US Next Generation Bomber Studies

Ian33 said:
FighterJock said:
Not long to wait to see who is the eventual winner of the LRS-B program. Unlike how long we have got to wait to see the winning design, according to the article in last months Combat Aircraft magazine. :eek:
Click to expand...


If I remember correctly, this is to give foreign powers no time to formulate a response before it enters service. Saying that, I still believe that articles are flying already.
Click to expand...

So this means that the Russian PAK-DA aircraft could be well out of date by the time that we finally get to see the LRS-B winner. Now I see why they are keeping it secret.
 
Ian33 said:
FighterJock said:
Not long to wait to see who is the eventual winner of the LRS-B program. Unlike how long we have got to wait to see the winning design, according to the article in last months Combat Aircraft magazine. :eek:
Click to expand...


If I remember correctly, this is to give foreign powers no time to formulate a response before it enters service. Saying that, I still believe that articles are flying already.
Click to expand...

The Russians will be able to demand and will probably receive a New START exhibition as soon as she rolls out of the factory.
 
marauder2048 said:
Ian33 said:
FighterJock said:
Not long to wait to see who is the eventual winner of the LRS-B program. Unlike how long we have got to wait to see the winning design, according to the article in last months Combat Aircraft magazine. :eek:
Click to expand...


If I remember correctly, this is to give foreign powers no time to formulate a response before it enters service. Saying that, I still believe that articles are flying already.
Click to expand...

The Russians will be able to demand and will probably receive a New START exhibition as soon as she rolls out of the factory.
Click to expand...

Sure, just as soon as we get to inspect a few Topol regiments.
 
marauder2048 said:
Ian33 said:
FighterJock said:
Not long to wait to see who is the eventual winner of the LRS-B program. Unlike how long we have got to wait to see the winning design, according to the article in last months Combat Aircraft magazine. :eek:
Click to expand...


If I remember correctly, this is to give foreign powers no time to formulate a response before it enters service. Saying that, I still believe that articles are flying already.
Click to expand...

The Russians will be able to demand and will probably receive a New START exhibition as soon as she rolls out of the factory.
Click to expand...

Not until it's declared as a nuclear delivery platform, which might not be for some years after first deliveries.

Sferrin, we have done quite a few on-site inspections under New START -- I would expect that TOPOL units are including in the list.
 
TomS said:
marauder2048 said:
Ian33 said:
FighterJock said:
Not long to wait to see who is the eventual winner of the LRS-B program. Unlike how long we have got to wait to see the winning design, according to the article in last months Combat Aircraft magazine. :eek:
Click to expand...


If I remember correctly, this is to give foreign powers no time to formulate a response before it enters service. Saying that, I still believe that articles are flying already.
Click to expand...

The Russians will be able to demand and will probably receive a New START exhibition as soon as she rolls out of the factory.
Click to expand...

Not until it's declared as a nuclear delivery platform, which might not be for some years after first deliveries.

Sferrin, we have done quite a few on-site inspections under New START -- I would expect that TOPOL units are including in the list.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression Putin had decided to ditch START. ???
 
New START is still in effect. The Russians made some noises about suspending inspections last year but it looks like they're still on -- the US made seven site inspections in Russia since February of this year, and the Russians have done six in the US.

http://www.state.gov/t/avc/newstart/c52405.htm
 
LowObservable said:
Back in the day, we had GD build us a working full-size replica of a P-14. Maybe we have someone building a 55Zh6ME-VHF or Skywatch-V surrogate, but there's no sign of such a thing.
Click to expand...


Beavers are their most clever when they are doing God's work with other people's money.
 
I realy think something different than the B-2, if B-2 become soon obsolete there is no interest to build the same thing with the same performance.
 
dark sidius said:
I realy think something different than the B-2, if B-2 become soon obsolete there is no interest to build the same thing with the same performance.
Click to expand...

