US Next Generation Bomber Studies

[sublight_]

And by worldwide, we mean Nevada.

No. It's in CONUS, but it is not Nevada, and it's not buildings.

Next I would guess the construction at Edwards, but you say it is not buildings? Is there a runway extension project or a new runway at Edwards? Or a new RCS range somewhere?

 

[Flyaway]

Most likely, in my eyes, the first several aircraft will be manned for flight test evaluations and the production aircraft will be unmanned. Time will tell. -SP

Unlikely. For the time being it will remain manned especially when carrying nuclear armaments & that seems to be what the USAF have intimated is the line they will follow. Especially as I suspect the politicians would probably figure that a nuclear armed drone wouldn't go down to well in the court of public opinion.

Design wise on the LM/Boeing front I do wonder about the Lockheed Martin "VS-07 NGB LRS-B 2006 Concept Model might lead us somewhere...

 

[Grey Havoc]

Most likely, in my eyes, the first several aircraft will be manned for flight test evaluations and the production aircraft will be unmanned. Time will tell. -SP

Unlikely. For the time being it will remain manned especially when carrying nuclear armaments & that seems to be what the USAF have intimated is the line they will follow. Especially as I suspect the politicians would probably figure that a nuclear armed drone wouldn't go down to well in the court of public opinion.

Design wise on the LM/Boeing front I do wonder about the Lockheed Martin "VS-07 NGB LRS-B 2006 Concept Model might lead us somewhere...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DQsG3TKQ0I

 

[Sundog]

No. It's in CONUS, but it is not Nevada, and it's not buildings.

Hmmm, Palmdale or White Sands? Support equipment or money for materials to build prototypes or to pay for support equipment for demonstrators already flying?

 

[Flyaway]

To expand on my comments about it staying manned.

Given the tremendous importance of this next-generation vehicle, and the large numbers the Air Force wants, does it make sense to borrow from recent unmanned innovations? On Friday, Popular Science visited the Pentagon to speak with a senior defense official on background about the future of America's nuclear bombers. When asked if the Long Range Strike Bomber could ever be fully unmanned, the senior defense official told Popular Science they don’t expect to see drones in dynamic, contested spaces, where a nuclear-armed bomber might fly.

http://www.popsci.com/whats-so-scary-about-nuclear-armed-drone

 

[quellish]

Most likely, in my eyes, the first several aircraft will be manned for flight test evaluations and the production aircraft will be unmanned. Time will tell. -SP

There is some new information that supports this position.

 

[Talon_38C]

I think AB2935 guarantees that LRSB will be built in California. Both Lockheed and Northrop pulled out all the stops to get a $420 million in tax credits.

 

[bobbymike]

http://defensetech.org/2015/02/03/pentagon-boosts-next-generation-submarines-and-bombers/#idc-container

 

[Flyaway]

Most likely, in my eyes, the first several aircraft will be manned for flight test evaluations and the production aircraft will be unmanned. Time will tell. -SP

There is some new information that supports this position.

I'm really surprised to hear that. ???

 

[Sundog]

I'm really surprised to hear that. ???

Considering part of it's mission is to loiter behind enemy lines for a relatively long duration, I'm not surprised. It would most definitely have to work in concert with the RQ-180, so it wouldn't make sense to not be able to match time on station between the two airframes to me. Humans on board are problematic for long duration flights. It can be done, but it probably isn't worth it and given the time to be spent hunting mobile missiles over enemy territory, you now just risk the airframe and not the crew. Of course, perhaps the RQ-180 will just do the loitering in enemy air space, while the LRS-B's orbit in relatively friendly air space before being called in to make a strike?

 

[sferrin]

Most likely, in my eyes, the first several aircraft will be manned for flight test evaluations and the production aircraft will be unmanned. Time will tell. -SP

There is some new information that supports this position.

I hope to hell they've got the comm link / security aspects bullet proof. Considering how easy China continues to breeze through our networks to say, "I have my doubts" would be putting it mildly.

