US Next Generation Bomber Studies

[bring_it_on]

Do you guys think that 2025 is doable?

 

[sferrin]

Do you guys think that 2025 is doable?

Technically? Yes. Given the current mindset of those in Washington and higher up in the USAF? Definitely not.

 

[Steve Pace]

I feel there's no need of a 'new' bomber since the U.S. has numerous fighters that are fully capable of 'bombing' any adversary. Moreover, the U.S. has other ways to deliver 'bombs' such as cruise missiles and even transport aircraft. Witness C-130s delivering MOABs. Not to mention by way of unoccupied aircraft. -SP

 

[sferrin]

I feel there's no need of a 'new' bomber since the U.S. has numerous fighters that are fully capable of 'bombing' any adversary. Moreover, the U.S. has other ways to deliver 'bombs' such as cruise missiles and even transport aircraft. Witness C-130s delivering MOABs. Not to mention by way of unoccupied aircraft. -SP

Some countries have defenses. Some targets require great range (without the luxury of tanking right up to their doorstep). And some munitions are too big for fighters. I'd hardly trust a Predator to deliver a B83 if WW3 kicked off.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

I feel there's no need of a 'new' bomber since the U.S. has numerous fighters that are fully capable of 'bombing' any adversary. Moreover, the U.S. has other ways to deliver 'bombs' such as cruise missiles and even transport aircraft. Witness C-130s delivering MOABs. Not to mention by way of unoccupied aircraft. -SP

Tough targets in Serbian territory could only be reached by the B-2 bomber, which made its combat debut by flying directly from its base in Missouri. The B-2 successfully struck heavily defended fixed targets and mobile targets such as an SA-3.

Afghanistan presented another showcase for range and payload. B-1s and B-52Hs ended up dropping about 70 percent of the total tonnage during the beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom in the fall of 2001.

...

A new appreciation for the bombers emerged during the ongoing operations when B-52Hs and B-1s proved the value of turning range into loiter time, allowing the aircraft to stay overhead with large weapons loads to support varied ground operations.

On missions in 2004 and 2005, it was common for aircraft to drop just one weapon, or none at all. By the fall of 2006, strikes increased as larger formations of Taliban fighters emerged in Afghanistan. One B-1 crew told of releasing eight 2,000-pound Joint Direct Attack Munitions, plus six 500-pound bombs, on a single mission that fall.

...

There’s another wrinkle. The days of fighters (or bombers, or unmanned systems) operating alone are over. In 21st century scenarios, all these platforms will need to share information and achieve a tactical dependence to get the job done. Heavily defended airspace will present challenges that call for platforms to work together in new ways.

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2007/November%202007/1107bombers.aspx

 

[dark sidius]

I think a supersonic cruise is not out of reach for a 2025 bomber, new programs like Advent or Aetd can solve the problem, and there is a great chance that the LRS-B will be in a medium size bomber like the F-111, to stay affordable . The F-22 is a supersonic low observable plane and is size, is in the 18 meters, a bomber in the size order of 23 or 24 meters with 2 boosted engine like a modified F-135, I supposed it can be possible to supercruise.

 

[JFC Fuller]

It's ironic, with all the ranting about the A-10 going on at the moment it's actually the B-1B, a strategic bomber, that is one of the favoured CAS assets at the moment. It can carry a lot of ordnance and can move fast and in a world of SNIPER pods, ROVER terminals and JDAM's there is no need to be low except to make a point.

 

[flateric]

(c) Northrop Grumman ca.2011
history made it circle again at some point...look at early high-altitude SENIOR CEJAY... and current artist impressions of LM/B LRS-B (if we can thrust both)

added one of first public artist impressions of NG NGB for comparison

 

[Abraham Gubler]

there is no need to be low except to make a point.

And the B-1 does that far better than any other aircraft.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

there is no need to be low except to make a point.

And the B-1 does that far better than any other aircraft.

That's no joke-- I had to throw those boxer shorts away in fact. ;D

 

[Moose]

Lockheed and Boeing to team on LRS-B (Reuters):


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-lockheed-team-u-bomber-program-sources-155130167--sector.html

You buried the lead. In this arrangement Boeing is leading the team as prime contractor and LM is the prime subcontracor. That's an interesting new development.

