US Next Generation Bomber Studies

[hesham]

what is this ?,they wrote on it B-2 !.

Why don't return a page or couple back in this thread?

My dear Flateric;
I find it,it is a patent from Northrop;
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/as-the-croft-flies/2009/03/b-2-meets-brothers-wright.html

 

[flateric]

...

 

[bobbymike]

Hope this is the right thread. The latest from Flight Global on the duel mode Vulcan engine program for future strike programs - http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/08/14/331027/darpa-plans-for-vulcan-engine-decision-by-december.html

 

[antigravite]

Hello All,

I hope this is the correct thread. While browsing today the USAF's AFRL propulsion directorate brochure downloaded from:

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080429-021.pdf

See bottom right corner: manned, tailless, platform design (wings shaped a la Concorde) yet unknown to me, which I would be tempted to associate to the now defunct Strategic Strike Bomber Aircraft project.

This CGI view may be dated (as other project views). Does this image ring a bell?

 

[flateric]

surely it does http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2681.0/highlight,stav.html

 

[donnage99]

See bottom right corner: manned, tailless, platform design (wings shaped a la Concorde) yet unknown to me, which I would be tempted to associate to the now defunct Strategic Strike Bomber Aircraft project.

This CGI view may be dated (as other project views). Does this image ring a bell?

I remember seeing a short video clip that has that design taking off from runway. Anybody knows what I'm talking about?

 

[avatar]

single seater , hmm. does that lead us to optionally manned somewhere?

 

[bobbymike]

From Defense News

USAF To Develop New Bomber
By JOHN T. BENNETT
Published: 11 Dec 2009 17:29 Print | Email
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Dec. 11 the 2011 Pentagon spending request is likely to include funding for development of a new Air Force bomber, Reuters reported.

The long-talked-about program has been in limbo since Gates froze it in April amid several dozen major weapons program cuts. Gates wanted the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review to look at the need for a new long-range bomber fleet.

"We are probably going to proceed with a long-range strike initiative coming out of the Quadrennial Defense Review and various other reviews going on," Gates told troops in Kirkuk, Iraq. "We're looking at a family of capabilities, both manned and unmanned."

He said funding likely would start at $1 billion, and then ramp up in subsequent years.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

$1 billion that's real money. Any bets on whether anything actually gets built? Now some funding for modernizing the nuclear weapons infrastructure and a new prompt global strike/Minuteman III replacement and I'll have nothing to complain about ;D

 

[Steve Pace]

Here you go...

 

[Stargazer]

Thanks for this article. Lockheed Martin and Boeing will have a hard time finding a name for their design as "NGB" (Next Generation Bomber") can also conveniently read as "Northrop Grumman Bomber", which NG will probably use to their advantage.

 

[Steve Pace]

If it's built, and that's a bif if, I believe the prototype(s) will be manned and the production versions will be unmanned.

 

[Sundog]

If it's built, and that's a bif if, I believe the prototype(s) will be manned and the production versions will be unmanned.

I was thinking it would be an option to fly it manned or unmanned in the production variant. Either that, or the nuclear variants would be crewed and the conventional variants would be unmanned.

In fact, somewhat off topic, I was thinking future fighters should have that option built into them, even if they are manned. That way, on long deployments, the fighter pilots can actually ride in the tankers with the fighters automatically following and refueling. It should be a hell of a lot easier on the pilots and I would think not being cramped up in their fighter cockpits for eight or ten hours, or however long the leg is, they would arrive in theatre more refreshed and ready to go into action.

 

[Steve Pace]

Here's the NGB concept from Boeing-Lockheed.

 

[bobbymike]

The Air Force Secretary was quoted as saying that the program that was stopped in April because it was not well enough defined for Gates (range, payload, stealth, mission, nuclear or not, manned or unmanned) has now passed that threshold. It will be interesting to see what exactly has been defined as there has been such a broad range of proposals from a "B-3" to what could be described as a regional bomber - FB-23 or X-44 anyone?

 

[donnage99]

It will be interesting to see what exactly has been defined as there has been such a broad range of proposals from a "B-3" to what could be described as a regional bomber - FB-23 or X-44 anyone?

