US Next Generation Bomber Studies

[marauder2048]

But it is better to engage with your opposition and critics early than to bar the doors and pretend they are not there.

Great idea, actually. I'd love to see them subpoenaed to testify at a SASC or HASC hearing on Long Range Strike.

 

[bobbymike]

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?

I think it is called BuzzFeed if I'm not mistaken and it does make money.

But I think where aerospace reporting differs in that a two or three decade program from idea to IOC becomes more complex than how the majority of the media reports it. I gives Kudos to your publication AW&ST but how many websites have printed 500 word totally simplistic articles with SCREAMING headlines STEALTH DOESN'T WORK THE F-35 IS DEAD and the gist of the article is what some Chinese general said with little or no corroboration?

There are maybe a half dozen publications that understand the defense acquisition process AND military technology/strategy/tactics in the whole world.

 

[sublight_]

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?

Are you kidding? Just look at UCLASS, the Navy didn't screw that one up. They have been fighting Congress for years on what roles UCLASS will perform. As though some idiot in Congress might know better what the Navy needs than the Navy does. You can bet your ass Congress does the same thing to the Air Force. Classifying all the related material would sure make political tampering a lot harder. Oh you think we only classify material that REALLY needs to be classified?

Let's not forget the Navy had to tell Congress the Super Hornet was "just an upgrade" to keep them from going into "new fighter plane acquisition hearings mode" which would have skyrocketed the price into orbit....

 

[marauder2048]

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?

Are you kidding? Just look at UCLASS, the Navy didn't screw that one up. They have been fighting Congress for years on what roles UCLASS will perform. As though some idiot in Congress might know better what the Navy needs than the Navy does. You can bet your ass Congress does the same thing to the Air Force. Classifying all the related material would sure make political tampering a lot harder. Oh you think we only classify material that REALLY needs to be classified?

Let's not forget the Navy had to tell Congress the Super Hornet was "just an upgrade" to keep them from going into "new fighter plane acquisition hearings mode" which would have skyrocketed the price into orbit....

One of the more prominent combatants in the UCLASS fight is the chairman (Forbes) of the House Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces. Note, this is the same subcommittee that oversees LRS-B.

If Forbes is arguing for a more capable UCLASS it's probably because he has very good insight into what's coming down the pipe for LRS-B and desperately wants the Navy to keep pace.

I don't really follow your general point about Special Access Programs and congressional meddling. The biggest meddlers
have historically been those members on the very Armed Services committees that have demonstrable "need-to-know"
and are regularly granted access.

 

[marauder2048]

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.

Some of the critics* have in fact given testimony to Congress that they believe that the (in their view) overclassification of LRS-B will make it difficult to achieve to FY2010 $550m APUC goal. The Air Force has provided fairly detailed and nuanced replies to these criticisms under direct examination from Congress.

Since the evidence that SAPs are any more or less likely to experience cost overruns than non-SAPs is inconclusive at best, I'm inclined to agree with the Air Force on this point.

* One particular critic in this regard is a strong proponent of the F-35 so don't expect to see her views covered by certain AvRags.

 

[LowObservable]

M2048 - Have you considered putting your profile quote into practice?


Sublight - You should read more on Uclass if you really think it's Navy-versus-Congress. Think less dualism, more Schleswig-Holstein Question/


BM - Yeah, people have overstated the anti-weapon cases, and still do. There are also numerous sites out there that for one reason or another are similarly pro-F-35, pro-bomber, whatevs. The Internetz open the door to extremes on both sides.

 

[Flyaway]

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?

Are you kidding? Just look at UCLASS, the Navy didn't screw that one up. They have been fighting Congress for years on what roles UCLASS will perform. As though some idiot in Congress might know better what the Navy needs than the Navy does. You can bet your ass Congress does the same thing to the Air Force. Classifying all the related material would sure make political tampering a lot harder. Oh you think we only classify material that REALLY needs to be classified?

Let's not forget the Navy had to tell Congress the Super Hornet was "just an upgrade" to keep them from going into "new fighter plane acquisition hearings mode" which would have skyrocketed the price into orbit....

One of the more prominent combatants in the UCLASS fight is the chairman (Forbes) of the House Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces. Note, this is the same subcommittee that oversees LRS-B.

If Forbes is arguing for a more capable UCLASS it's probably because he has very good insight into what's coming down the pipe for LRS-B and desperately wants the Navy to keep pace.

I don't really follow your general point about Special Access Programs and congressional meddling. The biggest meddlers
have historically been those members on the very Armed Services committees that have demonstrable "need-to-know"
and are regularly granted access.

A recent quote on the relevant thread seemed to suggest that part of the desire to delay UCLASS was to keep it equivalent with other still classified programs so maybe there is some weight in your supposition.

 

[bobbymike]

M2048 - Have you considered putting your profile quote into practice?


Sublight - You should read more on Uclass if you really think it's Navy-versus-Congress. Think less dualism, more Schleswig-Holstein Question/


BM - Yeah, people have overstated the anti-weapon cases, and still do. There are also numerous sites out there that for one reason or another are similarly pro-F-35, pro-bomber, whatevs. The Internetz open the door to extremes on both sides.

LO - Agree completely but which report makes it (in many instances) to the 'next level of reportage?' "F-35 is Awesome" or "Chinese [or somebody] Say F-35 Sucks"

 

[marauder2048]

M2048 - Have you considered putting your profile quote into practice?


Sublight - You should read more on Uclass if you really think it's Navy-versus-Congress. Think less dualism, more Schleswig-Holstein Question/


BM - Yeah, people have overstated the anti-weapon cases, and still do. There are also numerous sites out there that for one reason or another are similarly pro-F-35, pro-bomber, whatevs. The Internetz open the door to extremes on both sides.

"Calmer than you are, dude." My thanks for your early (and thoughtful) engagement with the opposition.

 

[flateric]

...

 

[pedrospe]

Very interesting flateric,can you share with us where did you find these?




best regards


pedro

 

[Triton]

Speculation from The Seattle Times concerning further aerospace consolidation caused by the LRS-B contract. Lockheed Martin attempted a merger with Northrop Grumman, but was forced to abandon its plans in 1998 because of United States Justice Department, together with the Department of Defense, opposed it on antitrust grounds.

"Bomber contract could push Northrop into Boeing’s arms"
by Dominic Gates

February 11, 2015

Source:
http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2025668516_bomberboeingxml.html

When the Pentagon this spring announces who will design and build a major new stealth bomber for the Air Force, the decision will determine Boeing’s future in the combat-aircraft business.

The choice could also reshape the military-industrial base. Top aerospace analyst Richard Aboulafia said that whatever the outcome, it could precipitate an aggressive move by Boeing, the No. 2 U.S. defense contractor, to acquire the aircraft unit of No. 3 defense player Northrop Grumman.

Boeing has teamed with Lockheed Martin, the top defense contractor, in bidding against Northrop to build up to 100 new-generation long-range strike bombers (LRS-B) that will replace the Air Force’s B-1 and B-52 bombers.

The currently projected cost, not counting classified spending, is $90 billion, or $900 million per airplane.

“If Boeing loses, it won’t be building combat aircraft after 2018 unless it buys Northrop’s aircraft unit,” said Aboulafia, a Teal Group analyst who will address the Pacific Northwest Aerospace Alliance annual conference Wednesday morning in Lynnwood.

“If Boeing wins, Northrop will not be a combat-aircraft prime, and its investors may decide the company is more valuable broken up — in which case Boeing would be the likely buyer for the aircraft unit anyway.”

Besides aerospace, Northrop has distinct and substantial businesses in electronics, information systems and technical services such as supply-chain management.

Details of the government’s requirements for the plane remain top secret. But Pentagon officials have said the aircraft must be able to carry nuclear bombs, and may be designed to fly unmanned when dropping conventional bombs.

Should the Boeing/Lockheed team win, it’s likely Lockheed will do the design and Boeing will build it, Aboulafia said in an interview.

Boeing would probably build the planes in St. Louis, with significant pieces subcontracted around the nation, including potentially to the Puget Sound region.

Boeing built large portions of the B-2 stealth bomber’s wing and aft fuselage in Seattle under a subcontract from Northrop, that program’s winning bidder.

The Boeing jet-fighter production lines in St. Louis, meanwhile, are likely to be shuttered before the end of the decade. So losing the contract would mean “Boeing will exit the combat-aircraft business,” Aboulafia said.

Plenty of cash

Boeing’s leadership, riding record-high share prices and sitting on a $13 billion mountain of cash — eight times as large as Lockheed’s — is unlikely to accept that position.

Aboulafia’s bold thesis is backed by history.

In November 1996, the Pentagon eliminated McDonnell Douglas from the Joint Strike Fighter competition, leaving the company with dim prospects.

Boeing, eager to balance its commercial unit with a defense acquisition, announced just a month later it would buy McDonnell Douglas for $13.3 billion in stock.

The market forces that will come to bear after the LRS-B decision may be even stronger than in 1996.

Pressure on the U.S. defense-procurement budget has increased under the mandatory budget cuts imposed by Congress in the process known as “sequestration.”

Boeing plans $4 billion in cuts on its defense side to cope with the downturn in business.

Ahead, there are few big-money military-airplane contracts. After the LRS-B, defense contractors won’t begin real work on the next prospect, new ”sixth-generation” jet fighters, for a decade or more.

LRS-B is by far the biggest prize in sight.

“There’s only going to be one bomber program awarded probably in the next generation,” said Todd Harrison, a senior fellow specializing in the defense budget for the Center of Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, an independent public policy research institute.

“You either win this, or you’re out of the business,” he said. “For both teams, this is a must win.”

Based on public Air Force budgets, Harrison extrapolates the official total program cost at $90 billion, including approximately $24 billion in development costs but excluding any prior “black budget” classified spending.

However, he believes the real cost “will be much higher than that.”

The initial contract will be to produce a limited number of operational aircraft, with the government covering development costs plus a profit for the manufacturer. Only afterward will the terms of a production contract be negotiated.

“It’s exceedingly rare that a program ever comes in anywhere close to its initial cost estimates,” Harrison said.

The government’s last bomber program, the B-2, started out with a requirement for 132 airplanes. Northrop ended up building only 21, so that the unit cost soared to $2 billion per airplane.

Still, it’s unlikely the LRS-B program will be cut down so drastically, since it is designed to replace some 150 aging B-52s and B-1s.

The contest for the bomber is so secret, analysts outside the Pentagon have no idea who is favored.

No one knows for sure what the plane will look like, either, though it is expected to be a triangular “flying wing” shape like the B-2.

Prototypes may already have flown. Trade journal Aviation Week reported on a mysterious triangular “blended wing-body aircraft type” that was photographed over Amarillo, Texas, last March.

Adding to the mystery of what’s coming, the Pentagon has left open an option that the bomber may not be a single platform, but a system of several aircraft.

A government defense analyst, who asked not to be identified because he is not allowed to speak publicly, said that could mean development of an unmanned sensor drone stuffed with intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance equipment and command-and-control systems. This drone could potentially direct a separate aircraft that would be nothing but a basic “bomb truck.”

Drone work

Northrop has already developed a possible version of such a drone, called the RQ-180, details of which are still classified. That work could give Northrop an advantage in the bomber competition.

“They have designed a stealthy large aircraft more recently than anyone on the Boeing/Lockheed team,” said the government defense analyst.

The wild card is how much the Pentagon wants to protect the industrial base. It’s clear that while Boeing and Lockheed are healthy companies, Northrop may not survive intact a loss of this contest.

Would the Pentagon accept Boeing absorbing Northrop’s aircraft unit, reducing its prime military-airplane providers from three to two, perhaps with Lockheed exclusively building fighters and Boeing bombers?

The government analyst said the Pentagon has already accepted such virtual monopoly consolidation in the building of U.S. submarines and aircraft carriers.

Both Boeing and Northrop declined to answer questions on the bomber competition.

“We feel we are well positioned for this program in terms of capability and capacity,” said Northrop spokesman Randy Belote.

Boeing spokesman Todd Blecher said the company has “been part of the bomber community from the start of the bomber age” and looks forward to the opportunity provided by LRS-B.

 

[Triton]

If not Boeing, will Lockheed Martin acquire Northrop Grumman after the LRS-B contract decision?

 

[Flyaway]

Very interesting flateric,can you share with us where did you find these?




best regards


pedro

Could it possibly be AFA 2015 which is on at the moment?

 

[Flyaway]

It would be disappointing if we ended up in a position of just two primes & I'm not sure it would be good news for the taxpayer.

 

[dark sidius]

It's the NGB Northrop concept we saw since 2009, based on the X-47

 

[flateric]

...

 

[dark sidius]

The F/X look realy sci-fi.

 

[bobbymike]

Not Just the Air Force

—Michael C. Sirak2/13/2015

The debate about the future Long-Range Strike Bomber should not rest solely on “how the Air Force is going to pay for the bomber,” said retired Col. Mark Gunzinger, senior fellow with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, D.C. Instead, the issue should be how the Defense Department is going to pay for it, he said during the long-range-strike panel on Thursday at AFA’s Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando. While the Defense Department boasts that it is a truly joint enterprise, that jointness has not made its way into budget progamming, he said. Revisionist states are seeking to change regional balances of power by developing anti-access, area-denial capabilities and improving weapons systems that allow them to project power at greater ranges. This places a premium on US weapon systems that can operate in contested environments at greater ranges, he said. Yet, US military finds itself in the position that its force mix is out of balance with the emerging threat, such as the case of tactical fighters versus long-range bombers, said Gunzinger. Today’s fighter-to-bomber ratio is 12:1; during the Cold War, that relationship was 5-6:1, he said. That makes LRS-B so important, he said. “We need to be able to tell this story to our senior policymakers … so we can build the force structure that we need in the future,” he said.


Manned, Unmanned on the Merits

—Michael C. Sirak2/13/2015

Trying to avoid risk to aircrews is not, in and of itself, sufficient justification for removing pilots from the cockpit of the future Long-Range Strike Bomber, said retired Lt. Gen. Christopher Miller, former deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and programs. Indeed, pilots have always been asked to go into harm’s way and they have done so, he told attendees of AFA’s Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando, Fla., on Thursday. What would make a compelling case for removing the pilots is if LRS-B would be able to accomplish something that it could not otherwise do with humans onboard, he said during the symposium’s panel discussing long-range strike in a contested environment. An example of this would be the bomber providing close air support for an extended period of hours beyond the endurance of an aircrew, he said.


More Than Ready

—Michael C. Sirak2/13/2015

The aerospace defense industry is “more than ready” to develop the Long-Range Strike Bomber and it’s “time to move forward,” said Rebecca Grant, president of IRIS Independent Research, on Thursday at AFA’s Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando. The Obama Administration has given a clear demand signal for the next-generation bomber, and the current bomber force, including the 20 B-2 penetrating, stealth platforms in the inventory, is not sufficient to meet the future threat landscape of more robust air defenses and much larger target sets, she said during the symposium’s panel discussion on long-range strike in a contested environment. Swift program execution of LRS-B is essential to the US defense strategy, said Grant. The new bomber will be critical to the United States maintaining a technological edge over potential adversaries, she said, noting that LRS-B will be the first new US bomber in 34 years.


Don’t Forget the Maritime Role

—Michael C. Sirak2/13/2015

Among the attributes of the Air Force’s future Long-Range Strike Bomber will be its ability to reach out and operate in contested maritime environments, retired Lt. Gen. Bob Elder, former 8th Air Force commander, told AFA’s Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando on Thursday. That capability will, in turn, support homeland defense, he said during the panel discussion on LRS in contested environments. In broader terms, LRS-B will provide the nation with “a truly global-shaping, influence, and operational-effects capability that is unmatched by anything else,” said Elder. It will give the President a tool of military and diplomatic power, encourage adversary restraint, and enable other air platforms and the entire joint force to be more effective, he said. For those thinking that stealth technology has been overtaken by potential adversaries’ advances, Elder said “not all stealth is equal.” He added, “all-aspect stealth makes a big difference.”

 

[Sundog]

It would be disappointing if we ended up in a position of just two primes & I'm not sure it would be good news for the taxpayer.

Indeed. I'm not even sure it's something the Pentagon would want. But it is something Wall Street wants.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Think how awesome the name could be:


Boeing Northrop Grumman. No vowels in the acronym so just use Boeing's first two letters: BoNG. Be right at home on the Left Coast.


B)

 

[Steve Pace]

Maybe one day Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman will join forces (consortium) to build the next generation bomber and fighter. More's the pity. -SP

 

[Flyaway]

All clearly the opening shots in the political fight for the platform.

 

[Mat Parry]

...

Thanks, an interesting Northrop tour de force picture

Those futuristic looking "fighters" which flank "LRS-B & RQ-180 (or UCLASS?)" look familiar... (I've embarrassed myself previously with speculation as to the possibility of these "fighters" possessing morphing wing shapes)...

variable geometry (a la switchblade forward sweeping) would be one way for this fighter concept to switch from:

1/ high speed configuration- wings swept fully forward into (or under) the highly swept wing root
to
2/ loitering configuration- wings swept back (as shown in the Northrop wet dream flateric shared)

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3536.msg141688.html#msg141688

did everyone noticed?

Edit, FWIW in my opinion such speculation on morphing/sweeping wing is not applicable to LRS-B.
However some still believe the bomber could be fast, and some have also speculated (elsewhere) that one prototype was grounded due to an "asymmetry" occurring in flight which "scarred" the contractor somewhat... Even if that were all true, it doesn't have to fit my VG FSW nonsense! could be a number of things (engine failure leading to differential thrust complications or problems with those retractable moustache canards that Northrop patented)

 

[flateric]

It may be everything but VG. You just can't move such large consoles under or inside the main wing.
It's just two modifications of the common planform.

 

[Mat Parry]

It may be everything but VG. You just can't move such large consoles under or inside the main wing.
It's just two modifications of the common planform.

Thank you, the simplest explanation is almost always the best!

 

[Moose]

If not Boeing, will Lockheed Martin acquire Northrop Grumman after the LRS-B contract decision?

Unless we elect a Lockheed executive President of the United States (not impossible but currently unlikely) there's not much chance Lockheed will be allowed to buy Northrop whole. If NG put just the aircraft unit up for sale, though, that might be a lot easier to get approval for.

 

[LowObservable]

Among the attributes of the Air Force’s future Long-Range Strike Bomber will be its ability to reach out and operate in contested maritime environments, retired Lt. Gen. Bob Elder, former 8th Air Force commander, told AFA’s Air Warfare Symposium in Orlando on Thursday. That capability will, in turn, support homeland defense.

 

[FighterJock]

What happens if Northrop wins due to experience on the B-2 program?

 

[bring_it_on]

What happens if Northrop wins due to experience on the B-2 program?

Depends upon who you ask. The Analysts at wall street would say that this would make them an even more attractive acquisition for a loaded Boeing to go out and buy "capability" to position itself in the Military market .

 

[Flyaway]

What happens here if the USAF recommend one prime but the politicians for other reasons pick the other prime, who wins then. Would the Air Force tolerate operating a platform they might have deemed as the lesser solution?

 

[Sundog]

What happens here if the USAF recommend one prime but the politicians for other reasons pick the other prime, who wins then. Would the Air Force tolerate operating a platform they might have deemed as the lesser solution?

That won't happen. All contractors know enough to spread the work around, regardless of who wins. Also, regardless of who wins, the others will be major sub contractors in form or another.

 

[Steve Pace]

Boeing and Lockheed Martin are both rife with military aircraft production programs so I won't be one bit surprised if Northrop Grumman gets the go-ahead on the LRSB. But the per-plane cost won't be $2 billion each this time around. Or will it? -SP

 

[flateric]

AFAIR, in LRS-B case it was strictly winner(s) take all solution.

 

[Moose]

The chuckle-heads in Boeing's Chicago HQ are pretty heavily influenced by the wall street money machine, so win or lose I'm expecting them to make a run at NG's aircraft unit.

Boeing and Lockheed Martin are both rife with military aircraft production programs so I won't be one bit surprised if Northrop Grumman gets the go-ahead on the LRSB. But the per-plane cost won't be $2 billion each this time around. Or will it? -SP

They're aiming for $550million per aircraft in 2010 dollars (that would be a hair under $600m today). That target as been variously described as a "cap", a "goal", and an "objective price."

 

[Moose]

What happens here if the USAF recommend one prime but the politicians for other reasons pick the other prime, who wins then. Would the Air Force tolerate operating a platform they might have deemed as the lesser solution?

The process doesn't really work that way, the Congress conducts oversight not procurement. If they don't like the winner, the most "the politicians" are likely to do is kill the money and force another competition. Individual legislators can pressure the Air Force with threats to do exactly that as the service is evaluating the bids, but that is about the extent of it. And that happens with just about every major contract, as the reps for each teams' states lobby for their people.

 

[Steve Pace]

That's exactly why Boeing moved its HQ to Chicago (closer to political law makers). Plant 2 in Seattle - where Boeing HQ used to be is long gone. I used to work there. -SP

 

[Moose]

Cheers, Steve, yeah I was pretty sad when Plant 2 was torn down, Superfund site or no. You might possibly have better insight than me, but lately I've caught more than a few whiffs that there's a pretty wide gulf opening between the Boeing folks in Chicago and the Boeing folks everywhere else. T

 

[Sundog]

AFAIR, in LRS-B case it was strictly winner(s) take all solution.

That means they won't build half of one companies bomber design and the other half from the other companies design. Just like the JSF was winner take all, Northrop builds large sub-assemblies for the F-35. I think they build the center fuselage structure, IIRC.

 

[flateric]

It was - again, AFAIR, - strictly in the meaning I previously mentioned. Not a piece goes to looser.