type planform for shorter range supersonic dash missions.

 

[bring_it_on]

Experts split on likely Long-Range Strike Bomber winner

 

[kagemusha]

I hope that Northrop Grumman wins but I fear that Boeing & Lockheed Martin will prevail.

I'd like a Mach 2.5 supercruise aircraft but it will be a subsonic flying wing.

Only two engines by General Electric.

 

[Moose]

NG, GE, lasers.

 

[CiTrus90]

Feels like Christmas's night!

I'll go with NG & GE: they already got it right once, may very well do it twice.

Engine-wise, clearly a twin.

Regards.

 

[Flyaway]

NG (I really hope) equipped with two ADVENT engines including supersonic dash capability.

By the way will a new B-3 thread be started once the announcement is made?

 

[flateric]

 

[Deino]

U.S. Air Force Said Poised to Award Bomber Contract Tuesday
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-26/air-force-poised-to-award-bomber-contract-tuesday-officials-say

Any idea at what time they will announce it ???

 

[marauder2048]

Mr Gatial and I designed that one. Bet we won't get a royalty.

A bit like me saying I designed the Chinese ASBM because I suggested using Pershing II for continental antiship missions back in the 90s. And if I suggested it for sea control over the Arctic I'd be accused of copying the Chinese.

Heck, a NYT article from 1983 suggested that Pershing II MaRVs could target moving ships. But you still have my vote!

My prediction:

Airframer: LM/Boeing
Propulsion: 2 x GE interim engines pending the outcome of AETD.
Mission Systems/Avionics: NG is an invited bidder

Some reasoning:

NG moving their electronic attack (known per the Defense News article on the LRS-B prebrief (?) to feature onboard the bomber) business
from Aerospace Systems to Mission Systems on the eve (11 days ago) of a major contract announcement tells me they are not confident of winning.
But I could be completely wrong and they just want to firewall sufficiently to reduce their perceived advantage on the MS/avionics competition if they do win overall.

 

[flateric]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/scaled-president-appointed-vp-of-advanced-design-at-418118/

 

[bring_it_on]

U.S. Air Force Said Poised to Award Bomber Contract Tuesday
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-26/air-force-poised-to-award-bomber-contract-tuesday-officials-say

Any idea at what time they will announce it ???

After close of trading (4 PM EST)

 

[sferrin]

Mr Gatial and I designed that one. Bet we won't get a royalty.

A bit like me saying I designed the Chinese ASBM because I suggested using Pershing II for continental antiship missions back in the 90s. And if I suggested it for sea control over the Arctic I'd be accused of copying the Chinese.

Heck, a NYT article from 1983 suggested that Pershing II MaRVs could target moving ships. But you still have my vote!

Never claimed I invented it. That's kinda my point.

 

[Ian33]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/scaled-president-appointed-vp-of-advanced-design-at-418118/

Northrop have moved their main man into the bomber hot seat by the looks of it.

 

[marauder2048]

Mr Gatial and I designed that one. Bet we won't get a royalty.

A bit like me saying I designed the Chinese ASBM because I suggested using Pershing II for continental antiship missions back in the 90s. And if I suggested it for sea control over the Arctic I'd be accused of copying the Chinese.

Heck, a NYT article from 1983 suggested that Pershing II MaRVs could target moving ships. But you still have my vote!

Never claimed I invented it. That's kinda my point.

False modesty!

On the Scale guy becoming VP of the Aerospace Advanced Design group....was that a previously existing position that was vacated or something new?

 

[Sundog]

Man, this is a tough call, with so little info released, and with the DOD saying the competition was really close, but here's what I'm choosing and why;


NG, with a twin engine design. I was thinking maybe four smaller engines to get a lower profile and more blowing across the wing, but I think that would take up too much internal volume for not a lot of gain. I think their experience with the B-2 operationally, in terms of maintenance, etc., and their experience with the RQ-180, for better or worse, gave them some slight advantages with the contract. However, not knowing what other companies have flown, either classified, proprietary or both, could make it really equal. They both have great design teams.


Engines: I honestly have no idea, but I'm thinking an F-135 derivative with a higher bypass ratio. I don't know if they could keep the core the same between the two, but if they can, then that leads to even greater cost savings for the USAF from an operational standpoint.


EOTS, for SA all around the bomber and the targeting system. Maybe with a three or four lobe RADAR array for 360 coverage? Yeah, the last one is going out on a limb, but considering how fused all of our systems are now and how they plan on operating this system, I'm sort of thinking of it as having the ability to see the entire combat sphere around the aircraft.


It will have space reserved for solid state laser defenses to be on board in the out years.