It's not replacing the B-2.
 
http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-lrs-b-won-t-lead-reshuffling-military-aircraft-primes
 
dark sidius said:
I realy think something different than the B-2, if B-2 become soon obsolete there is no interest to build the same thing with the same performance.
Click to expand...

The B2 B bomber is getting fitted with a weird laser communications kit. It's got some major data bandwidth and allows gigabytes per second to be upload / downloaded.

Supposed to be mega hard to intercept, and of course it's electronically silent.
 
TomS said:
marauder2048 said:
Ian33 said:
FighterJock said:
Not long to wait to see who is the eventual winner of the LRS-B program. Unlike how long we have got to wait to see the winning design, according to the article in last months Combat Aircraft magazine. :eek:
Click to expand...


If I remember correctly, this is to give foreign powers no time to formulate a response before it enters service. Saying that, I still believe that articles are flying already.
Click to expand...

The Russians will be able to demand and will probably receive a New START exhibition as soon as she rolls out of the factory.
Click to expand...

Not until it's declared as a nuclear delivery platform, which might not be for some years after first deliveries.
Click to expand...

The Treaty deals with capability not certification or declaration. LRS-B will be nuclear capable long before it's certified or declared which is enough to trigger an exhibition. And that can be as early as the time
the aircraft rolls out of the factory.
 
quellish said:
LowObservable said:
Back in the day, we had GD build us a working full-size replica of a P-14. Maybe we have someone building a 55Zh6ME-VHF or Skywatch-V surrogate, but there's no sign of such a thing.
Click to expand...


Beavers are their most clever when they are doing God's work with other people's money.
Click to expand...


I'm supposed to believe this, coming from a sloth?
 
marauder2048 said:
TomS said:
marauder2048 said:
Ian33 said:
FighterJock said:
Not long to wait to see who is the eventual winner of the LRS-B program. Unlike how long we have got to wait to see the winning design, according to the article in last months Combat Aircraft magazine. :eek:
Click to expand...


If I remember correctly, this is to give foreign powers no time to formulate a response before it enters service. Saying that, I still believe that articles are flying already.
Click to expand...

The Russians will be able to demand and will probably receive a New START exhibition as soon as she rolls out of the factory.
Click to expand...

Not until it's declared as a nuclear delivery platform, which might not be for some years after first deliveries.
Click to expand...

The Treaty deals with capability not certification or declaration. LRS-B will be nuclear capable long before it's certified or declared which is enough to trigger an exhibition. And that can be as early as the time
the aircraft rolls out of the factory.
Click to expand...

As long as it's not specifically equipped I don't think it applies. "Theoretically capable" is not the same as "actually capable".
 
marauder2048 said:
TomS said:
Not until it's declared as a nuclear delivery platform, which might not be for some years after first deliveries.
Click to expand...

The Treaty deals with capability not certification or declaration. LRS-B will be nuclear capable long before it's certified or declared which is enough to trigger an exhibition. And that can be as early as the time
the aircraft rolls out of the factory.
Click to expand...

The way I read the treaty text, a heavy bomber is only subject to inspection when it is equipped for nuclear weapons. That can be when the aircraft is initially constructed or when it is converted to carry nuclear weapons. So yes, it's when LRS-B becomes "nuclear capable" and not when declared, my mistake. But if the initial tranches of LRS-B are not equipped for nuclear weapons, they won't be subject to inspection until the first one is built or converted to have a nuclear weapons capability. And there has to be some visual difference between the two versions.

Here's the relevant treaty text, for reference:

5. Newly constructed strategic offensive arms shall begin to​
be subject to this Treaty as follows:
​
.....​
(f) a heavy bomber equipped for nuclear armaments, when​
its airframe is first brought out of the shop, plant, or​
building in which components of such a heavy bomber are​
assembled to produce complete airframes; or when its airframe​
is first brought out of the shop, plant, or building in which​
existing bomber airframes are converted to such heavy bomber​
airframes.
[/l]​
Click to expand...
 
