New Heavy Bomber Alternatives study FY'27 - speculation

G

GeorgeA

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
31 December 2006
Messages
884
Reaction score
570
https://aviationweek.com/defense/ai...ber-study-appears-us-air-force-spending-plans

New Heavy Bomber Study Appears In U.S. Air Force Spending Plans​

Steve Trimble May 06, 2026


The U.S. Air Force plans to launch an analysis of alternatives study next year for a New Heavy Bomber aircraft amid continued work on a classified proof-of-concept that is starting this year, budget documents show.
“[A] new heavy bomber analysis of alternatives will begin initial planning activities to develop key performance parameters, key system attributes, and additional performance attributes for a follow-on heavy bomber in the USAF,” the Air Force’s budget justification document shows.
The study would follow a $3 million proof-of-concept effort that concluded in fiscal 2025, which involved a “demonstration on the B-52,” the document. shows.
It was not immediately clear how the proof-of-concept demonstration aligned with the analysis of alternatives for the New Heavy Bomber, which was described in the same project line item.

An analysis of alternatives generally begins after a military service defines and validates a new operational requirement, with the goal of providing informed options for leaders before the start of a competitive acquisition process.
How a New Heavy Bomber program would fit into the Air Force’s portfolio of long-range strike projects also is not clear.
The Air Force is currently investing tens of billions each to field the stealthy Northrop Grumman B-21 for penetrating bombing missions and transform the Boeing B-52J to be able to continue functioning in the standoff strike role for at least a few more decades. The B-21 is programmed to replace the Northrop B-2 and the North American/Rockwell B-1B.
The New Heavy Bomber project is included in a program element that describes a long list of B-52 upgrade projects. That placement could suggest the concept is intended to eventually replace the B-52.
Analysis of alternatives often precede a fielding milestone for a new aircraft by 10-15 years. In that time frame, several major B-52J upgrades, including reengining and new radars, would have been fielded for less than a decade and in some cases still in production.
 
FighterJock said:
So what attributes will this bomber have, speed or stealth or a combination of the two?
Click to expand...
DWG said:
If they want to replace the B-52, then what they're looking for is probably a bomb-truck, not a B-21 competitor.
Click to expand...

Given that the B-21A will will replace both the B-1B AND the B-2A there's no need for a B-52 replacement to be stealthy which would greatly easily its' specifications, it might even externally look like a B-52.
 
Yeah, a bomb truck with the same or better payload capacity as the B2 but with larger and longer bays like the B52 or combinable ones like the B1. But I don't think it will be as big. If we consider cost and mass maybe a smaller size like the B58 or SR71 would be more suited for the future.
 
How about a blended wing design? If they can make a 50,000 hour blended wing body that should make for a platform that can carry large internal loads, sling heavy loads under a large pylon on each side, and cram enough internal fuel to bomb Russia from the edge of CONUS and return enough to possibly refuel outside the range of ground-based SAMs. (That is if there is a base to return to at that point.). For conventional scenarios your agility and radar signature may come in play, but that hasn't seemed to restrict the frequency of B-52 operations.
 
If all you're going for is a non-stealthy bomb truck a blended-wing design isn't needed and if you did go that route being non-stealth then it would certainly have rudders.
 
BWB still use rudders afaik.

So what are you suggesting, an airliner-based conversion?
 
BWBs would be more efficient than a converted airliner and potentially lower RCS. You could probably fit 2 B-52 sized bombays, allowing for 16 LRSOs (vs 20 on the B-52). A BWB could also double as a tanker, so one airframe to do both jobs. All you need it to do is carry ALCMs.Pressurization issues with BWBs are a non-issue for bombers and tankers.
 
Desertfox said:
BWBs would be more efficient than a converted airliner and potentially lower RCS. You could probably fit 2 B-52 sized bombays, allowing for 16 LRSOs (vs 20 on the B-52). A BWB could also double as a tanker, so one airframe to do both jobs. All you need it to do is carry ALCMs.Pressurization issues with BWBs are a non-issue for bombers and tankers.
Click to expand...
My emphasis in bold. That is where I was steering.
 
Instead of a new design bomber or something based on a commercial airliner could you not do something along the lines of the CH-53K where you heavily upgrade the original B-52 design and put it back into production? Maybe that is already the thinking given that this "New Heavy Bomber" funding is already part of the B-52 funding request? The B-52 platform has been very sucessful...

The resources and cost for any one of these proposals is going to be huge regardless of the path taken. I suspect if they don't get their 5% of GDP / $1.5 trillion military budget this plan wont go very far.
 
I could see a step backward towards a B-36 lay-out. Maybe longer range but a simpler build, not as large....bigger stealth munitions released farther from shore.
 
NMaude said:
Given that the B-21A will will replace both the B-1B AND the B-2A there's no need for a B-52 replacement to be stealthy which would greatly easily its' specifications, it might even externally look like a B-52.
Click to expand...
Yes, the best B-52 replacement is probably a composite body B-52, although the thing is so thin skinned now composite might not save you much weight. Wing embedded engine nacelles could assist but the engines r already lifting bodies. Finally, a landing gear placement scheme which doesn't take up so fuselage space.
 
Seragina said:
Yeah, a bomb truck with the same or better payload capacity as the B2 but with larger and longer bays like the B52 or combinable ones like the B1. But I don't think it will be as big. If we consider cost and mass maybe a smaller size like the B58 or SR71 would be more suited for the future.
Click to expand...
We already have one of those in the B-21.
 
SlothmanAllen said:
Instead of a new design bomber or something based on a commercial airliner could you not do something along the lines of the CH-53K where you heavily upgrade the original B-52 design and put it back into production?
Click to expand...

This! Just take the B-52 design and give it a 21st century update.
 
Sferrin said:
We already have one of those in the B-21.
Click to expand...
B-21 estimated payload if im not wrong is 1 rotary launcher which means 8 LRSO compared to B-52 8+6+6=20 LRSO. B-21 may not be cleared for future hypersonic weapon ala Skybolt equivalent / JL-1 which the B-52 could carry
 
If it is just a "bomb truck," then it is possible to develop a large unmanned bomber, just like the Chinese have done. There aren't many scenarios where a 'bomb truck' needs a pilot.
 
TwoTribes said:
If it is just a "bomb truck," then it is possible to develop a large unmanned bomber, just like the Chinese have done. There aren't many scenarios where a 'bomb truck' needs a pilot.
Click to expand...
Sorry but which one is it. The Chinese have made too many large unmanned aircraft for me to keep track
 
A manned pilot is still better against jamming / EM contested environment especially in a nuclear mission. You want to have zero chance the nuke gets launched in a cyber attack. Plus GJ-X wouldn't even come close to B-52 payload which i guess is what the heavy bomber would be based on.
 
Personally I agree with re-opening it and maybe do a modernised airframe update. The B-52 loadout is as good as it gets unless USAF literally copies TU-160 and have a LRSO loadout of
8 (1st rotary) + 8 (2nd rotary) + 6 (external)
 
Desertfox said:
There is no reopening the B-52 line. Its basically the same as starting from scratch so best to go ahead with a cleansheet design than a 100 year old one.
Click to expand...

Just take the B-52H engineering drawings (There must be well over 10,000 of them), digitise them and then give them a 21st century update. Of course a new production line would have to be created however that wouldn't be a bad thing as there have been massive tech advances in both materials science AND manufacturing methods in the 65 years since production ended.​
 
ew33 said:
What about a fixed wing b1 lancer with two LRSO sized bays
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/rockwell-fixed-wing-b-1-proposals.411/
Click to expand...
Unlikely, IMO, since the main landing gear bays are between the 2nd and 3rd bomb bays.



NMaude said:
Just take the B-52H engineering drawings (There must be well over 10,000 of them), digitise them and then give them a 21st century update. Of course a new production line would have to be created however that wouldn't be a bad thing as there have been massive tech advances in both materials science AND manufacturing methods in the 65 years since production ended.​
Click to expand...
I once spent an entire 8 hour shift trying to find a single materials spec in the 727 blueprints that had been scanned to computer.

It would take just as long designing a new plane from scratch as it would re-drawing the paper blueprints in CAD.
 
NMaude said:
Just take the B-52H engineering drawings (There must be well over 10,000 of them), digitise them and then give them a 21st century update. Of course a new production line would have to be created however that wouldn't be a bad thing as there have been massive tech advances in both materials science AND manufacturing methods in the 65 years since production ended.​
Click to expand...
The updates to materials science and manufacturing methods are exactly why you'd do a redesign. You'd need to incur most of the cost anyway just to validate the new materials and to facilitate modern manufacturing.
 
Yellow Palace said:
The updates to materials science and manufacturing methods are exactly why you'd do a redesign. You'd need to incur most of the cost anyway just to validate the new materials and to facilitate modern manufacturing.
Click to expand...

Certainly but also keep the B-52's outer mould line.
 
ew33 said:
B-21 estimated payload if im not wrong is 1 rotary launcher which means 8 LRSO compared to B-52 8+6+6=20 LRSO. B-21 may not be cleared for future hypersonic weapon ala Skybolt equivalent / JL-1 which the B-52 could carry
Click to expand...
"If we consider cost and mass maybe a smaller size like the B58 or SR71 would be more suited for the future."

That's what I was replying to.
 
Sferrin said:
"If we consider cost and mass maybe a smaller size like the B58 or SR71 would be more suited for the future."

That's what I was replying to.
Click to expand...
I think on something like a B1-B successor with stealth but not like the B-21 , imagine a concept with 4- XA103 engines or XA102.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom