ATB: B-2 evolution and competitors

quellish said:
Lockheed had the ATA-B, a larger design based on the ATA-B (what has been seen in a photo mounted on a pole), and their ATB proposal. The two ATA-B designs were heavily influenced by SENIOR TREND. As the ATB requirements evolved it was clear that Lockheed's ATA-B based designs would not be competitive and they ended up with a design that was very much like the Northrop design at the time and of a similar size.
Click to expand...

The picture of the faceted, flying wing RCS pole model that is in this topic thread along with being published in the F-117 book by Yancy Mailes and Tony Landis I thought was the final Senior Peg design. It meets Ben Rich's description (from his autobiography) of a flying wing with a small fuselage extension out the back for supporting a small v-tail. Did Lockheed come up with a design after that point that beared an even closer resemblance to Northrop's winning ATB design? That might explain the comment in Ben Rich's autobiography about an Air Force officer with the ATB program asking the question of why Lockheed had in their possession a model of Northrop's ATB.

Furthermore, are there any confirming sources on where the Senior Peg design that is on the Dreamland Resort website falls into the picture? The extension out the back end supporting a v-tail suggests that it might be a Senior Peg design, but it also bears a resemblance to the F-117 so it might possibly be an ATA-B design. It's difficult to gauge the true size and number of engines on that aircraft.
 
Lockheed ATA-B length (76') was bigger figure than its wingspan (47') according to trustful "Have Blue and the F-117A: Evolution of the "Stealth Fighter".
So...figures doesn't fit the image or vice versa.

F-117A: Maintainers

F-117A ATA-A/B. Part of www.f-117a.com
www.f-117a.com
 
Indeed. Ben Rich said Lockheed had the stealthier design with a minor aerodynamic disadvantage, it was John Cashen who said "we beat them on the pole, we beat them in the air, we beat them on everything".




It might be that e.g. Lockheed had an RCS advantage in some directions and wavebands, but Northrop's design was stealthier overall, then both quotes could be "correct".
 
This is concept art of the McDonnell-Douglas ATB design. Not much is known about it; it appears that McD only put a minimal level of effort into the program, probably not tendering an actual proposal. What I have on the McD ATB, including reliable layout diagrams, is in US Bomber Projects issue #05.
 

Attachments

  • Douglas ATB Art.jpg
    Douglas ATB Art.jpg
    218.4 KB · Views: 1,242
Orionblamblam said:
This is concept art of the McDonnell-Douglas ATB design. Not much is known about it; it appears that McD only put a minimal level of effort into the program, probably not tendering an actual proposal. What I have on the McD ATB, including reliable layout diagrams, is in US Bomber Projects issue #05.
Click to expand...


Wow,very beauty my dear Scott.
 
like in ATF case, MDC seems to 'not quite take the idea'
 
Orionblamblam said:
This is concept art of the McDonnell-Douglas ATB design. Not much is known about it; it appears that McD only put a minimal level of effort into the program, probably not tendering an actual proposal. What I have on the McD ATB, including reliable layout diagrams, is in US Bomber Projects issue #05.
Click to expand...


With those big wing tip up turns looks like it has some DNA that went into the BWB design.
 
It almost looks like they were concentrating their efforts on a FB-111A replacement (sub-strategic, low level deep interdiction). Perhaps McDonnell-Douglas figured that, if Carter used the ATB program as a bargaining chip with the Soviets, such an approach would greatly increase the chances of it's proposal surviving as an independent program in it's own right.
 
Orionblamblam said:
B-2, McDonnell-Douglas ATB concept, Lockheed Senior Peg (provisional) and A-12 for diversity. From USBP #05.
Click to expand...

Very nice! Hopefully the other responses will become public at some point.
 
Don't remember exactly where and when I've heard it, but kinda leading edge lift devices were considered for B-2, but omitted in final design as they gave only 3% improvement in take-off/landing qualities.
 

Attachments

  • LAP.jpg
    LAP.jpg
    497 KB · Views: 972
  • LAP-render-top.jpg
    LAP-render-top.jpg
    335 KB · Views: 944
Does anyone have a flight profile for LAP? I want to try and get this into CMANO...
 
DrRansom said:
Does anyone have a flight profile for LAP? I want to try and get this into CMANO...
Click to expand...

Likely not to be too dissimilar from the earlier DARPA effort
 

Attachments

  • darpa-low-altitude-penetrator.png
    darpa-low-altitude-penetrator.png
    112.3 KB · Views: 613
DrRansom said:
Thanks. It looks like a one-way mission?
Click to expand...

Not really. It's just that the drawing focuses on the ingress and delivery phases.

There's a second diagram of the Hi-Hi-Hi-Hi profile that often goes with this one and it similarly downplays the egress and landing portion of the flight.
 

Attachments

  • b-2_darpa_penetrator_study.jpg
    b-2_darpa_penetrator_study.jpg
    45 KB · Views: 1,546
Just the usual late Cold War strategic bomber reference sortie that assumes a recovery tanker is available 200 miles from the target. It crops up in standard aircraft characteristics sheets for the B-1 and B-52 as well.
 
It was a reference sortie rather than a specific plan. At some point the reference sortie changed from out-and-back with weapons release at the midpoint to out, weapons release, and recovery to a nearby tanker or friendly airfield, but the standard 10,000-pound warload lasted a very long time. It doesn't really correspond to a real mission.
 
The LAP is interesting... sounds quite vulnerable to losing tankers though (I suppose runway length isn't as much of an issue given that the runways would be in the U.S. and likely to be hit rather thoroughly once hit? Still an issue if they are ever to be used conventionally though).

An idle though... if look down radars are a concern, why not have the cockpit facing forward/down (and rely on electric lighting)?
 