Right after Gates halted the NGB, he did assign a team to look at all the options (again) that looked back at alot of concepts that have been discarded before. However, I think mostly that the reason to halt it because of the decision on going nuclear or non-nuclear.

 

[Steve Pace]

Gates halted the so-called 2018 Bomber. I believe the NGB replaces it although I'm not positive; not negative either.

 

[donnage99]

Gates halted the so-called 2018 Bomber. I believe the NGB replaces it although I'm not positive; not negative either.

They are pretty much the same, but back then the 2018 bomber was the more popular name. However, the "2018 bomber" has fallen out as of now since it is most likely that it no longer is the case.

 

[Steve Pace]

Might have been "put on the back burner" until FY 2011 to allow more moneys for F-35 in FY 2010???????

 

[SOC]

If they've given up on the 2018 date and are reexamining things, could that mean a return to a supersonic design?

 

[Matej]

I think that the high-res of this was not posted yet.

 

[dannydale]

Why does it have RCS thrusters in the nose? Is there something they're not telling us? ???

 

[MihoshiK]

Why does it have RCS thrusters in the nose? Is there something they're not telling us? ???

Looks like a transorbital design.

 

[flateric]

Why does it have RCS thrusters in the nose? Is there something they're not telling us? ???

flush air data system a-la B-2 etc.

 

[dannydale]

Judging by the slenderness of the wings and apparent lack of thermal protection systems, as well as Flat Eric's seniority here, I'm inclined to believe it's a flush air data system.

 

[elmayerle]

Some of them may be flush air data system ports, but the glints from others suggest that the aircraft is also fitted with the all-around viewing system (I forget the acronym) fitted to the F-35. Certainly such would make sense for this airframe.

 

[Steve Pace]

Here's a NG image of the Quiet Supersonic Program air vehicle - very similar.

 

[Matej]

This is the version for the civil part of the program. Attached picture shows the dedicated military bomber (top - the one, that I posted before), basic civil configuration (middle), that was later developed together with the Raytheon (bottom).

 

[bobbymike]

Article in the December 14th Defense News magazine (sorry no link dead tree edition) in an article about the 2011 budget talks about the Air Force's plans for new "long range strike" programs as in more than one. Reading between the lines (AKA speculation) it sure reads like the Air Force is taking about more than just a single platform and that it may include conventional prompt global strike. The article mentions that the Air Force will "define" its long range strike plans in the QDR.

 

[donnage99]

Article in the December 14th Defense News magazine (sorry no link dead tree edition) in an article about the 2011 budget talks about the Air Force's plans for new "long range strike" programs as in more than one. Reading between the lines (AKA speculation) it sure reads like the Air Force is taking about more than just a single platform and that it may include conventional prompt global strike. The article mentions that the Air Force will "define" its long range strike plans in the QDR.

Programs as in using a combination of different assets, such as a combination of survillance drones and cruise missiles, etc, not neccessarily exciting :-\.

 

[Triton]

Model of Boeing Lockheed Martin Next Generation Bomber.

Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/09/afa-08-schwartz-speaks-about-n.html

 

[bobbymike]

Here comes another study

DEFENSE DEPARTMENT LAUNCHES BROAD LONG-RANGE STRIKE STUDY
Defense Department leaders this week began in earnest an effort to hammer out a plan to modernize the Air Force’s bomber fleet, an effort that will be supported by three outside contractors, according to two Pentagon officials.

 

[F-14D]

It looks like the 2018 bomber is definitely dead. The push now seems to be for a bomber in the mid 2020s. This also provides a method for the Administration being able to announce that this need is fully supported, yet conveniently avoids having to put any serious money down until it's |"the next guy's" problem. Sort of like the new plan for US manned spaceflight.

There's speculation, that while the 2018 bomber was to be maned, subsonic and stealthy and optimized for strike, the new concept is optionally manned, supersonic and primarily surveillance, with strike as a secondary mission.

You know, I always wonder about our obsession on total awareness. What good is it to spend multiple fortunes to know exactly where the bad guys are if you haven't got anything with which to shoot them?

 

[donnage99]

You know, I always wonder about our obsession on total awareness. What good is it to spend multiple fortunes to know exactly where the bad guys are if you haven't got anything with which to shoot them?