Will it have the ability to carry some A2A missiles for self defense? That to me is one of the major questions I have about this program. I could see it carrying two A2A missiles to defend itself, but we will see what we will see. Well, I hope we will. They're just going to announce it, it doesn't mean we will actually see anything in terms of the configuration.

 

[Triton]

"Ahead of Long Range Strike-Bomber Announcement, Aerospace Industry Looks for Clues"
By Lara Seligman 7:59 p.m. EDT October 26, 2015

Source:
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/air-force/2015/10/26/ahead-long-range-strike-bomber-announcement-aerospace-industry-looks-clues/74649650/

WASHINGTON — The day before the Pentagon is expected to announce who will build the US Air Force’s next-generation bomber, the aerospace industry is desperately reading the tea leaves for clues about who the winner may be.

Pentagon leaders are widely expected to announce the winner of the Long Range Strike-Bomber (LRS-B) contract, one of the most tightly held secrets in the building right now, after markets close Tuesday evening. The contract, which is expected to top $55 billion over the life of the program, pits three giants in the aerospace world against each other, with Northrop Grumman, builder of the B-2 stealth bomber, competing against a joint Boeing-Lockheed Martin team.

The final hurdle was reportedly cleared Friday, when Pentagon weapons buyer Frank Kendall briefed senior leaders on the decision, Bloomberg reported Monday.

The Pentagon is keeping a tight lid on the development program, and both industry teams have been silent ahead of the contract award. But whatever the outcome, the Pentagon’s LRS-B decision will shape the aerospace industry for decades to come.

Experts, looking for any indication that one side has the edge, are split over which team the Pentagon will choose. Analysts contacted by Defense News spoke on background to talk openly about the contract award. Some experts predict a clear win for Boeing-Lockheed Martin, which many say had the advantage from the start in terms of financing and expertise.

As proof that the world's two largest defense firms have the deal locked up, one analyst pointed to a recent reshuffling of Northrop's senior management, as Gloria Flach, corporate vice president and president of its electronic systems sector, was named the new COO — passing over Northrop aerospace head Tom Vice. That could be a sign Vice failed to land the bomber contract, the analyst argued.

However, a major realignment at Northrop has been in the works for some time, including the consolidation of four business segments down to three.

Other experts, meanwhile, believe the Pentagon would be crazy to put all of its eggs in the Boeing-Lockheed basket. A Boeing-Lockheed win would mean Lockheed essentially controls all Air Force combat aviation production, including the controversial and costly F-35. Boeing, meanwhile, produces the KC-46 tanker.

A Northrop win would spread the Air Force’s top three acquisition priorities — F-35, Boeing’s KC-46 tanker and the new bomber — evenly among the three contractors.

However, it not clear how much the industrial base concern factors into the final decision.

“I think that considering the health of the defense industrial base writ large is an important factor,” Mark Gunzinger, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, told Defense News last month. “That said, I don’t think they are going to make a decision on this capability based on the industrial base.”

All the experts contacted by Defense News agree that the losing side will assuredly launch a contract protest in hopes of stealing away the win.

The Air Force plans to buy 80 to 100 Long Range Strike-Bombers to replace its aging B-52s and B-1s, which the service plans to retire in the mid-2040s. The new aircraft will be significantly stealthier than the B-2, capable of carrying conventional and nuclear weapons. Optionally manned versions are eventually expected. Initial operating capability is slated for the mid-2020s, with nuclear certification planned two years after that. The Air Force has not disclosed concrete plans for the aircraft’s range, payload, speed or size.

The target price is $550 million per plane in 2010 dollars. That unit cost is a key performance parameter for the program, meaning that a company can be disqualified if its price fails to reach that goal. To help achieve that price point, the Air Force is looking to draw on available mature technologies rather than launching new developments. At the same time, the Air Force will use an open-architecture approach to design a plane that can be easily upgraded with new technologies over its lifetime.

When the contract is awarded, it will come in two parts — a development contract that is cost-plus incentive fee, and an agreement on the first five low-rate initial production lots that is fixed-price incentive fee. Those first five lots will cover the production of 21 bombers.

LRS-B is unusually mature for a program at this stage of development, said Lt. Gen. Arnie Bunch, the Air Force’s deputy assistant secretary for acquisition. The program has completed preliminary design review and manufacturing readiness review, and the platform designs are “at the subsystem level,” he said Oct. 21 at a Pentagon briefing.

“We have established a high level of tech maturity, higher I would say than any other developmental program that we’ve tried to initiate at this stage for a new aircraft,” Bunch said, emphasizing that one key aspect of the program is that the requirements have remained stable since 2011. “These stable requirements and a mature platform design make us very confident in the cost and the execution of the program as we get ready to initiate.”