 

[DrRansom]

Going from RQ-180 (if it exists) to unmanned $500 million bombers is a bit of a leap of faith for the USAF. Even now, a force of B-2(1/2) should be sufficient for a good number of tasks, without the technological demand of unmanned aircraft.

Unmanned RQ-180 + manned B-2 clone seems more likely.

Heck, get a LO UCAV working first with combat experience in contested airspace before going unmanned.

I don't know, the optionally manned + need to control costs does not make sense in a single large airframe. For a system of systems, yes.

 

[VH]

I hope to hell they've got the comm link / security aspects bullet proof. Considering how easy China continues to breeze through our networks to say, "I have my doubts" would be putting it mildly.

When has China "breezed through our networks" ? Are referring to Chinese stealing secrets via the Internet?

 

[flateric]

I still wonder if S-shaped profile of Boeing/LM intake lip instead (-shaped one on the same model shown at AFA exhibit earlier has become a result of someone's rough handling and not hours of CFD and WT research...

 

[Flyaway]

I'm really surprised to hear that. ???

Considering part of it's mission is to loiter behind enemy lines for a relatively long duration, I'm not surprised. It would most definitely have to work in concert with the RQ-180, so it wouldn't make sense to not be able to match time on station between the two airframes to me. Humans on board are problematic for long duration flights. It can be done, but it probably isn't worth it and given the time to be spent hunting mobile missiles over enemy territory, you now just risk the airframe and not the crew. Of course, perhaps the RQ-180 will just do the loitering in enemy air space, while the LRS-B's orbit in relatively friendly air space before being called in to make a strike?

But is that the kind of mission it's mostly going to be doing in reality. It's more likely to be used when it comes to actual real action in further conflicts with Jihadists or the like where I would think that human eyes on site are still the superior option rather than fighting peer to peer conflicts.

 

[Sundog]

But is that the kind of mission it's mostly going to be doing in reality. It's more likely to be used when it comes to actual real action in further conflicts with Jihadists or the like where I would think that human eyes on site are still the superior option rather than fighting peer to peer conflicts.

That's what the B-1's and B-52s are for, if they need a bomber for those kinds of missions.

 

[TomS]

LRS-B is meant to replace the B-52 and B-1.

 

[quellish]

LRS-B is meant to replace the B-52 and B-1.

Sooooommmmewhat. It's not a direct replacement. Those types may disappear, but the LRS-B will not necessarily be used for missions they performed or the capabilities they brought to the table.


It's important to keep in mind that much of LRS-B grew out of the Sensorcraft work, and much of the NGB/LRS-B work performed to this point focused on automation of various kinds. LRS is intended to be a family of systems, with LRS-B being the bomber component - though it may not *just* be a bomber.


It could, for example, be a bomber with a very high degree of automation, with a variant that is an unmanned ISR platform. So the "B-190" and "RQ-190" are 95% the same aircraft, but one is manned, the other not. Both can perform automated inflight refueling, but the unmanned platform has much longer endurance and can carry sensors that the manned bomber cannot. Perhaps the "RQ-190" could be converted to a "B-190" easily at a forward base.


And you would have a very long loiter time VLO platform for finding and observing targets in denied airspace, and another VLO platform for attacking them.
Wait, this sounds familiar....

 

[Flyaway]

LRS-B is meant to replace the B-52 and B-1.

Sooooommmmewhat. It's not a direct replacement. Those types may disappear, but the LRS-B will not necessarily be used for missions they performed or the capabilities they brought to the table.


It's important to keep in mind that much of LRS-B grew out of the Sensorcraft work, and much of the NGB/LRS-B work performed to this point focused on automation of various kinds. LRS is intended to be a family of systems, with LRS-B being the bomber component - though it may not *just* be a bomber.