 

[FighterJock]

Lockheed and Boeing to team on LRS-B (Reuters):


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-lockheed-team-u-bomber-program-sources-155130167--sector.html

You buried the lead. In this arrangement Boeing is leading the team as prime contractor and LM is the prime subcontracor. That's an interesting new development.

Only one issue here where does that leave Northrop-Grumman?

 

[LowObservable]

Good question, stay tuned to the usual reliable sources.

 

[sferrin]

Lockheed and Boeing to team on LRS-B (Reuters):


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-lockheed-team-u-bomber-program-sources-155130167--sector.html

You buried the lead. In this arrangement Boeing is leading the team as prime contractor and LM is the prime subcontracor. That's an interesting new development.

Only one issue here where does that leave Northrop-Grumman?

Thought they were competitors. LM/Boeing on one side and NG on the other. ???

edit:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_10_25_2013_p0-630684.xml

"Boeing’s leadership role in the program confirms reports that the company’s long—but largely unadvertised—work in stealth technology has reached the point where it is a strategic advantage, having pioneered and demonstrated aircraft designs with lower radar cross-section numbers than were previously considered practical. Lockheed Martin brings its operational stealth experience to the party, along with the aerodynamic technology demonstrated on the Polecat UAV prototype. Northrop Grumman, producer of the B-2 and other classified platforms, will be the other LRS-B competitor."

 

[bobbymike]

Lockheed and Boeing to team on LRS-B (Reuters):


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-lockheed-team-u-bomber-program-sources-155130167--sector.html

You buried the lead. In this arrangement Boeing is leading the team as prime contractor and LM is the prime subcontracor. That's an interesting new development.

Only one issue here where does that leave Northrop-Grumman?

Thought they were competitors. LM/Boeing on one side and NG on the other. ???

edit:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_10_25_2013_p0-630684.xml

"Boeing’s leadership role in the program confirms reports that the company’s long—but largely unadvertised—work in stealth technology has reached the point where it is a strategic advantage, having pioneered and demonstrated aircraft designs with lower radar cross-section numbers than were previously considered practical. Lockheed Martin brings its operational stealth experience to the party, along with the aerodynamic technology demonstrated on the Polecat UAV prototype. Northrop Grumman, producer of the B-2 and other classified platforms, will be the other LRS-B competitor."

LRS-B, preliminary work on SSBN(X) if they announce a new ICBM and nuke warhead it's like Christmas arrived early for me.

But on a serious note with 20 years of technology advancement since the B-2A are we 'just' going to get a new VLO subsonic bomber or something more exotic? With the cost pegged at $550 million each is that possible?

 

[Moose]

Lockheed and Boeing to team on LRS-B (Reuters):


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-lockheed-team-u-bomber-program-sources-155130167--sector.html

You buried the lead. In this arrangement Boeing is leading the team as prime contractor and LM is the prime subcontracor. That's an interesting new development.

Only one issue here where does that leave Northrop-Grumman?

Thought they were competitors. LM/Boeing on one side and NG on the other. ???

edit:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_10_25_2013_p0-630684.xml

"Boeing’s leadership role in the program confirms reports that the company’s long—but largely unadvertised—work in stealth technology has reached the point where it is a strategic advantage, having pioneered and demonstrated aircraft designs with lower radar cross-section numbers than were previously considered practical. Lockheed Martin brings its operational stealth experience to the party, along with the aerodynamic technology demonstrated on the Polecat UAV prototype. Northrop Grumman, producer of the B-2 and other classified platforms, will be the other LRS-B competitor."

LRS-B, preliminary work on SSBN(X) if they announce a new ICBM and nuke warhead it's like Christmas arrived early for me.

But on a serious note with 20 years of technology advancement since the B-2A are we 'just' going to get a new VLO subsonic bomber or something more exotic? With the cost pegged at $550 million each is that possible?

If you're looking for a Hypersonic platform, you're gonna be disappointed.

 

[bobbymike]

Lockheed and Boeing to team on LRS-B (Reuters):


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-lockheed-team-u-bomber-program-sources-155130167--sector.html

You buried the lead. In this arrangement Boeing is leading the team as prime contractor and LM is the prime subcontracor. That's an interesting new development.

Only one issue here where does that leave Northrop-Grumman?