TomS said:
marauder2048 said:
TomS said:
Not until it's declared as a nuclear delivery platform, which might not be for some years after first deliveries.
Click to expand...

The Treaty deals with capability not certification or declaration. LRS-B will be nuclear capable long before it's certified or declared which is enough to trigger an exhibition. And that can be as early as the time
the aircraft rolls out of the factory.
Click to expand...

The way I read the treaty text, a heavy bomber is only subject to inspection when it is equipped for nuclear weapons. That can be when the aircraft is initially constructed or when it is converted to carry nuclear weapons. So yes, it's when LRS-B becomes "nuclear capable" and not when declared, my mistake. But if the initial tranches of LRS-B are not equipped for nuclear weapons, they won't be subject to inspection until the first one is built or converted to have a nuclear weapons capability. And there has to be some visual difference between the two versions.

Here's the relevant treaty text, for reference:

5. Newly constructed strategic offensive arms shall begin to​
be subject to this Treaty as follows:
​
.....​
(f) a heavy bomber equipped for nuclear armaments, when​
its airframe is first brought out of the shop, plant, or​
building in which components of such a heavy bomber are​
assembled to produce complete airframes; or when its airframe​
is first brought out of the shop, plant, or building in which​
existing bomber airframes are converted to such heavy bomber​
airframes.
[/l]
​
Click to expand...


I think there's some confusion here between exhibition and inspection. New types get
exhibited per Part 8 of the first Annex.

"2. For new types or variants of heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments, the Party conducting the exhibition shall exhibit one such heavy bomber of each type and, if applicable, variant and provide inspectors with the opportunity to:

(a) View the exhibited heavy bomber equipped for nuclear armaments from a location designated by the in-country escort;

(b) Make measurements, if applicable, at locations designated by a member of the in-country escort in order to confirm the technical data for recognition of heavy bombers provided in the notification in accordance with Part Four of the Protocol; and

(c) View, confirm, and record each of the declared distinguishing features of such a heavy bomber, if applicable."

Per sferrin's remark, what constitutes "equipped for nuclear armaments" is open to interpretation.​
Click to expand...
 
TomS said:
The way I read the treaty text, a heavy bomber is only subject to inspection when it is equipped for nuclear weapons. That can be when the aircraft is initially constructed or when it is converted to carry nuclear weapons.
[/l]​
Click to expand...


So, does the 'it's a mail plane' argument still works? Surprising.​
 
FighterJock said:
Not long to wait to see who is the eventual winner of the LRS-B program. Unlike how long we have got to wait to see the winning design, according to the article in last months Combat Aircraft magazine. :eek:
Click to expand...

A surprise unveiling when people least expect might be most effective.
 
Avimimus said:
TomS said:
The way I read the treaty text, a heavy bomber is only subject to inspection when it is equipped for nuclear weapons. That can be when the aircraft is initially constructed or when it is converted to carry nuclear weapons.
[/l]​
Click to expand...


So, does the 'it's a mail plane' argument still works? Surprising.​
Click to expand...


What makes you think that? In theory, any aircraft on the planet could carry a nuke. Should we include them all under START?​
 
ANALYSIS: It's large and lethal, but is LRS-B a bomber?


http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-it39s-large-and-lethal-but-is-lrs-b-a-413378/
 
sferrin said:
Avimimus said:
TomS said:
The way I read the treaty text, a heavy bomber is only subject to inspection when it is equipped for nuclear weapons. That can be when the aircraft is initially constructed or when it is converted to carry nuclear weapons.
[/l]​
Click to expand...


So, does the 'it's a mail plane' argument still works? Surprising.​
Click to expand...


What makes you think that? In theory, any aircraft on the planet could carry a nuke. Should we include them all under START?
​
Click to expand...


IMHO, the definition of "heavy bomber" is deliberately very broad so as to encompass things like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltC18q4Td4A​
 
bring_it_on said:
ANALYSIS: It's large and lethal, but is LRS-B a bomber?


http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-it39s-large-and-lethal-but-is-lrs-b-a-413378/
Click to expand...

Great find.

“You can’t define expense by unit cost while completely ignoring the overall value of the capability provided,” Deptula says. “[Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates] said the F-22 was too expensive and we can’t afford it. What about cost per desired outcome for effect? With LRS-B, the cost effectiveness is enormous.”
Click to expand...

Amen
 
marauder2048 said:
bring_it_on said:
ANALYSIS: It's large and lethal, but is LRS-B a bomber?


http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-it39s-large-and-lethal-but-is-lrs-b-a-413378/
Click to expand...

Great find.

“You can’t define expense by unit cost while completely ignoring the overall value of the capability provided,” Deptula says. “[Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates] said the F-22 was too expensive and we can’t afford it. What about cost per desired outcome for effect? With LRS-B, the cost effectiveness is enormous.”
Click to expand...

Amen
Click to expand...
Double Amen. That's a great quote if the $150M aircraft out performs the $80M aircraft 3 to one is becomes incredibly cost effective.
 
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-15/bomber-contract-loser-won-t-lack-work-air-force-s-james-says
 
Bomber Futures

—John A. Tirpak

6/26/2015

​The Air Force's entire bomber fleet will eventually be replaced by the Long-Range Strike Bomber, Maj. Gen. Richard Clark, 8th Air Force commander, told a House Armed Services Committee panel Thursday. The LRS-B "will be the long-range bomber" once the other aircraft have been retired, a fact Clark said is spelled out in a new bomber roadmap still being developed. Even so, Clark said the B-52 is expected to remain in service "up to 25 more years," and to get there, in his opinion, "it's critical" to replace the BUFF's powerplants. The existing motors are more than 50 years old, require increasing amounts of maintenance, and "spare parts are getting more scarce," he said. New engines will allow the B-52 to burn less gas, get to higher altitudes, go further, carry more payload, and "enhance everything we need a bomber to do," Clark asserted. Air Force Global Strike Command boss Lt. Gen. Stephen Wilson said recently the Air Force has started preliminary discussions with industry about re-engining the B-52 fleet.
 
Black Dog said:
sferrin said:
Pairs of F118s. :) (Is it even still in production?)
Click to expand...

I've read four engines for the re-engine program.
Click to expand...

That's the usual notion, yes. Four great big, drag inducing, nacelles. Probably chop 100 mph off the top speed.
 
Black Dog said:
sferrin said:
Pairs of F118s. :) (Is it even still in production?)
Click to expand...

I've read four engines for the re-engine program.
Click to expand...


The four engine solution died years ago, the G/H model vertical and rudder aren't sufficient to handle losing an outboard engine. BTW losing an outboard pod is a really bad EP, enough so that for high weight take offs we would brief that procedure as pilots will maintain altitude long enough for the crew to eject. Notice maintain altitude, it was understood there would be no directional control.


As for the replacement engine, I heard both the F118 and CF34 mentioned as replacements. Both have similar SFC, size and weight.


Even if F118 production is shut down, shouldn't be too hard to restart since most of the parts of the engine are still produced for spares and the F110 is still being produced which shares a common core on some versions.
 
I have a hunch that in August we will see UCLASS, RQ 180, Next Gen Bomber all outstanding 'On hold' projects fall neatly into place.

My call is: LM Boeing for Bomber.

Northrop for UCLASS on an X47b platform and 180 full scale production.
 
There is a school of thought that claims that thinks the UCLASS is somehow tied together with the RQ180 and perhaps even the LRS-B, in my opinion it is highly unlikely that this is the case. In my opinion its more about the USN committing Billions to a program when it knows it has the F-35C acquisition, and future FA-XX development to do, while its most critical programs are in the ship building (and sub building) domain.
 
The most recent RFI said eight engines. The CF34-10 is about the right size.


It's interesting what Clarke said, since Harencak said a month or so ago that it was dead.
 
Ian33 said:
I have a hunch that in August we will see UCLASS, RQ 180, Next Gen Bomber all outstanding 'On hold' projects fall neatly into place.

My call is: LM Boeing for Bomber.

Northrop for UCLASS on an X47b platform and 180 full scale production.
Click to expand...

Is it likely we'll see the RQ-180 though, as we've hardly seen that much of the RQ-170 & that's been knocking around for something like ten years.
 
Air Force Drafting New Bomber Roadmap, Plans For Eventual Pure LRS-B Fleet

The Air Force is drafting a bomber roadmap that charts a course to modernize the nuclear long-range strike force by eventually retiring B-52H and B-2 aircraft responsible for executing the airborne leg of the nuclear triad and retaining a pure-fleet composed of the yet-to-be-identified new bomber.
 
bobbymike said:
Air Force Drafting New Bomber Roadmap, Plans For Eventual Pure LRS-B Fleet

The Air Force is drafting a bomber roadmap that charts a course to modernize the nuclear long-range strike force by eventually retiring B-52H and B-2 aircraft responsible for executing the airborne leg of the nuclear triad and retaining a pure-fleet composed of the yet-to-be-identified new bomber.
Click to expand...

They better buy more than 21 of them then. Better be a heavy bomber too (unless they've already conceded that mission).
 
Air Force Drafting New Bomber Roadmap, Plans For Eventual Pure LRS-B Fleet


The Air Force is drafting a bomber roadmap that charts a course to modernize the nuclear long-range strike force by eventually retiring B-52H and B-2 aircraft responsible for executing the airborne leg of the nuclear triad and retaining a pure-fleet composed of the yet-to-be-identified new bomber.
Maj. Gen. Richard Clark, commander of the 8th Air Force, told lawmakers June 25 the service plans to continue to modernize and sustain the current B-52 and B-2 as it acquires a new long-range strike bomber (LRS-B) with plans to eventually retain only LRS-B aircraft.
Asked by a lawmaker during a hearing of the House Armed Services oversight and investigations subcommittee whether the new bomber -- which is expected to be identified this summer -- will eventually replace the current bomber fleet, which also includes B-1B used for conventional missions only, the general replied in the affirmative.
"Yes," Clark said, "Eventually it will replace."
This summer, the Air Force is expected to choose a new bomber design in a contest that pits Northrop Grumman and a Boeing-Lockheed Martin team to develop and field a new aircraft that is expected to take as much as another decade to field.
Beginning in the mid-2020s, the Air Force hopes to begin deploying the first new bombers which the service says are needed to operate in the Asia-Pacific region against adversaries developing sophisticated anti-access, area-denial capabilities.
Most details of the new aircraft program are classified; service officials say a goal of the program is to procure between 80 and 100 of the new bombers.
"We are developing a new bomber roadmap," Clark said, that he added will outline how the service keeps the current bomber fleet modernized and mission ready for the next decade. "And the bottom line is . . . it's going to take all three of these -- all three of our current bombers in our bomber fleet to get us to the point where we have the LRS-B."
The Air Force currently has 158 bombers in the fleet, 96 are available for operational missions, 29 for training and seven are used for research and development, according to a Pentagon report sent to Congress in April. In addition, the Pentagon counts 26 bombers in attrition reserve. -- Jason Sherman
Related News | Aircraft |
Inside the Air Force - 07/03/2015 , Vol. 26, No. 26
170539
Click to expand...
 
Now it's between 80 and 100.... Getting lower every press release.

By this rate the Bomber fleet will be 20 at 2 billion a pop.
 
It will be if they buy 20.


By the way, 80-100 is not equal to the total B-1B/B-52 inventory, but provided you get better availability (which you should) it gets close to the current PAA.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom