US Next Generation Bomber Studies

Ogami musashi said:
Flateric, would it be possible for you to give the source of the ngb+f_xuclass picture? thanks
Click to expand...
http://www.csbaonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Offset-Strategy-Slides.pdf
 
Someone noticed Northrop's PR blitz..

1423501135539.jpg
 
Thanks flateric. :)

Is there any significance to be drawn as too what the result might be by NG seemingly going on a PR blitz yet nothing has really been heard from the other side, confidence from LM/Boeing that they have the contract in the bag so to speak?
 
LRS-B Not An ISR Platform

—John A. Tirpak2/19/2015

Though the Long-Range Strike Bomber will certainly have data-collecting sensors to help it function deep inside contested airspace, it won’t be the reconnaissance/strike platform some have envisioned. Air Force intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance chief Lt. Gen. Robert Otto told attendees at an AFA-sponsored Air Force breakfast on Wednesday that the LRS-B “will have some attributes that should allow us to gain intel from it,” but he characterized it as “non-traditional ISR,” much in the way that fighters with targeting pods can contribute to ISR today. “Its priority will be global strike,” Otto said, and “if in the pursuit of that mission it could collect some intelligence that we could harness, why wouldn’t we do that? But you’ve got to be very careful to ensure that it doesn’t decrement the primary mission.” He added that he’s “not seeking to grab the LRS-B as an ISR asset.” He later told reporters that adding such a mission would have resulted in requirements creep that would likely have delayed the bomber and raised its cost. The Air Force expects to award the LRS-B contract in the spring, to either the Boeing/Lockheed Martin team or Northrop Grumman.
 
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/tech/2015/02/18/lockheed-boeing-northrop-battle-air-force-bomber-contract/23633163/
 
"Though the Long-Range Strike Bomber will certainly have data-collecting sensors to help it function deep inside contested airspace, it won’t be the reconnaissance/strike platform some have envisioned."

That argument was over in 2010. Doyyy.
 
LowObservable said:
"Though the Long-Range Strike Bomber will certainly have data-collecting sensors to help it function deep inside contested airspace, it won’t be the reconnaissance/strike platform some have envisioned."

That argument was over in 2010. Doyyy.
Click to expand...


I believe the answer to that question is the RQ-180, is it not?
 
Conformal Antenna for High Speed Air Vehicles

AFRL/RW, the Air Force Research Laboratory Munitions Directorate is conducting market research for an exploratory development research program which intends to develop wideband conformal antenna and radome technology that is compatible with high speed air vehicles. New classes of air launched vehicles are being researched that will maintain a sustained Mach 3 to Mach 6+ as they journey to their destination. Wideband antenna and radome technology that will survive the flight and operate correctly in the terminal phase of flight is required. The objective of this program will be to design, simulate, fabricate, and test a wideband conformal antenna and radome technology that is compatible with high speed airframes. The critical areas of this program will be as follows: Wideband conformal antennas with appropriate electrical characteristics to operate with L-band, S-band, and C-band sensors of interest, high fidelity simulation of antenna concepts, protective radome material that is compatible with high speed airframes, and development of test hardware that can survive and operate during testing to emulate flight environmental conditions. This program will emphasize development of a robust design backed by high fidelity computer simulations and the demonstration of critical components.
Click to expand...

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=4135d84553992ae511ef602fd8653b5e&tab=core&_cview=0
 
What else other than missile, an air-launched vehicle that has "terminal phase" of flight, could be?
 
Would be interesting to follow.

As far as i know challenge of conformal array lies in controlling the radiation pattern and cooling as the geometry may not be suitable for common cooling practice.
 
AFA AWS Panel on Long Range Strike in a contested airspace : Lt. Gen. Robert Elder, USAF Ret., Lt. Gen. Christopher Miller, USAF Ret., Maj. Gen. Curtis Bedke, USAF Ret., Col. Mark Gunzinger, USAF Ret., and Dr. Rebecca Grant


http://www.afa.org/airwarfare/airwarfaresymposium/recordings
 
stealthflanker said:
Would be interesting to follow.

As far as i know challenge of conformal array lies in controlling the radiation pattern and cooling as the geometry may not be suitable for common cooling practice.
Click to expand...


There are other issues like stealth, structures, etc. These are not trivial problems to solve, but there has been a lot of work on them in the last ~15 years.
 
http://warontherocks.com/2015/02/why-the-new-bomber-is-a-good-investment/?singlepage=1
 
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/tech/2015/02/26/haney-house-hearing-new-bomber/24067627/


STRATCOM chief: New bomber is integral for deterrence


By Brian Everstine, Staff writer 3:30 p.m. EST February 26, 2015


The Air Force's long-range strike bomber is an integral nuclear deterrent as the rest of the bomber fleet ages, the head of U.S. Strategic Command told lawmakers Thursday.


The Air Force is expected to award a contract this spring to kick off procurement of the next-generation stealth bomber. The service needs to replace its bomber fleet and keep the next generation flying "for decades to come," Navy Adm. Cecil Haney, commander of U.S. Strategic Command, said.


"Our air leg is supported today by the B-2 and the B-52 aircraft," Haney saidat a House Armed Services Committee hearing. "The B-52, which was last off the assembly line in 1962, will be used out until at least the 2040 time period. It is very important we invest in the long-range bomber."


The service's newest bomber, the B-2 Spirit, has also been flying for decades and will continue to fly for decades to come.


The next-generation bomber will replace the B-52 and carry both conventional and nuclear weapons.


"In order to have the strategic and conventional capability, it's important that we recapitalize and move forward as the Air Force is investing in the long-range strike bomber," Haney said.


The contract will be awarded to either Northrop Grumman, which produced the B-2, or a team of Lockheed Martin and Boeing. The Air Force last summer released a request for proposals, kicking off the procurement process, but has since been quiet because of the classified nature of the program.


The service wants to field 80 to 100 of the planes by 2040, and is looking at the aircraft being "optionally manned," meaning it can fly with or without a pilot in the cockpit. The goal is to keep the cost down to about $500 million per aircraft.
Click to expand...
 
bring_it_on said:
AFA AWS Panel on Long Range Strike in a contested airspace : Lt. Gen. Robert Elder, USAF Ret., Lt. Gen. Christopher Miller, USAF Ret., Maj. Gen. Curtis Bedke, USAF Ret., Col. Mark Gunzinger, USAF Ret., and Dr. Rebecca Grant
Click to expand...

About halfway into the presentation one presenters said the B-2 production facilities and supply chain was built to produce 36 platforms a year :eek: cut to 21 and all that cost went into those 21 platforms. Gee wonder why they cost $2 billion each
 
At the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, General Welsh " We've maintained a CAP of 550 Million URF Cost...I believe we can beat that"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjjUW_l2hLA
 
Interesting detail of hangar ad is rounded nose tip planform view - just like at old NGB patent
 
sferrin said:
Wow, that was a dumb thing to say.
Click to expand...

They might have a fighting chance to meet that if congress doesn't cut the number of aircraft like they did with the B-2.
 
Talon_38 said:
sferrin said:
Wow, that was a dumb thing to say.
Click to expand...

They might have a fighting chance to meet that if congress doesn't cut the number of aircraft like they did with the B-2.
Click to expand...

Even if you used F-35 level of technology (instead on inventing new), F135 engines, the avionics, sensors, and displays from the F-35 it would STILL come in greater than 550 million if you're looking at a B-1B/B-52 replacement. Only way you'd have a prayer is if you went with what would be considered a medium bomber. I'm talking B-47/B-58 sized. I could easily see them doing that and then trying to spin it as a heavy bomber because of range and the fact that precisions munitions are much smaller. Never mind the fact that an actual heavy bomber can carry things like MOP, Hound Dog sized cruise missiles, or 20 ALCMs.
 
Nobody is expecting a B-2/B-1/B-52-sized airplane, for entirely logical and sensible reasons. I also had been under the impression that the $550m was APUC rather than URF, and I really hope it is - because otherwise the USAF is setting itself up for trouble.
 
LRS-B, LRSO Programs Vital to Power Projection
—MARC V. SCHANZ

Both the Long-Range Strike Bomber and the Long Range Standoff missile, which will replace the Air Force’s Air Launched Cruise Missile, are key modernization programs to maintain the viability of the US nuclear triad, US Strategic Command boss Adm. Cecil Haney told the House Armed Services Committee’s strategic forces panel on Feb. 26. The responsiveness of the nation’s Minuteman III ICBMs, the survivability of the nuclear submarine fleet, and the flexibility of its bomber forces are what “we want our adversaries to contemplate if they decide to escalate their way out of a conflict,” Haney said, noting that modern weapon systems are critical to this calculation. In order to preserve both “strategic and conventional capability” in the future bomber force, it is important for the LRS-B program to move forward, he added. But that doesn’t negate the need for the LRSO, said Haney. The ALCM has already been extended and will time out between 2020 and 2030, but standoff nuclear strike is an important option to preserve in the nation’s triad, he told Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.), who questioned the need for both weapon systems. With potential adversaries growing anti-access and area-denial capabilities, maintaining these tools is important for both deterrent and offensive purposes, Haney added.