Part of the reason the LRS-B program is so advanced at this stage is due to being handled by the Rapid Capabilities Office, a small group inside Air Force acquisitions that handles secretive programs such as the X-37B space plane. Right now, there is no plan to change the LRS-B program management, Bunch said, but the Pentagon may re-evaluate as the program moves forward.

The teams have already built component prototypes and scale models for testing, officials have previously said. Air Force acquisition chief William LaPlante indicated during the briefing that the plane could begin flying relatively soon after selection.

“People say, when will we actually start flying something?” LaPlante said. “If you count the first test article, it’s not necessarily that long from now — but I’m not going to say anything more about that now.”

 

[bobbymike]

Any other of the so-called 'family of systems' part of the announcement?? LM & Boeing here's our bomber with a hypersonic strike missile thrown in?

 

[Steve Pace]

Pheeeeeeeeeeeew... Let's get it on!

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

I'll get the popcorn!

 

[Airplane]

I hope that Northrop Grumman wins but I fear that Boeing & Lockheed Martin will prevail.

I'd like a Mach 2.5 supercruise aircraft but it will be a subsonic flying wing.

Only two engines by General Electric.

As long as we're guessing, then what I envision is something with a triangular shape and retractable verticle stabs for +1 mach dash and or cruise. Considering that it will one day be firing hypersonic missiles, it isn't really a requirement to be blisteringly fast. I also think it will have 2 small bays for AAMs.

 

[TomS]

As long as we're guessing, then what I envision is something with a triangular shape and retractable verticle stabs for +1 mach dash and or cruise. Considering that it will one day be firing hypersonic missiles, it isn't really a requirement to be blisteringly fast. I also think it will have 2 small bays for AAMs.

As you say, blisteringly fast isn't a requirement, so why even bother with the complexity of Mach 1+?


I do think there might be some room for a secondary weapon bay, possibly sized around HARM rather than AMRAAM. But I'd think of this as a space and weight reservation for the ever-to-be-hoped-for defensive DEW rather than the desired end-state.

 

[kaiserd]

Nice (relevant) pics on the recent context of the new bomber from Aviation Week/ Bill Sweetman of this parish;

http://aviationweek.com/defense/road-new-bomber#slide-0-field_images-1370381

 

[sferrin]

Any predictions on how many seconds it'll take to start seeing "company X should have won instead" articles regardless of who wins? (I would not be surprised at all if there are some with two articles already written ready to go depending on who wins.)

 

[bring_it_on]

I am shore drafts already exist

 

[Ian33]

Any predictions on how many seconds it'll take to start seeing "company X should have won instead" articles regardless of who wins? (I would not be surprised at all if there are some with two articles already written ready to go depending on who wins.)

The RCO will choose the absolute best they can get. Any thoughts and opinions should be shone through that prism.

 

[seruriermarshal]

company X should have won instead ;D

 

[Ian33]

company X should have won instead ;D

I disagree. Company X screwed up A, B, C and look at the trillion dollar debacle Z is!

Cannot even believe you'd support X.

 

[flanker]

Any predictions on how many seconds it'll take to start seeing "company X should have won instead" articles regardless of who wins? (I would not be surprised at all if there are some with two articles already written ready to go depending on who wins.)

I don't think we will see too many complain if NG wins... If LM+B however...

 

[galgot]

If they give it LM, could LM risk the antitrust law ? I mean , looking at the graph posted earlier, they already have a huuuge part of the cake .
Or it doesn't concern defense procurement ?

 

[sublight_]

Timing is everything, and they definitely picked the perfect day to announce the next bomber.

 

[Airplane]

As long as we're guessing, then what I envision is something with a triangular shape and retractable verticle stabs for +1 mach dash and or cruise. Considering that it will one day be firing hypersonic missiles, it isn't really a requirement to be blisteringly fast. I also think it will have 2 small bays for AAMs.

As you say, blisteringly fast isn't a requirement, so why even bother with the complexity of Mach 1+?

So with that being the logic, then it's "Mach 2.5 cruise or don't even bother breaking 0.85?" Pardon the expression, but Huh!?

Why bother with the complexity? Why did the Tomcat bother with the complexity of swing wings? Because it was a solution to meet the requirements. I will wager anything that the winning proposal will be at least able to break supersonic.

 

[Steve Pace]

The acronym LRSB means Long Range Strike Bomber. Therefore, it will have long range and it will be capable of striking its foe with bombs. That's all I know for sure. -SP

 

[sublight_]

So with that being the logic, then it's "Mach 2.5 cruise or don't even bother breaking 0.85?" Pardon the expression, but Huh!?

Why bother with the complexity? Why did the Tomcat bother with the complexity of swing wings? Because it was a solution to meet the requirements. I will wager anything that the winning proposal will be at least able to break supersonic.

You would wager ANYTHING?

How about a wager that you stop using VPN's to create multiple accounts and delete this one?