US Next Generation Bomber Studies

dark sidius said:
There is an interesting information, it seem Lockheed build a demonstrator for the LRS-B program. If Skunk works is behind the LRS-B program we can wait for a great plane in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Although it won't happen my personal dream is to wake up and there is a big announcement and we are taken to the roll out of the US's new hypersonic bomber. Ah a guy can dream.
 
Yes its a great dream, but I think personaly we will have a good surprise when the LRS-B will roll out in the white world. Skunk works make a lot of legend plane so (if) they are in a team to build the LRS-B we must be confident to see a new inovative plane with new capacity. And there is a new hope for hypersonic with the new Darpa XS-1 spaceplane, to demonstrate a new hypersonic system with space launch capacity, global reach and transport, in objectives. We must be patient the hypersonic time will come ;)
 
dark sidius said:
There is an interesting information, it seem Lockheed build a demonstrator for the LRS-B program. If Skunk works is behind the LRS-B program we can wait for a great plane in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Polecat, BFF, X-56 MUTT and Polecat II were all Lockheed flight test programs for reducing LRS/NGB risk.
 
Those are the PUBLICALLY known ones...They probably reflect a tiny fraction of the contracted work done for risk reducton..
 
bring_it_on said:
Those are the PUBLICALLY known ones...They probably reflect a tiny fraction of the contracted work done for risk reducton..
Click to expand...

Why do you say that?
 
Because the POLECAT for example was a company funded venture (Lockheed funded)..If the program is going to take place in the BLACK and their are plenty of contracts being awarded in the BLACK (Black contracts)..why would the majority of those programs be released to the public? A lot of this is industry funded R&D to keep their design teams invested in cutting edge research, the specific contracts for de-risking and design evolution are probably secret.
 
bring_it_on said:
Because the POLECAT for example was a company funded venture (Lockheed funded)..If the program is going to take place in the BLACK and their are plenty of contracts being awarded in the BLACK (Black contracts)..why would the majority of those programs be released to the public?
Click to expand...

Which "black" contracts would these be?
It is a point of law that even DoD special access programs are subject to oversight. All of the funds for the long range strike programs are subject to both congressional oversight and public disclosure.

Again, Polecat and the other programs were part of risk reduction efforts, wether company funded or not. The idea that some other Lockheed LRS demonstrator is flying lacks any support. They haven't gotten the money from DoD, they haven't funded it themselves, the infrastructure needed to support such a program is idle, and the required personnel are working on other things. The monies allocated for LRS/NGB are going elsewhere, and those places are not as romantic as a super secret demonstrator.

bring_it_on said:
A lot of this is industry funded R&D to keep their design teams invested in cutting edge research, the specific contracts for de-risking and design evolution are probably secret.
Click to expand...

Polecat was a Lockheed effort to reduce risk for future LRS efforts. Lockheed stated as much when the program was made public.
 
Polecat is a old effort we must look more on recent programs , its impossible to know what kind of risk reduction contract are in the black. This last week the recent AFA articles for futur strike and air combat are a lot on the speed of the weapon and surely for futur platform too. In my opinion we will see a futur LRS-B whith at less supersonic dash speed for penetrate ennemy defense, and in the futur surely a weapon based on the X-51 demonstrator to complete the capacity.
 
dark sidius said:
Polecat is a old effort we must look more on recent programs , its impossible to know what kind of risk reduction contract are in the black.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. These programs are a matter of public record.
 
You know, I kinda get why photos of alien spacecraft and Bigfoot and Nessie and honest politicians are so blurry: the event is unexpected and transitory, leaving insufficient time to really properly prepare the camera. but why oh why are photos of artwork and display models and such from these trade shows so friggen' hard to photograph clearly? People can't spend five seconds focusing?
 
Orionblamblam said:
You know, I kinda get why photos of alien spacecraft and Bigfoot and Nessie and honest politicians are so blurry: the event is unexpected and transitory, leaving insufficient time to really properly prepare the camera. but why oh why are photos of artwork and display models and such from these trade shows so friggen' hard to photograph clearly? People can't spend five seconds focusing?
Click to expand...

The only thing I can think of is the picture was taken by a cell phone surreptitiously the photog not knowing whether pictures were allowed? Pure speculation on my part. :eek:
 
Is that the first time we've seen that design from the rear? Since we have plenty of pics of it from the front.
 
