US Next Generation Bomber Studies

[dark sidius]

Flateric it's the official logo of the LRS-B program ?

 

[flateric]

an official LRS-B program logo

anything unclear here?

 

[dark sidius]

Ok I just ask the bad question, I would say is it the USAF logo or a company logo (boeing or Northrop for exemple)?

 

[flateric]

do you see any company logo/name here?

 

[Dragon029]

Thank you for the re-upload Flateric; any idea of what the logo symbol (on the left) represents?

My brain keeps associating it with the Tardis from Doctor Who (appear anywhere, anytime?), but I would think they would go for something more original. It doesn't look like an aircraft, but the outer shapes are very likely lightning bolts, with the inside triangle shape being maybe a hypersonic projectile like a successor of the Falcon?

 

[flateric]

obviously it's a knight helmet surrounded with bolts (for me)

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Now that looks like two wizards on broomsticks... some kind of object between them....

 

[totoro]

That's clearly a motorcycle with two puffy suit circus clowns standing one on each side of the bike.

 

[mz]

Thank you for the re-upload Flateric; any idea of what the logo symbol (on the left) represents?

My brain keeps associating it with the Tardis from Doctor Who (appear anywhere, anytime?), but I would think they would go for something more original. It doesn't look like an aircraft, but the outer shapes are very likely lightning bolts, with the inside triangle shape being maybe a hypersonic projectile like a successor of the Falcon?

Upside down Christmas Tree.

 

[marauder2048]

The outer logo vaguely reminds me of the shadow planform shown at the end of the NG video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCM4y6gOQdM&t=0m22s

 

[flateric]

oh, do me a favor and switch on the logic...
this is USAF program logo, for a program for which RFP for concurent bidders is not issued yet - and you starting to find similarities to shadow on a cloud from NG ad
too much far-fetching

BTW, logo first has appeared in Boeing document

 

[marauder2048]

oh, do me a favor and switch on the logic...
this is USAF program logo, for a program for which RFP for concurent bidders is not issued yet - and you starting to find similarities to shadow on a cloud from NG ad
too much far-fetching

BTW, logo first has appeared in Boeing document

I did say "vaguely reminds me".... :-[

 

[bring_it_on]

Northrop Grumman Awarded $9.9 Billion for B-2 Work

Rather large and extensive upgrade (nearly 10 billion). Perhaps some LRS_B work thrown in as well?

 

[quellish]

Rather large and extensive upgrade (nearly 10 billion). Perhaps some LRS_B work thrown in as well?

No. Why risk both programs by doing something illegal?

 

[flateric]

Rather large and extensive upgrade (nearly 10 billion). Perhaps some LRS_B work thrown in as well?

Do you know what "indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity" contracts are all about?

 

[bobbymike]

First LRS-B Will Have Nuclear Capability

The Air Force has refined its position on the nuclear capabilities of the first version of the classified Long-Range Strike Bomber. Since the program’s 2010 inception, service leaders have said the first version of LRS-B wouldn’t be fully configured for the nuclear role, a position that Air Force acquisition executive William LaPlante recently restated. He said the LRS-B design would have provision for adding nuclear capability and hardening in a later variant. However, the Air Force now tells Air Force Magazine “the baseline version (or Block A …) will be nuclear-capable on day one.” A service spokesman said on June 11 the initial LRS-B will have “all the piping, wiring, structure built in; there are no missing technical capabilities.” While the initial model goes through conventional testing, the Air Force will also be doing the legwork to “certify” it for the nuclear mission, a process to be accomplished “within two years,” said the spokesman. Certification involves demonstrating that the airplane works, can carry a nuclear payload, has technicians certified to load and handle the nuclear weapons, and that the bomber’s operating base has proper storage and handling facilities for the nukes. LaPlante said the first LRS-B would be ready for duty in 2024, which means the type would be available for nuclear missions as early as 2026.​
—John A. Tirpak

 

[donnage99]

I thought the whole program is bet on the idea that they won't change or add more capabilities into the aircraft during development to keep it from cost overrun. Looks like it aint' so.

 

[J.A.W.]

12 years away from now.. & when is the B1B due for retirement?
Does this coincide?