In my limited understanding, I think u got it all wrong. The concept of 2018 bomber is to have the level of survivability to lurk around a high threat environment, collecting data and strike as targets pop up (the surveillance part is so that the bomber wouldn't have to rely on other assets to gather information (not to mention we don't really have a high threat penetrating surveillance asset to rely upon either), and can hit critical targets without wasting critical time). Our current b-2 cannot do this. With the ability to gather information, it can stay on station (again with its survivability) and be a force multiplier and coordinate other assets as well. The emphasis on its surveillance is not an obsession of situational awareness, but a neccessary aspect that directly effect its lethality.

 

[quellish]

Our current b-2 cannot do this.

Err why not? That is exactly the B-2's purpose.

 

[donnage99]

Err why not? That is exactly the B-2's purpose.

To my knowledge, B-2's mission is predefined before it gets airborne. It never went up there not knowing exactly what it's gonna do.

 

[sferrin]

Err why not? That is exactly the B-2's purpose.

To my knowledge, B-2's mission is predefined before it gets airborne. It never went up there not knowing exactly what it's gonna do.

It was supposedly developed to run around behind enemy lines hunting SS-24s & 25s. That's the reason for it's fancy dual phased arrays.

 

[F-14D]

You know, I always wonder about our obsession on total awareness. What good is it to spend multiple fortunes to know exactly where the bad guys are if you haven't got anything with which to shoot them?

In my limited understanding, I think u got it all wrong. The concept of 2018 bomber is to have the level of survivability to lurk around a high threat environment, collecting data and strike as targets pop up (the surveillance part is so that the bomber wouldn't have to rely on other assets to gather information (not to mention we don't really have a high threat penetrating surveillance asset to rely upon either), and can hit critical targets without wasting critical time). Our current b-2 cannot do this. With the ability to gather information, it can stay on station (again with its survivability) and be a force multiplier and coordinate other assets as well. The emphasis on its surveillance is not an obsession of situational awareness, but a neccessary aspect that directly effect its lethality.

Well first of all, there is no longer a 2018 bombers, so that is moot. Besides, with the overly centralized RoEs we have now, by the time you get permission to actually hit the thing, it may well be gone. The point I'm getting at is that we are spending so much time and money for networking and surveillance techniques, but not really addressing, "How do we hit 'em after (if) we find 'em. Examples include the F-22 that was designed to also have built-in information gathering capabilities, but unable to communicate what it found securely to anything other than another F-22. Or, super deluxe info gathering in the urban environment, but except for APKWS planned for Cobras not really good airborne weapon for use in that environment. Another example is the highly expensive groundbased device designed to locate a sniper, but not developing something that can respond fast enough to target said sniper before he moves.

In the case of the Long Range Strike concept (new name for the Next Generation Bomber), apparently we are not going to develop a bomber that can secondarily be used for surveillance, but rather a surveillance platform that has a secondary capability for strike.

 

[airrocket]

China will build it.

 

[sferrin]

China will build it.

Given they don't have anything to copy it may take a while.

 

[donnage99]

Well first of all, there is no longer a 2018 bombers, so that is moot. Besides, with the overly centralized RoEs we have now, by the time you get permission to actually hit the thing, it may well be gone. The point I'm getting at is that we are spending so much time and money for networking and surveillance techniques, but not really addressing, "How do we hit 'em after (if) we find 'em. Examples include the F-22 that was designed to also have built-in information gathering capabilities, but unable to communicate what it found securely to anything other than another F-22.

The basis of surveillance capability fused with firepower still carries from the 2018 to what the air force wants now (though that doesn't what they'll gonna get). The f-22's case is in its inability to share securely with other assets beside another f-22, which is a problem of surveillance, not firepower. So I don't really understand where u getting at. However, there's one interesting thing that should be noted, is that when the air force put down these requirements for f-22, they were thinking buying around 700 of these, effectively replace every f-15.

In the case of the Long Range Strike concept (new name for the Next Generation Bomber), apparently we are not going to develop a bomber that can secondarily be used for surveillance, but rather a surveillance platform that has a secondary capability for strike.

I think the mistake here is to seperate surveillance role from strike role, which easily lead the the question of comparison.