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2015/March%202015/March%2002%202015/LRS-B,-LRSO-Programs-Vital-to-Power-Projection.aspx
 
LowObservable said:
Nobody is expecting a B-2/B-1/B-52-sized airplane, for entirely logical and sensible reasons.
Click to expand...

Really? What are those?
 
Cost factor.
Relaxed RFP in terms of range compared to ATB
More effective engines.
Munitions going down in weight and size.

to name a few
 
... a rather small number of operational scenarios where one might need 16 B61-12s or 80 500-lb JDAMs.
 
LowObservable said:
... a rather small number of operational scenarios where one might need 16 B61-12s or 80 500-lb JDAMs.
Click to expand...

Well then, we should scrap our entire nuclear force as there are "but a small number of operational scenarios where one might need" it. If all they plan on doing is dropping SDBs or B61s in onesies or twosies then say so. But don't try to pitch an aircraft like that as a replacement for the B-52 or B-1B because it does not replace their capabilities. Can it carry 20 ALCMs? Nope. An MOP? Nope. 60,000lbs of weapons? Nope. Be honest and say, "we think we can hit $550 million because we are scrapping 2 types of heavy bombers and replacing them with a medium bomber, and losing significant capability."
 
Realistically, can you see a practical scenario where you'd need 16 B61s on a single platform? Or a practical way to weaponeer 80 guided 500-pounders?
 
LowObservable said:
Realistically, can you see a practical scenario where you'd need 16 B61s on a single platform? Or a practical way to weaponeer 80 guided 500-pounders?
Click to expand...

Scenario 1 would be WWIII. Given that the B-52 is still equipped to do just that (and the B-1B could be if world politics changed enough) it would seem "not wise" to unilaterally give that up. The 80 500lb guided bombs thing was done years ago with a B-2. (And could probably be done with a B-1B if they felt like it.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdzJWciha4A
 
USAF considers supersonic engine for LRSO msissile


The US Air Force will consider a supersonic engine among three propulsion options now under review for the long range standoff (LRSO) missile, according to an acquisition notice released on 26 February.

The LRSO is expected to replace the Boeing AGM-86 air launched cruise missile, a subsonic weapon powered by a Williams F107 turbofan engine.

The USAF is considering two subsonic engine options – a derivative of an existing engine with 5% greater fuel efficiency and and advanced engine offering up to 20% better fuel efficiency, according to the request for information released by the LRSO branch of the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center.

A third option under review is a supersonic engine that would be sized comparably to “existing small core expendable engines”, the acquisition document says.

In the past, the USAF has said the LRSO would be a stealthy cruise missile, but never specified whether the weapon would fly at speeds below Mach 1.0, between M1.0 and 5.0 (supersonic) or even faster (hypersonic).

The same document lays out the USAF’s plans for developing and producing the LRSO. At least five engines will be delivered to support a technology maturation and risk reduction phase. Another 89 engines will support an engineering and manufacturing development phase of the programme. Up to 1,000 engines will ultimately be needed for a five-year production run, the request for information says.

The USAF has proposed to accelerate the LRSO acquisition programme by two years in the Fiscal 2016 budget request submitted to Congress last month.
Click to expand...

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-considers-supersonic-engine-for-lrso-msissile-409653/
 
sferrin said:
Well then, we should scrap our entire nuclear force as there are "but a small number of operational scenarios where one might need" it. If all they plan on doing is dropping SDBs or B61s in onesies or twosies then say so. But don't try to pitch an aircraft like that as a replacement for the B-52 or B-1B because it does not replace their capabilities. Can it carry 20 ALCMs? Nope. An MOP? Nope. 60,000lbs of weapons? Nope. Be honest and say, "we think we can hit $550 million because we are scrapping 2 types of heavy bombers and replacing them with a medium bomber, and losing significant capability."
Click to expand...


That more or less sums up the debate during the whole "new bomber" process. What does it need to do? If it's going to be part of the strategic deterrent, should that be it's only role? What role would this play in a conventional conflict? What are the current and future needs this should serve? What weapons are feasible to carry? How would this comply with current treaty obligations?


The B-2 experience taught those making these decisions a lot. There are 20 B-2s. To maintain a credible deterrent with a small force is difficult. To ALSO make it relevant in conventional scenarios even more difficult. While they are not planning to have 20 LRS-B, the experience of the B-2 has certainly greatly influenced the NGB/LRS-B process.
 
Talking of engines is this aircraft likely to enter service using ADVENT technology?
 
flateric said:
sferrin said:
Already cancelled.
Click to expand...
This is 5 hour fresh news of engine options.
Click to expand...

I know. In the US every supersonic project gets cancelled faster than the last so I figured it was already ripe for cancellation. :(
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom