- Joined
- 25 January 2020
- Messages
- 1,279
- Reaction score
- 1,945
Agreed, once the airforce refines the requirements for the NGAD (which may have already happened), it will be a political decision.
I think IR detection technology is a bit overrated at the moment, but it's worth noting you made detection a lot more likely at those speeds. There has to be a pretty good reason to burn that much gas, afterburner or no.
That's also probably the reason why the USAF is pushing so hard for the adaptive cycle engine, as that unlocks that ability from the start.
I don't understand the link between a supersonic bomber study and the NGAD ? Lockheed built a supersonic cruiser with the F-22 , I don't see why it could be more complicated for the NGAD.There is a study of high speed bombers from the 1990's or early 2000's. There is a longer version but I did not find it. This is the short version. The thing to keep in mind here is that the entire system needs to be optimized, not 1 parameter. RAND looked at building a supersonic bomber not to be more survivable in the air, but to make the air bases more survivable by keeping them in CONUS.
1. The bombers still need RCS reduction to be survivable (obvious).
2. The bombers cannot be low IR emissions. Not a problem then, a huge problem now.
3. The bombers deliver low cost shorter range munitions.
4. The bombers need F-22 and tanker support.
5. The bombers are more efficient than subsonic bombers because they complete more sorties per unit time.
6. The study seems to ignore the entire history of supersonic flight, ie that whenever an air force or an airline has a choice, they choose subsonic. It can be said that USAF moved back to subsonic to increase bomber survivability (low altitude) but the airlines never went supersonic. In the end, the bomber is a delivery system. A study that trades off R&D cost, production cost, operating cost, munitions delivery per unit time, survivability, and the types of munitions that can be delivered due to that level of survivability has, to my knowledge, not been released. No RAND or CNA study that I have seen looks at this issue. It is germane to the issue we are discussing here though. A further complication is the fact that capabilities can be offloaded to other platforms much more easily than when the RAND study appeared. I suspect that the complexity of this study is why NGAD has been paused. I suspect that a technological development occurred that caused the USAF to redo the study of the type described here, a study they must have performed. The results of this study will not be available to us although we will see the results in NGAD. A further complication is that NGAD has to have A2A capability, a capability ignored in the RAND study. I think the sheer difficulty of developing a model, then crunching numbers while factoring in tech changed over the life of NGAD that will need to be accommodated in the program makes this vastly more complex than anything we have ever seen before.
The study below is a good start to see why speed is a good idea though.
RAND Supersonic Bomber Study
It’s worth noting that there were a rather small number of supersonic bombers that actually entered service, and almost all were only briefly supersonic on afterburner (Tu22, Tu-22M, Tu-160, F-111, B-1B marginally). The only exception I can think of is the B-58.
Not a great engine candidate for supercruise. There are a lot of Mach 2 designs. Almost none of them supercruise.I wonder if the B-1A could super cruise as it was a Mach-2 design.
There was a civilian-side comparison done: 2707 versus 707 and 747, for a flight from eastern US to London or Paris.There is a study of high speed bombers from the 1990's or early 2000's. There is a longer version but I did not find it. This is the short version. The thing to keep in mind here is that the entire system needs to be optimized, not 1 parameter. RAND looked at building a supersonic bomber not to be more survivable in the air, but to make the air bases more survivable by keeping them in CONUS.
1. The bombers still need RCS reduction to be survivable (obvious).
2. The bombers cannot be low IR emissions. Not a problem then, a huge problem now.
3. The bombers deliver low cost shorter range munitions.
4. The bombers need F-22 and tanker support.
5. The bombers are more efficient than subsonic bombers because they complete more sorties per unit time.
6. The study seems to ignore the entire history of supersonic flight, ie that whenever an air force or an airline has a choice, they choose subsonic. It can be said that USAF moved back to subsonic to increase bomber survivability (low altitude) but the airlines never went supersonic. In the end, the bomber is a delivery system. A study that trades off R&D cost, production cost, operating cost, munitions delivery per unit time, survivability, and the types of munitions that can be delivered due to that level of survivability has, to my knowledge, not been released. No RAND or CNA study that I have seen looks at this issue. It is germane to the issue we are discussing here though. A further complication is the fact that capabilities can be offloaded to other platforms much more easily than when the RAND study appeared. I suspect that the complexity of this study is why NGAD has been paused. I suspect that a technological development occurred that caused the USAF to redo the study of the type described here, a study they must have performed. The results of this study will not be available to us although we will see the results in NGAD. A further complication is that NGAD has to have A2A capability, a capability ignored in the RAND study. I think the sheer difficulty of developing a model, then crunching numbers while factoring in tech changed over the life of NGAD that will need to be accommodated in the program makes this vastly more complex than anything we have ever seen before.
The study below is a good start to see why speed is a good idea though.
RAND Supersonic Bomber Study
Funny, that's basically the same flight profile as the Blackbird.The RAND study called for a flight profile that was supersonic except for takeoff, climb, descent, and aerial refueling. When I read the study, it just screamed "unrealistic".
Reuse the SR-71 engine concept with today technology, for less fuel burning with the same speed.There was a civilian-side comparison done: 2707 versus 707 and 747, for a flight from eastern US to London or Paris.
Cost is a bit higher, about twice that of the slower planes due to fuel burn, but you get ~3x as many trips at Mach 2.7.
Funny, that's basically the same flight profile as the Blackbird.
Not so unrealistic.
Don't know that I'd want to put all my eggs in one basket. All it takes is the datalink being jammed, or otherwise compromised, and that's that.
Don't know that I'd want to put all my eggs in one basket. All it takes is the datalink being jammed, or otherwise compromised, and that's that.
Ironically, we probably would be best served with a turbojet or extremely low bypass turbofan for M3 cruise at 80+kft.Reuse the SR-71 engine concept with today technology, for less fuel burning with the same speed.
Collaborative Operations in Denied Environment, other programs. They have been working on it for a long time.
They are right time to move on.![]()
How China's new next-gen fighters could impact America's plans for NGAD - Breaking Defense
"Beijing won't want to waste an opportunity to humiliate the US by operationally deploying a sixth-gen platform before the US," said analyst Malcom Davis. "Look for the J-36 in particular to enter service before the end of this decade."breakingdefense.com
LRHW / Dark EagleWhat is the hypersonic vehicle in the video ?
There is a study of high speed bombers from the 1990's or early 2000's. There is a longer version but I did not find it. This is the short version. The thing to keep in mind here is that the entire system needs to be optimized, not 1 parameter. RAND looked at building a supersonic bomber not to be more survivable in the air, but to make the air bases more survivable by keeping them in CONUS.
1. The bombers still need RCS reduction to be survivable (obvious).
2. The bombers cannot be low IR emissions. Not a problem then, a huge problem now.
3. The bombers deliver low cost shorter range munitions.
4. The bombers need F-22 and tanker support.
5. The bombers are more efficient than subsonic bombers because they complete more sorties per unit time.
6. The study seems to ignore the entire history of supersonic flight, ie that whenever an air force or an airline has a choice, they choose subsonic. It can be said that USAF moved back to subsonic to increase bomber survivability (low altitude) but the airlines never went supersonic. In the end, the bomber is a delivery system. A study that trades off R&D cost, production cost, operating cost, munitions delivery per unit time, survivability, and the types of munitions that can be delivered due to that level of survivability has, to my knowledge, not been released. No RAND or CNA study that I have seen looks at this issue. It is germane to the issue we are discussing here though. A further complication is the fact that capabilities can be offloaded to other platforms much more easily than when the RAND study appeared. I suspect that the complexity of this study is why NGAD has been paused. I suspect that a technological development occurred that caused the USAF to redo the study of the type described here, a study they must have performed. The results of this study will not be available to us although we will see the results in NGAD. A further complication is that NGAD has to have A2A capability, a capability ignored in the RAND study. I think the sheer difficulty of developing a model, then crunching numbers while factoring in tech changed over the life of NGAD that will need to be accommodated in the program makes this vastly more complex than anything we have ever seen before.
The study below is a good start to see why speed is a good idea though.
RAND Supersonic Bomber Study
I was seeing this as an NGAD PCA limited sneak peek.Yep, the shape suggests TBG, not C-HGB, a conical body with large strakes.
Could be, but that's some insane sweep angle if we are looking at a segment of the OML.I was seeing this as an NGAD PCA limited sneak peek.
X-59A QUESSTMy question is what was that?
I'd say that's pretty steep.Could be, but that's some insane sweep angle if we are looking at a segment of the OML.
All the basing studies (from Minuteman to MX era) said broadly the same thing. When hidding ballistic missiles, nothing beat nuclear submarines roaming the ocean depths.Honestly, I'm not sure how valuable the Sentinel program is. Does nuclear sponge theory really work when your opponents will still have enough warheads left over for all your major population centers? Cutting Sentinel and moving to a two-leg 'triad' would save $160B and counting. Half of that could be invested into the submarine industrial base to get Columbia faster and in greater quantities, and simultaneously help with capacity for Aukus. The rest could get invested into NGAD. I know this is just a fantasy, congress won't allow it, but there it is.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjCdGqgD9Bs&t=670sI'd say that's pretty steep.
Steep yes, but Quesst, haha! My bad. Super cool plane nonetheless
Isn't this the planform that some aerodynamicist on X did the math and claimed a Mach 6 short burst and Mach 2 cruise?I'd say that's pretty steep.
Heck I have no clue, I'd love to know who!Isn't this the planform that some aerodynamicist on X did the math and claimed a Mach 6 short burst and Mach 2 cruise?
If anyone thinks that's a Mach 6 platform, they're wrong. There are other reasons for the wing sweep. It reminds me of when the USAF first showed pics of the F-117 to intel people from a spysat perspective and due to the faceting and wing sweep they all thought it was a hypersonic aircraft. Rightly so, because a hypersonic aircraft would have those features, but they must have concealed it's size, as it was much too small to be a hypersonic vehicle.Dug this up. No idea what the formulas and technojargons mean honestly.
View: https://x.com/drchriscombs/status/1675525149393559556?s=46