Me, slowpoke, just have noticed some striking similarities*. Note that LM/NG NGB factory model seemingly has highly swept wing - like close to 40-45°

*it may be just me
 

Attachments

  • 50535_usaf-next-gen-bomber_47917.jpg
    50535_usaf-next-gen-bomber_47917.jpg
    30.3 KB · Views: 322
  • senior_peg_01 (1).jpg
    senior_peg_01 (1).jpg
    19.2 KB · Views: 1,231

Attachments

  • Senior-Peg-Skunk-Works2.jpg
    Senior-Peg-Skunk-Works2.jpg
    44.1 KB · Views: 178
Last edited:
fightingirish said:
Nice artwork. :cool:
www.thedrive.com

This Is What Lockheed’s Stealth Bomber Would Have Looked Like

If Lockheed's Skunk Works beat Northrop for the Advanced Technology Bomber contract, this would have been flying instead of the B-2A Spirit.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com
Click to expand...
The Senior Peg concept sure looks very interesting. But I can see why Senior Ice won the competition: Those vertical stabilizers, even if small and lowered, would still give the aircraft an increased RCS, same with the presence of a tail.

That being said, here are the artworks from that article
 

Attachments

  • Senior-Peg-2.png
    Senior-Peg-2.png
    323.9 KB · Views: 125
  • 4-copy.png
    4-copy.png
    93.5 KB · Views: 101
  • 2-copy.png
    2-copy.png
    346.1 KB · Views: 96
  • 3-copy.png
    3-copy.png
    302.7 KB · Views: 99
  • top-copy-scaled.png
    top-copy-scaled.png
    179.2 KB · Views: 105
  • side-copy.png
    side-copy.png
    36.5 KB · Views: 105
  • Back-copy-scaled.png
    Back-copy-scaled.png
    27.7 KB · Views: 104
  • front-copy-scaled.png
    front-copy-scaled.png
    29.2 KB · Views: 135
Last edited:
From "So you want to build airplanes? Gene Salvay: Airplane Designer", Wings Magazine, August 2000 (Interview with Gene Salvay)

The rise of stealth technology, which temporarily cut short the B–1, gave impetus to a new program at Lockheed. The company was given a preliminary contract to design and build its version of what would become the B–2 Stealth bomber. Two teams, Lockheed and Northrop, labored on their respective visions of the aircraft in secret, neither one officially knowing the other was competing. Although still classified, Gene Salvay’s design for Lockheed was shaped more like a long narrow triangle, when viewed from directly above. Its trailing edge was equipped with elevons and elevators, somewhat like those on the Northrop B–2, but there were fewer of them and they were much less segmented. The Lockheed plane was also characterized by a V-shaped vertical tail, mounted on an articulated, moving pylon, which protruded aft from the central portion of the wing. Instead of hooded intakes built into the top surfaces of the wing in the Northrop B–2, which Gene claimed caused too much drag and spoiled the sur- face, he placed them in the wing root’s leading edge. In general, Lockheed’s version looked more like a narrow triangle or delta. Viewed in profile, the only break in the slender wing-fuselage line was the swept forward rudders.
Click to expand...

From Edward Lovick Jr.. "Radar Man: A Personal History of Stealth"

I suggested to Leo that we did not need to have sharp edges and faceting like Have Blue. He really did not need convincing. Rounded surfaces promoted much better aerodynamic performance. He had a full-scale model of the bomber built with rounded wing and empennage leading edges. The fuselage also was rounded instead of having all those difficult-to-manufacture facets that were characteristic of the Have Blue and F-117 aircraft. A huge number of man-hours were devoted to making those F-117 facet edges meet at straight lines and at points. The backscattering results from RATSCAT tests were excellent. Leo was satisfied that we had demonstrated that we did not need to have facets. The Lockheed F-22 Raptor does not have facets!
Click to expand...


From Peter Westwick. “Stealth.”

For the bomber design, Scherrer revived the idea of a stealthy flying wing; like BSAX, the bomber would have to fly high and long distances, which the flying wing’s aerodynamic efficiency enabled. Scherrer again argued that facets would doom the plane aerodynamically, wrecking the lift-to-drag ratio. His managers, nevertheless, once again refused to fund wind-tunnel tests of a curved airfoil. Facets had won Lockheed the F-117, and the company was not going to mess with success. To Scherrer, it was “clear to me that the faceted ATB [bomber] was doomed because the Laws of Physics would not bend to fit Company policy.”8 Scherrer finally gave up and quit Lockheed in frustration in June 1979.

Lockheed’s bomber design incorporated some elements of the flying wing—after all, they were the ones who had proposed it for Tacit Blue—but otherwise it was something like an expanded F-117. The big diamond-shaped body sprouted slender wings, which gave it some resemblance to a flying wing, but the effect was undermined by a tail boom with a V-tail, sticking straight off the back of the diamond like the spiky tail of a Stegosaurus. Scherrer and Denys Overholser had pushed for a pure flying wing, but Skunk Works aerodynamicists insisted on the tail for stability and control, and Scherrer and Overholser lost the argument. Most important, the design stuck with facets: flat plates, sharp edges, and obtuse angles. One of the Air Force managers described to Alan Brown the prevailing Air Force view of the design: “You just took an F-117 and you went pffft, like this, just pumped it up.”
Click to expand...
 
Don't have any idea of the provenance of this pic of course, but in its lack of detail it brings to mind this:


b-2-official-artists-impression-dod-april-1988-robert-bob-mack-jpg.611825
 
To me it looks more like a manufacturer's model in front of the printout of a sky background, a bit like in these pictures of the B-2.

The shape is the same as the RCS model, but the glazing appears different (most notably, there are 2 additional small windows on top). It gives me the impression, but this is not substantiated in any way for now, that the white model is a "smaller" aircraft than the other one.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom