X-39
To post or not to post, that is the question
- Joined
- 20 February 2021
- Messages
- 382
- Reaction score
- 954
https://www.airforcemag.com/details-emerge-on-new-unmanned-long-range-bomber-and-fighter-projects/
So uuh... Supersonic?Details Emerge on New Unmanned Long-Range Bomber and Fighter Projects
March 3, 2022 | By John A. Tirpak
[...]the Air Force is well into developing a concept of operations for a new unmanned long-range bomber that might be attritable, if the price is right.[...]Kendall said the NGAD system [...]will “very much be” a “system of systems” approach for air-to-air combat[...]
[...]The unmanned bomber, on the other hand, is “more speculative.” There’s “more work to do” to flesh the idea out, he said. He clarified that the aircraft he has in mind isn’t necessarily an unmanned version of the B-21, which was “designed with an option to be unmanned.” But it could be.
The unmanned bomber is to have “comparable range” to that of the B-21, with a “payload to be determined,” but it must be “operationally valuable and cost effective.” It might accompany the B-21, he said.
The new bomber is in “concept definition,” he said. He maintained that it is a classified project, and while it will be “acknowledged,” not many details will be forthcoming.[...]The new aircraft would not substitute for any of the 120 or so B-21s now contemplated, Kendall said. It would be “additive” to the planned bomber fleet, but he specifically declined to discuss any numbers.[...]
[...]Kendall said he’s looking for an unmanned bomber concept that would be half the cost of the B-21, and told reporters later “I’d love to have it be less than half. I’d love to have it be a quarter or an eighth.” But half is “the minimum we should shoot for at this point.”
The Air Force “is going to need perhaps more long-range capability … at some point in the future,” he said.
Randall Walden, head of the Rapid Capabilities Office that is developing the B-21, told Air Force Magazine the unmanned bomber has to “match” the B-21 in terms of its “range, endurance, speed,” and also “extend the strike capability” by flying ahead of the B-21 in contested airspace. It has to be far less costly because “we would take more risk with an unmanned system that is not as expensive as the manned system.”
There’s “a pretty wide swath of things that could fit” that description, one of which is an unmanned B-21, he said. The aircraft may have to have large wings to carry the fuel necessary to do the mission, he said, but cost is the key variable.[...]
[...]Kendall noted that the B-21 followed the Next Generation Bomber project that was dropped because it was far larger and “cost about twice as much” as the B-21, noting “we ended up with … a more affordable option.”
[...]if industry can get “close” to the half-price level, “we’re interested.”
The Air Force has been working on an operations analysis to determine what the right number of unmanned bombers would be, but “we’re not there, yet,” [...]. “The analysis will give us more insight.”
Asked if the new unmanned bomber could spell the beginning of the end for manned bombers, Walden said, “I don’t know. We’ve been doing bombers a long time. They’ve all been manned, and they’ve all been from the air. But that doesn’t mean you can’t do global strike from other means.[...]”After the concept of operations is set, there would be discussions with industry as to whether“they … can build it,” Walden said [...]to get things rolling, [...] There would be a risk-reduction phase followed by a preliminary and critical design review, and “from there, you figure out the source selection criteria by which you would downselect.”