Thought they were competitors. LM/Boeing on one side and NG on the other. ???

edit:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_10_25_2013_p0-630684.xml

"Boeing’s leadership role in the program confirms reports that the company’s long—but largely unadvertised—work in stealth technology has reached the point where it is a strategic advantage, having pioneered and demonstrated aircraft designs with lower radar cross-section numbers than were previously considered practical. Lockheed Martin brings its operational stealth experience to the party, along with the aerodynamic technology demonstrated on the Polecat UAV prototype. Northrop Grumman, producer of the B-2 and other classified platforms, will be the other LRS-B competitor."

LRS-B, preliminary work on SSBN(X) if they announce a new ICBM and nuke warhead it's like Christmas arrived early for me.

But on a serious note with 20 years of technology advancement since the B-2A are we 'just' going to get a new VLO subsonic bomber or something more exotic? With the cost pegged at $550 million each is that possible?

If you're looking for a Hypersonic platform, you're gonna be disappointed.

No I am not that optimistic BUT defensive DEW would be great. B)

 

[dark sidius]

there is a little hope may be to see something more exotic than a subsonic stealth wing, Boeing and Lockheed was in team for the NGB and in 2008 they was in team for the Blackswift demonstrator before it was cancelled, so I thing there is a lot of works in this two company since this date.

 

[Sundog]

Yeah, they're not going to go with exotic high performance, they're going to go with what is best to meet the mission requirements. They've already shown that a hypersonic design would be a very poor design for the mission profile they want. They're going to go with an advanced stealth design that can use a hypersonic strike weapon when it becomes available.

 

[sublight_]

"Boeing’s leadership role in the program confirms reports that the company’s long—but largely unadvertised—work in stealth technology has reached the point where it is a strategic advantage, having pioneered and demonstrated aircraft designs with lower radar cross-section numbers than were previously considered practical. Lockheed Martin brings its operational stealth experience to the party, along with the aerodynamic technology demonstrated on the Polecat UAV prototype. Northrop Grumman, producer of the B-2 and other classified platforms, will be the other LRS-B competitor."

Where are all these really low RCS Boeing designs???

 

[sferrin]

"Boeing’s leadership role in the program confirms reports that the company’s long—but largely unadvertised—work in stealth technology has reached the point where it is a strategic advantage, having pioneered and demonstrated aircraft designs with lower radar cross-section numbers than were previously considered practical. Lockheed Martin brings its operational stealth experience to the party, along with the aerodynamic technology demonstrated on the Polecat UAV prototype. Northrop Grumman, producer of the B-2 and other classified platforms, will be the other LRS-B competitor."

Where are all these really low RCS Boeing designs???

At Lockheed Martin. ;D

 

[Sundog]

Where are all these really low RCS Boeing designs???

Well, there's the Bird Of Prey, and their UCAV work (X-45), and probably other stuff they won't tell us about.

 

[Triton]

Boeing and Lockheed Martin form LRS-B Team:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_11_04_2013_p22-631732.xml&p=1

 

[antigravite]

Boeing and Lockheed Martin form LRS-B Team:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_11_04_2013_p22-631732.xml&p=1

Best choice ever. The 787 experience was is good incentive to team up with a strong partner.
Lockheed might be more than helpful to kinda fix battery issues, windshield issues.
BTW, has the 787 battery issue bee solved yet?

A.

 

[Jemiba]

BTW, has the 787 battery issue bee solved yet?

From what I read in several printed and online publications: Principally no ! Boeing stated, that
determining the actual reason for overheating of a battery would take too long. But the redesign
of the battery compartment and accompanying systems will prevent damage in the future, just in
case, the original problem will reappear again. :-\

 

[bobbymike]

Air Force Chief: Bomber Cost to Be Tightly Capped

Nov. 15, 2013

The U.S. Air Force will keep costs and military requirements for its future bomber aircraft tightly constrained, service Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said this week. "Cost is going to be a no-kidding independent variable in this," Welsh told reporters at a Wednesday breakfast session, according to Jane's Defense Weekly. The flying service intends to buy 80 to 100 of the nuclear- and conventional-capable aircraft beginning in the 2020s, with each bomber costing roughly $550 million. Welsh said that unit price should be enough to make the bomber a "capable machine," Jane's reported. To develop the new stealthy aircraft, the Air Force is spending $440 million this year, and intends to ramp up to $1 billion for its R&D investment next year, the Air Force News Service reported. Welsh said that to control costs, his service must avoid the temptation during the ongoing developmental phase to gold-plate the new bomber with like-to-have but unnecessary capabilities, a phenomenon sometimes called "requirements drift." "We are not going to go there," he said at the Defense Writers Group forum, saying the bomber would use only proven technologies, the military news service reported.

Welsh also noted that the Air Force would cut back on the number of lethal drones it fields for counterterrorism operations, according to a Wednesday report in the Washington Post. With a growing focus on boosting the U.S. military presence in the Asia-Pacific region, the Air Force will reduce drone activities from the current average of 62 combat operations per day worldwide to something more on the order of 45, Welsh said. The service uses the drones in counterterrorism efforts in Afghanistan -- where U.S. combat operations will mostly draw to a close in 2014 -- and in Yemen, Somalia, West Africa and along the Turkish-Iraqi border, according to the Post report.

 

[bobbymike]

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/prioritize-the-long-range-strike-mission-9432?page=1

Long-Range Strike Atrophy

Congress must “clearly articulate” its support for the Air Force’s long-range strike bomber program if the United States is to preserve its long-range strike advantage, wrote Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.)—chairman of the House Armed Services Committee’s seapower and projection forces panel—and Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah)—a former B-1 bomber pilot. According to the opinion piece posted in The National Interest on Nov. 20, “Successfully integrating LRS-B into the Air Force inventory will be critical for deterring aggression and supporting allies in places like the Western Pacific and Middle East.” However, the article noted the Air Force doesn’t expect to begin flight testing its new long-range strike bomber until the mid-2020s and the projected total buy of 80-to-100 LRS-Bs, “is considerably less” than the some 160 bombers in service today. Meanwhile, the average age of the B-52 is 52; the average age of the B-1 is 28; and the average age for the B-2 is 20 years. Modernization packages for the B-52 are expected to extend the aircraft’s service life past 2040 and modernized B-2s are expected to remain in service until 2058. While this may somewhat bridge the capability gap, “the United States is poised to face a significant shortfall in long-range strike capabilities for the next two decades, making it all the more critical to keep this program on track,” wrote the congressmen. (See also Time to Get Started from the February 2012 edition of Air Force Magazine)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The US could easily spend $1 trillion on national defense bringing it more in line with post WWII averages as a percentage of GDP LET ALONE just an additional $20 to $50 billion to insure key modernization programs like LRB-B and a completely modernized Triad.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2013/11/22/what-planes-cost-and-why-550-million-is-cheap-for-a-new-bomber/

 

[F-14D]

Boeing and Lockheed Martin form LRS-B Team:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_11_04_2013_p22-631732.xml&p=1

Best choice ever. The 787 experience was is good incentive to team up with a strong partner.
Lockheed might be more than helpful to kinda fix battery issues, windshield issues.
BTW, has the 787 battery issue bee solved yet?

A.

I'd say the 787 experience was more an incentive to not outsource everything and do engineering on the cheap. Boeing was more than capable of doing the whole 787 design and build, but the financial wizards in Chicago thought this would be a lower cost way.

Wonder if they've learned anything.

 

[bobbymike]

Boeing and Lockheed Martin form LRS-B Team:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_11_04_2013_p22-631732.xml&p=1

Best choice ever. The 787 experience was is good incentive to team up with a strong partner.
Lockheed might be more than helpful to kinda fix battery issues, windshield issues.
BTW, has the 787 battery issue bee solved yet?

A.

I'd say the 787 experience was more an incentive to not outsource everything and do engineering on the cheap. Boeing was more than capable of doing the whole 787 design and build, but the financial wizards in Chicago thought this would be a lower cost way.

Wonder if they've learned anything.

Just lower cost or also if you're producing part of the plane in China, Japan, etc. those countries airlines will buy the plane to support the local economy.

 

[F-14D]

I'd say the 787 experience was more an incentive to not outsource everything and do engineering on the cheap. Boeing was more than capable of doing the whole 787 design and build, but the financial wizards in Chicago thought this would be a lower cost way.

Wonder if they've learned anything.

In fact, they have. They've been quoted as saying they outsourced too much on the 787 and aren't going to make the same mistakes on the 777X. That's why they're making a big deal out of the search for the final assembly site, because they may choose to put the wing manufacturing site in the same place. They are serious about doing the wings in-house, it appears.

Final assembly is not the issue nor where the problem lies; after all the 787's final assembly is in the US. Let's hope they have leared (the 787 was also the first time Boeinfg eve let anyone else do the wing and main section design) from teh debacle. But then again Boeing is a Chicago based financial company now, and I nervously note that on Oct. 30, a memo from Michael P. Delaney, Boeing Commercial Airplanes vice president of Engineering, and Scott Fancher, vice president and general manager of Airplane Development, said part of the design work will be handled by Boeing's center in Moscow.

Fingers crossed.

 

[bobbymike]

Experts Say Air Force Drastically Underestimating New Bomber Cost


Dec. 6, 2013 The U.S. Air Force's planned next-generation heavy bomber could have a final price tag that is nearly 50 percent higher than what the service is currently projecting, Bloomberg reported on Friday. The Air Force in 2010 projected it would cost $550 million to manufacture each of the 100 envisioned new long-range strike bombers. However, when the expense of research and development is factored in, the cost for each nuclear-weapons capable aircraft rises up to $810 million each, measured in 2013 dollars, according to estimates from three defense specialists. Congressionally imposed limits on military spending are expected to bring heightened attention to the Air Force's spending on the bomber, which the service says is one of three must-have new weapons. Few details have been released about the specific capabilities the long-range aircraft is intended to have, other than it is to be capable of carrying both nuclear and conventional warheads. Though the "baseline aircraft" would use a pilot in the cockpit, the plane could be engineered to "enable future unmanned capability," according to an Air Force project summary.


"The Air Force has zero credibility on start-of-program estimates unless and until it ponies up real details about the bomber and its acquisition plan," Project on Government Oversight analyst Winslow Wheeler said in an e-mail cited by Bloomberg. "It is a fool's errand, or worse, to pretend the cost stated now is anything but a bait-and-switch buy-in gambit." Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh in a November Q&A with journalists said efforts would be made to keep the bomber's cost in line with the $550 million-a-plane estimate. "What we don’t want to do is try to reach into some level of technology that’s impractical," Welsh said. Doing that causes costs to "start to get out of control and your requirements start to drift. ... We are not going to go there."
---------------------------------------------------------
Title of article should be "Experts" Continue to make obvious points about defense programs :

 

[sferrin]

"Project on Government Oversight analyst Winslow Wheeler "

How did I guess?

 

[aim9xray]

"The Air Force in 2010 projected it would cost $550 million to manufacture each of the 100 envisioned new long-range strike bombers.

"However, when the expense of research and development is factored in, the cost for each nuclear-weapons capable aircraft rises up to $810 million each, measured in 2013 dollars, according to estimates from three defense specialists."

Apples, meet oranges.

*facepalm*

 

[SOC]

"The Air Force in 2010 projected it would cost $550 million to manufacture each of the 100 envisioned new long-range strike bombers.

"However, when the expense of research and development is factored in, the cost for each nuclear-weapons capable aircraft rises up to $810 million each, measured in 2013 dollars, according to estimates from three defense specialists."

Apples, meet oranges.

*facepalm*

Oh, you think this is bad? This guy is pre-fabricating his own fiscal "controversy" to generate more news down the line. Just wait until a month or so from now when he comes back and announces that the airplanes really cost a billion dollars each, because he decides to factor in life-cycle costs for airframe, spares, engines, crew training, gas, weapons, box lunches, survival radio batteries, etc., which are also known as things that have absolutely nothing to do with how much it literally costs to put together an airframe.

 

[flateric]

topic becoming boring w/out some pics

 

[Stargazer]

topic becoming boring w/out some pics

Not to mention the quote-within-quote-within-quote-within-quote-within-quote syndrom which adds nothing and just makes it unbearable to follow. Quoting the last bit is usually enough... (keep first [ quote etc. ] and last [ /quote ] tags, the sentence you wish to answer, and do away with all the rest!

 

[dark sidius]

What is the date for the picture ?

 

[flateric]

ca.2010

 

[ouroboros]

Door mounted GBU?