I recall with some hilarity that poor ol' NZ's concern with nukes extended to that capacity built-in of its ancient A4s..

 

[flateric]

Bone - till 2040

 

[sferrin]

I thought the whole program is bet on the idea that they won't change or add more capabilities into the aircraft during development to keep it from cost overrun. Looks like it aint' so.

I thought the idea was to get a bare bones aircraft up front (think F-16A Block 15) and gradually add capability over it's lifetime? I don't see how they could possibly keep it under $500 million otherwise. (And they should be using a LOT of existing stuff too. The only thing that should be new is the structure of the aircraft itself.)

 

[bring_it_on]

I thought the whole program is bet on the idea that they won't change or add more capabilities into the aircraft during development to keep it from cost overrun. Looks like it aint' so.

I thought the idea was to get a bare bones aircraft up front (think F-16A Block 15) and gradually add capability over it's lifetime? I don't see how they could possibly keep it under $500 million otherwise. (And they should be using a LOT of existing stuff too. The only thing that should be new is the structure of the aircraft itself.)

The first version of the Long-Range Strike Bomber is “very deliberately” not the final version, Air Force acquisition chief William LaPlante said in an interview. LaPlante said the first version could be described as the “80 percent solution” to USAF’s ultimate requirement.

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2014/June%202014/June%2002%202014/The-80-Percent-Solution.aspx

 

[Sundog]

I thought the idea was to get a bare bones aircraft up front (think F-16A Block 15) and gradually add capability over it's lifetime? I don't see how they could possibly keep it under $500 million otherwise. (And they should be using a LOT of existing stuff too. The only thing that should be new is the structure of the aircraft itself.)

What about the powerplant? I would think they would want something new there as well, or are they looking at a derivative initially? I realize that specific question is tied in directly to the requirements, so, like the airframe itself, it may not have been discussed publically yet.

 

[sferrin]

I thought the idea was to get a bare bones aircraft up front (think F-16A Block 15) and gradually add capability over it's lifetime? I don't see how they could possibly keep it under $500 million otherwise. (And they should be using a LOT of existing stuff too. The only thing that should be new is the structure of the aircraft itself.)

What about the powerplant? I would think they would want something new there as well, or are they looking at a derivative initially? I realize that specific question is tied in directly to the requirements, so, like the airframe itself, it may not have been discussed publically yet.

Could do like the F110/F118 (B-2) and do an F135/F13X for the B-3. (Or base it on the F119 if it's even in production anymore.)

 

[bring_it_on]

F-119 production ended early last year, after PW delivered the 507th engine. Any engine that is a derivative of the F-119-F-135 family would be a modified version that would be designed around the bomber requirements. They could use the F-135 as a baseline and go from there, or GE could use its F-120/136 as the baseline. Since all of the program is protected, we can't really tell the sort of propulsion demands that are likely to arise. It could be that the demands are rather modest and a small change in one of the available engine would do the trick, or it could be that huge changes are required to gain the most performance. Perhaps they have been spending some money on getting propulsion outside of the known next gen projects (ADVENT AETD etc).

What about the powerplant? I would think they would want something new there as well, or are they looking at a derivative initially? I realize that specific question is tied in directly to the requirements, so, like the airframe itself, it may not have been discussed publically yet.

Quite correct, without an RFP they can best work at broad technology for what a propulsion sollution may look like. Both GE and PW have been extremely well funded when it comes to high/NG technology development and advancement and both pretty much have sollutions that could be used as a starting point. These developments are obviously from a declassified standpoint, for all we know they could have been putting money down for advanced propulsion technology in secret, come to think the black budget is rather large

 

[bobbymike]

I thought the idea was to get a bare bones aircraft up front (think F-16A Block 15) and gradually add capability over it's lifetime? I don't see how they could possibly keep it under $500 million otherwise. (And they should be using a LOT of existing stuff too. The only thing that should be new is the structure of the aircraft itself.)

What about the powerplant? I would think they would want something new there as well, or are they looking at a derivative initially? I realize that specific question is tied in directly to the requirements, so, like the airframe itself, it may not have been discussed publically yet.

New Bomber Engines

The Air Force’s new bomber project doesn’t depend on getting Congress to fund the new advanced engine program proposed in the Fiscal 2015 defense budget, service acquisition executive William LaPlante told Air Force Magazine Wednesday. LaPlante said the new engine project isn’t specifically keyed to the new bomber or a new fighter, but is meant to explore advanced technologies with an eye toward efficiency and advancing the state of the art. “Once we decide to invest in advanced technology—the next generation of something—we should have in mind” the platforms it could support, LaPlante acknowledged. However, he also said, “We can’t build programs around” the success of a particular technology initiative. The engine initiative calls for $1 billion over the next five years, but the Pentagon has said it’s one of the things that will be cut if sequester continues in Fiscal 2016. LaPlante also said it’s “still too early to tell” if the contractor picked to build the airplane will select an engine for it or if the government will choose the powerplant. James Kenyon, general manager of next generation fighter programs for Pratt & Whitney, said Monday that his company is “prepared to work with the airframers to provide what they need” for the LRS-B, but declined to be specific about any particular engine Pratt is proposing for the project.​
—John A. Tirpak
5/22/2014

 

[J.A.W.]

Bone - till 2040

Thanks for the 'heads-up' on that F..
& It is curious that the 'Bone' was not listed with the B-2/B-52 as up for nuke delivery modernisation in the paper
posted by B'mike in the 'nuke news' thread.

 

[bobbymike]

Bone - till 2040

Thanks for the 'heads-up' on that F..
& It is curious that the 'Bone' was not listed with the B-2/B-52 as up for nuke delivery modernisation in the paper
posted by B'mike in the 'nuke news' thread.

The B-1 has been de-nuclearized for awhile now as part of START II or SORT I think and cannot be made to be nuclear capable anymore is my understanding.

 

[Rhinocrates]

I thought the whole program is bet on the idea that they won't change or add more capabilities into the aircraft during development to keep it from cost overrun. Looks like it aint' so.

It may be that the nuclear capability has been put on the core/"day one" list of priorities, but the other capabilities proposed are the additional 20%: unmanned operation, recon and intel, deployment with flocks of drones, cyberwar, DEW armament, delivery of Christmas presents etc. These may receive RB, MQ, or RQ designations. Unmanned capability would be the one that would blow the budget if it was there from the beginning, most likely, and nuclear missions require a human crew anyway.

 

[J.A.W.]

Bone - till 2040

Thanks for the 'heads-up' on that F..
& It is curious that the 'Bone' was not listed with the B-2/B-52 as up for nuke delivery modernisation in the paper
posted by B'mike in the 'nuke news' thread.

The B-1 has been de-nuclearized for awhile now as part of START II or SORT I think and cannot be made to be nuclear capable anymore is my understanding.

Copy that B/mike, ta..

 

[mkellytx]

The B-1 has been de-nuclearized for awhile now as part of START II or SORT I think and cannot be made to be nuclear capable anymore is my understanding.

That's correct, so much was upgraded on the them with out SIOP in mind going back isn't worth it. Additionally, the equipment necessary to shoot ALCM's was never purchased and the space reserved in the air frame is used by something else.

 

[bring_it_on]

RFP For US Bomber Coming Soon, USAF's Top Buyer Says

The request for proposal (RFP) on the US Air Force’s long range strike-bomber program will be issued soon, perhaps in a matter of days, according to the service’s top civil acquisitions official....

That program is in a competitive phase,” William LaPlante, assistant Air Force secretary for acquisition, said during a speech at the Atlantic Council in Washington on Friday. “We’re probably days away from releasing the final RFP for that program.”

Asked to clarify the timetable for the contract award, LaPlante indicated the award date was set for the first half of 2015.

“There’s no magic, I’ll just tell you how the timeline works,” he told reporters. “If you do an RFP now, then you get proposals in in the fall and you evaluate them. You can imagine that being done sometime in the early part of 2015. Is that April? Is that January? I don’t know.”

Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James had previously indicated an RFP would likely be issued in the fall.

....


Only some basic information has been made public: The service has a mid-2020s operational date in mind; the plane will be based on existing technologies; there will be room for a large payload; and the service is at least exploring making the bomber optionally-manned. The bomber is also designed to fit into a “family of systems” that ties in ISR, electronic attack and communication systems.

That program is designed around a fixed set of requirements [with] relatively mature technologies, [where we will] build the first version knowing it won’t have everything on it that we want or will want,” he said. “We’re building an adaptable approach with an open architecture, [with] places on the wings that allow us to customize sensors and weapons with future capabilities.

Let’s build a truly block approach, make it adaptable. Let’s not fall into the trap that we fall into too often which is try to put so much into the first version.”


The big question on the bomber has always been cost. Former Defense Secretary Bob Gates set a target cost of $550 million per copy, but analysts have been quick to note that figure does not include a limit on how much can be spent in research and development.

Critics of the program also point out that the $550 million figure is now being discussed more as a guideline than a firm target, while under Gates it was discussed in the press as a cap. However, LaPlante pointed out that the figure was only ever a target to aim for with the current 80 to 100 plane procurement estimate.

He did confirm there is a cost target for what is spent in research and development, but declined to say what it was.

The team of Lockheed Martin and Boeing are hoping to defeat Northrop Grumman on the contract. Asked to respond to LaPlante’s comments, Boeing spokesman Todd Blecher wrote in an email: “We look forward to competing for this program, and having the opportunity to continue our decades-long partnership with the Air Force.”

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140613/DEFREG02/306130027/RFP-US-Bomber-Coming-Soon-USAF-s-Top-Buyer-Says

 

[dark sidius]

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/air-force-keeps-mum-on-new-bomber-rfp/

 

[sublight_]

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/air-force-keeps-mum-on-new-bomber-rfp/

I have only talked with one Air Force official who has said anything in any detail about the bomber. And it wasn’t much — just that it will be much faster than anything that currently flies such missions.

Somebody cant make up their mind. Why would you need a flutter suppression system on a fast bomber?

 

[bring_it_on]

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/air-force-keeps-mum-on-new-bomber-rfp/

I have only talked with one Air Force official who has said anything in any detail about the bomber. And it wasn’t much — just that it will be much faster than anything that currently flies such missions.

Somebody cant make up their mind. Why would you need a flutter suppression system on a fast bomber?

Are you talking about the X56A? It could be for other applications.

How did Lockheed Martin surrender the ' prime contractor' position to Boeing? ;D

 

[dark sidius]

Who spoke about a flutter suppression system?

 

[DrRansom]

The Breaking Defenses story repeats the 'much faster' comment, maybe the USAF will be getting something with supersonic dash.

If that is the case, then I have no idea how they'll keep the price down.

 

[sferrin]

The Breaking Defenses story repeats the 'much faster' comment, maybe the USAF will be getting something with supersonic dash.

If that is the case, then I have no idea how they'll keep the price down.

Is there something magical about going supersonic that makes an aircraft expensive? Same materials, same engines (albeit with afterburners), same technology. It's not like we're talking Mach 3+ which takes new materials. As long as they leave VG out of it I don't see why it should be that much more expensive than a subsonic bomber. Afterburners aren't THAT expensive.

 

[sublight_]

Who spoke about a flutter suppression system?

You asked the same question on September 18, 2013.

Polecat, BFF, X-56 MUTT and Polecat II were all Lockheed flight test programs for reducing LRS/NGB risk.

X-56 MUTT has a flutter suppression system. Long thin wings and supersonic dash are mutually exclusive platform attributes.

 

[DrRansom]

sferrin - I guess my skepticism comes from not knowing how the USAF can balance broadband stealth, which I associate with B-2 or UCAS or Tauranis, with supersonic dash, which presumably requires some form of vertical stabilizer.

If the USAF just went with subsonic broadband stealth, the airframe is obvious. If it is high stealth supersonic dash, the airframe becomes less obvious and that, to me, is a signal for more expensive. It would explain why Northrop is hesitant over this whole program, as supersonic may undermine Northrop's lead in flying wing designs.

 

[bring_it_on]

Supersonic would have meant that skunk works which arguably has the most experience with high speeds would have had some sort of lead (?). Its too murky at the moment to make a guess ;D