It could, for example, be a bomber with a very high degree of automation, with a variant that is an unmanned ISR platform. So the "B-190" and "RQ-190" are 95% the same aircraft, but one is manned, the other not. Both can perform automated inflight refueling, but the unmanned platform has much longer endurance and can carry sensors that the manned bomber cannot. Perhaps the "RQ-190" could be converted to a "B-190" easily at a forward base.


And you would have a very long loiter time VLO platform for finding and observing targets in denied airspace, and another VLO platform for attacking them.
Wait, this sounds familiar....

Thanks.

Just a few thoughts.

So we might assume for example that something that the RQ-180 is part of the same system.

Also that components making the system up sound like that they are designed to be modular.

Hope someone has thought to include an A-10 like replacement.

 

[sferrin]

Hope someone has thought to include an A-10 like replacement.

Why? Planning on attacking the Kremlin with an A-10?

 

[TomS]

LRS-B is meant to replace the B-52 and B-1.

Sooooommmmewhat. It's not a direct replacement. Those types may disappear, but the LRS-B will not necessarily be used for missions they performed or the capabilities they brought to the table.

Those missions don't appear to be entirely disappearing, so at least some element of LRS will have to perform them. I could see a case for not needing the sheer capacity of a B-1 or B-52 (how often have those planes been asked to unload their full load recently?). But there's still a need for a "truck" of some sort.

Main point is we can't say "oh, the B-1 or B-52 will perform those missions so the LRS-B won't have to", because those aircraft won't be around for most of LRS-B's service life and there dosn't seem to be any other "bomb truck" program in sight.

 

[Flyaway]

Hope someone has thought to include an A-10 like replacement.

Why? Planning on attacking the Kremlin with an A-10?

Because it's far more likely to be needed in some asymmetrical battle in the middle East or elsewhere than fighting a peer nation like Russia.

 

[bring_it_on]

The B-52's and B-1's will be in the fleet till around 2040 (if not till later) according to plans. Thats nearly 2 decades after the LRS-B goes online.

 

[DrRansom]

The whole advantage of a bomber, at least in the modern era, seems to be the ability to deliver a large quantity of cheap munitions to a target. If USAF just wanted to hit time critical targets spotted by a VLO UAV, then that could be achieved with a boost glide weapon from something operating outside of the high intensity airspace. In that case, a VLO bomber that doesn't deliver cheap bombs is an odd decision.

Along those lines, it would be interesting to see the expected loss rates for persistent recon aircraft.

(Also, I find persistence to be a sort of non-air strategy. It is great for hitting TELs but doesn't form a strategic bombing campaign.)

 

[sferrin]

Hope someone has thought to include an A-10 like replacement.

Why? Planning on attacking the Kremlin with an A-10?

Because it's far more likely to be needed in some asymmetrical battle in the middle East or elsewhere than fighting a peer nation like Russia.

You do realize this is a thread about strategic bombers right?

 

[xstatic3000]

Hope someone has thought to include an A-10 like replacement.

Why? Planning on attacking the Kremlin with an A-10?

Right - how is the A-10 relevant to this topic?

The AARS/Quartz/Tier III thread, as well as earlier posts on this thread provide more info on the background of this requirement than any other public resource.

 

[Flyaway]

Hope someone has thought to include an A-10 like replacement.

Why? Planning on attacking the Kremlin with an A-10?

Because it's far more likely to be needed in some asymmetrical battle in the middle East or elsewhere than fighting a peer nation like Russia.

You do realize this is a thread about strategic bombers right?

You do realise this is a possibility it could more than just a solitary bomber. See the quote below from the CRS report on it from last year.

In early July, the U.S. Air Force is expected to issue a Request for Proposals to design, develop, and build a fleet of 80-100 new long-range strike systems to be fielded in the mid-2020s. Although long-range strike systems are typically thought of as bomber aircraft, the more general description is used because it is not yet clear whether the proposed Long Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B) is to be a single platform or a group of smaller systems working in concert.

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/IN10095.html?new

 

[sferrin]

Hope someone has thought to include an A-10 like replacement.

Why? Planning on attacking the Kremlin with an A-10?

Because it's far more likely to be needed in some asymmetrical battle in the middle East or elsewhere than fighting a peer nation like Russia.

You do realize this is a thread about strategic bombers right?

You do realise this is a possibility it could more than just a solitary bomber.

Regardless, no A-10 wannabe is even remotely applicable here.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

How about an upsized A-10?

 

[malipa]

That would make it a bigger target I'm afraid...

 

[Flyaway]

How about an upsized A-10?

I was going to say I didn't mean a like for like replacement but rather a craft to perform a similar function.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-stealth-bomber-20150208-story.html#page=1

 

[Flyaway]

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-stealth-bomber-20150208-story.html#page=1

Thanks for that. But how ridiculous that the naysayers are already gathering and it hasn't been unveiled yet.

 

[sferrin]

Thanks for that. But how ridiculous that the naysayers are already gathering and it hasn't been unveiled yet.

You're surprised? This is their bread and butter.

 

[LowObservable]

What's ridiculous is trying to peddle a project that will cost $1bn per aircraft, if all goes perfectly and the planned 100 are built, as a $550m aircraft, and then saying "it's secret, just trust us" after the past 25 years of major procurements.


Note that the advertised $550 m is (1) a goal, not an estimate based on the design, (2) in FY10 money and (3) non-inclusive of R&D.

 

[sferrin]

Note that the advertised $550 m is (1) a goal, not an estimate based on the design, (2) in FY10 money and (3) non-inclusive of R&D.

Something to keep in mind when they exceed it. Thing is, they had to put a stake somewhere. If they'd just left it open-ended there would have been no way of really making the tough decisions as to what can go and what they absolutely have to have. "You have a blank check, just put ALL the bells and whistles on" doesn't work so well.

 

[sublight_]

What's ridiculous is trying to peddle a project that will cost $1bn per aircraft, if all goes perfectly and the planned 100 are built, as a $550m aircraft, and then saying "it's secret, just trust us" after the past 25 years of major procurements.

I'm not ready to criticize the Air Force for doing this. I think a major part of the classification surrounding the program is to keep it away from congressional meddling.

 

[bobbymike]

Note that the advertised $550 m is (1) a goal, not an estimate based on the design, (2) in FY10 money and (3) non-inclusive of R&D.

Something to keep in mind when they exceed it. Thing is, they had to put a stake somewhere. If they'd just left it open-ended there would have been no way of really making the tough decisions as to what can go and what they absolutely have to have. "You have a blank check, just put ALL the bells and whistles on" doesn't work so well.

As the Air Force would have been excoriated if they had left it open ended. Let's face it since as long as I can remember (80's) there is a cottage industry of "every weapon sucks" school of journalism. Just as there is an "everything sucks" school of journalism in general.

I put the Lord Macaulay quote in my profile for a reason.

 

[LowObservable]

Sublight - Aside from the fact that your comment appears to indicate an intent to subvert the Constitution, such a move will not work.

I'm not recommending leaving the cost open-ended, and my understanding is that the $550m goal was the outcome of a rigorous requirement scrub. But it is better to engage with your opposition and critics early than to bar the doors and pretend they are not there.


BobbyMike - I think you're dealing with human nature. Otherwise, you may be missing a fantastic opportunity. Why not start a newspaper full of good news and cute kittens and get rich from all that untapped demand?

 

[sferrin]

BobbyMike - I think you're dealing with human nature. Otherwise, you may be missing a fantastic opportunity. Why not start a newspaper full of good news and cute kittens and get rich from all that untapped demand?

Because, as you well know, "if it bleeds, it leads". You can be certain aviation rags aren't upset that the LRS-B is being kept secret because they're eager to report on it's successes. As sure as the sun rises in the East, they're looking for the next whipping boy.