This is one of officially released LMSW FSA concept renderings, first appearing at public in JDW vol.39 no.22 (4 June, 2003)
Pic in discussion was there as well.
 

Attachments

  • FSA5.jpg
    FSA5.jpg
    13.8 KB · Views: 571
  • FSA2.jpg
    FSA2.jpg
    24.1 KB · Views: 572
  • FSA3.jpg
    FSA3.jpg
    29.7 KB · Views: 562
... and in the AFM forum, Michael Sirak, JDW Staff Reporter Washington, DC, wrote on 10-JUN-2003:

Lockheed Martin reveals future strike platform

Lockheed Martin has revealed images of a stealthy, supersonic strike aircraft designed to penetrate heavily defended airspace in the initial phase of a conflict and deliver precision-guided munitions on time- sensitive and other high-value targets.
The company developed the concept, which it refers to generically as the 'long-range strike aircraft' in support of studies on future strike platforms that the US Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) is leading.
Although the air force anticipates operating its current bomber force of B-1B, B-2A and B-52H aircraft until 2040, it is examining complementary capabilities. It is prioritising its technology investments to be in a position to launch a next-generation strike programme around 2012-15, with the goal of fielding the system starting around 2020. The system it chooses may not be an aircraft, but rather a capability that traverses space, or some other unconventional approach.
Nonetheless, the service is examining a range of notional subsonic, supersonic and hypersonic aircraft designs as it formulates its technology roadmap.
The Lockheed Martin aircraft is a M2.0-M4.0-class system with highly swept wings and large engines, said Kevin Renshaw, Lockheed Martin's programme manager for long-range strike and advanced combat aircraft. Crew would consist of a pilot and a weapons systems operator.
The company is examining a mix of payload and range options. A payload capacity between 15,000 lb and 40,000 lb (6,802kg and 18,140kg) is envisaged, Renshaw told Jane's Defence Weekly, noting that between 20,000 lb and 25,000 lb appears to be the preferred design trade space. The concept has a notional combat radius of 3,000 miles (4,827km) without mid-air refuelling.
 
The only plane we see after this concept in 2003, is the htv-Blackswift with 2 different design, its the only plane design wee see in white world with a long range strike capacity and the cancellation of this plane is very strange.
 
dark sidius said:
The only plane we see after this concept in 2003, is the htv-Blackswift with 2 different design, its the only plane design wee see in white world with a long range strike capacity and the cancellation of this plane is very strange.
Click to expand...
Not sure if you was reading this thread at all. Because others have seen _many_.
 
I have a question or two about this one design - are those folding wings? and with the intake for the fuel on the nose would that not be really dangerous? I mean I been watching the air to air fuel videos on youtube and I am not too sure I would like that flying boom right at the window!
 

Attachments

  • bomber.jpg
    bomber.jpg
    175.1 KB · Views: 510
Ian33 said:
I have a question or two about this one design - are those folding wings? and with the intake for the fuel on the nose would that not be really dangerous? I mean I been watching the air to air fuel videos on youtube and I am not too sure I would like that flying boom right at the window!
Click to expand...

A-10 and B-1 have it there.
 
Ian33 said:
I have a question or two about this one design - are those folding wings? and with the intake for the fuel on the nose would that not be really dangerous? I mean I been watching the air to air fuel videos on youtube and I am not too sure I would like that flying boom right at the window!
Click to expand...

Hi, the lines on the wings are just for aesthetics' sake --- to the make the wings of the model stand out from the fuselage. Moreover, it's probably not dangerous to have a flying boom by the window because the British Aerospace Nimrod had a needle-like extension above the cockpit for refueling and there were no accidents involving the Nimrod during the in-flight refueling process.
 
This Lockheed concept is 2003 years old, long time before the new bomber projects, personaly I think more for a magazine picture and I dont think we can care of this design, in my opinion.
 
Why I have an impression that I'm talking to bot after each your post?
 
dark sidius said:
This Lockheed concept is 2003 years old, long time before the new bomber projects, personaly I think more for a magazine picture and I dont think we can care of this design, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Long before the new bomber projects, also long before the invention of heavier than air travel. Lockheed, yet again you do not fail to impress! This concept surely was ahead of it's time!
 
TaiidanTomcat said:
Ian33 said:
I have a question or two about this one design - are those folding wings? and with the intake for the fuel on the nose would that not be really dangerous? I mean I been watching the air to air fuel videos on youtube and I am not too sure I would like that flying boom right at the window!
Click to expand...

A-10 and B-1 have it there.
Click to expand...

As did the F-105.
 
Ian33 said:
I have a question or two about this one design - are those folding wings? and with the intake for the fuel on the nose would that not be really dangerous? I mean I been watching the air to air fuel videos on youtube and I am not too sure I would like that flying boom right at the window!
Click to expand...

Folding Wings? No, that is probably the picture of a model and that's just where they attached the models wings.
Aerial Refueling: When pilots refuel in the air, they aren't actually looking at the boom. They are looking at markings/lights on the belly of the tanker that tell them they are in the correct position for refueling. They maintain that position in formation with the tanker and the boom operator flies the boom into position to refuel the aircraft. That's another one of the ways that this type of refueling is different from the probe and drogue type of refueling.
 
Indeed. If anything i'd be more concerned about fuel spray upon disconnect ending up in the intakes, that sorta thing. It may or may not be a problem depending on the local aerodynamics, and if it is, you simply move the slipway somewhere near the center of the fuselage, a la SR-71. No biggie.
 
Stargazer2006 said:
dark sidius said:
This Lockheed concept is 2003 years old
Click to expand...

Er... that makes it a concept of the year 10 A.D. Quite advanced for its time I'd say...
Click to expand...


I think he means it is 10 years old! But it looks better than Lockheed's latest design.
 
Yes little mistake of English, I want to say the pictures is seen for the first time in 2003, sometimes a little difficult to translate the French in English.
 
dark sidius said:
Yes little mistake of English, I want to say the pictures is seen for the first time in 2003, sometimes a little difficult to translate the French in English.
Click to expand...

My guess is that he knows what you meant and was making a joke which was funny IMHO.
 
I'm curious. Supersonic aircraft were among the concepts studied by various US aerospace manufacturers for the hypothetical B-3 program championed by the USAF as a replacement for the B-52, B-1, and B-2, but somehow, all the concepts studied for the LRS-B are subsonic, with none of them being capable of going at more than 2,000 kilometers per hour. Why has the USAF decided to forgo a supersonic platform in favor of a subsonic platform when devising the requirements for the LRS-B? Could it be that USAF seems to have recognized that the new-generation supersonic LRCA will be too expensive compared to a subsonic LRCA when taking into account the costs of fabricating metals that would allow a supersonic bomber to withstand heat friction beyond Mach 2?
 
Vahe Demirjian said:
I'm curious. Supersonic aircraft were among the concepts studied by various US aerospace manufacturers for the hypothetical B-3 program championed by the USAF as a replacement for the B-52, B-1, and B-2, but somehow, all the concepts studied for the LRS-B are subsonic, with none of them being capable of going at more than 2,000 kilometers per hour. Why has the USAF decided to forgo a supersonic platform in favor of a subsonic platform when devising the requirements for the LRS-B? Could it be that USAF seems to have recognized that the new-generation supersonic LRCA will be too expensive compared to a subsonic LRCA when taking into account the costs of fabricating metals that would allow a supersonic bomber to withstand heat friction beyond Mach 2?
Click to expand...

It costs a lot more to move a thousand pound bomb supersonically than subsonically. Enough that it was not worthwhile.
 
quellish said:
It costs a lot more to move a thousand pound bomb supersonically than subsonically. Enough that it was not worthwhile.
Click to expand...
The general impression I get is that it particularly difficult to provide thermally discreet stealth solutions at supersonic speeds.
 
There is a lot of conjontion about speed in the las t words of USAF officers and if they speak about speed there is something else than a subsonic bomber in my opinion.
 
cubit said:
quellish said:
It costs a lot more to move a thousand pound bomb supersonically than subsonically. Enough that it was not worthwhile.
Click to expand...
The general impression I get is that it particularly difficult to provide thermally discreet stealth solutions at supersonic speeds.
Click to expand...

The real problem is what higher temperatures do to the magnetic properties of some materials. It's not a show stopper, it's very solvable.

A supercruising strategic bomber would require a very expensive investment in engine technology, for little gain in capability.
 
I'm just placing my bet early, but in my opinion super cruise and high speed aren't going to be in The NGB. I think it will be higher aspect ratio and fineness ratio, and heavily visual stealth. something that can stay on station a longer time.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom