New Heavy Bomber Alternatives study FY'27 - speculation

[Sferrin]

Once you go supersonic both the ideas of stealth and cost control slip out of control.

Stealth doesn't seem like a big issue. Cost on the other hand. . .

 

[FighterJock]

Too right Sferrin, remember what happened to the B-2 when the cost of that bomber ballooned astronomically. Bombers certainly don't come cheep that is for sure.

 

[EmoBirb]

Re-open the B-52 line!

The cost would be tremendous

More likely its cruise missile carrier with long-range endurance. Maybe even based on civilian design or military cargo plane.

Civilian models as basis for nuclear strike have been rejected decades ago because nobody could gurantee that the airliner entering your airspace isn't actually carrying several nuclear tipped ALCMs. No US cargo aircraft aside from the C-130 is in production anymore, so same issues as with the B-52 line, not to mention that such aircraft are not optimized for that role.

I know many have took a heavy sip from the MIC pushed "muh rapid dragon" kool-aid, but fundamentally both an airlift and a bomber are extremely specialized aircraft designed for specific missions. They're not interchangeable simply because you could in theory drop a pallet out of the other. Of course if one just breaks it down to "aircraft drops something somewhere" than a Cessna losing a screw is also a bomber by that definition.

A purpose build heavy bomber would ultimately have to be a clean sheet design. A manned one at that because nobody wants to entrust drones with nuclear weapons just yet. And with Northrop having their plate already full that obligation would ultimately fall to either Boeing or Lockheed Martin. The latter has not really designed aircraft of such a scale since the C-5 and has consistently lost all of the last bomber competitions which led to the B-1, B-2 and B-21. So you'd either have Boeing develop something brand new or you'd have to take your bets and give that one to LM with shortcomings, already busy NG or even worse start ups like JetZero. Maybe XAC or UAC Tupolev are open for a call?

 

[DWG]

More likely its cruise missile carrier with long-range endurance. Maybe even based on civilian design or military cargo plane.

If you just want to do that, then use C-17 with Rapid Dragon and FAMM-P or FAMM-BAR - sorted.

But that doesn't meet the potential need for prolonged support of troops in contact, or 'shock and awe' attacks that are still in the B-52 repertoire, even if nowadays they're done using SDB or JDAM. That needs defensive countermeasures and a sensor-suite capable of letting the aircraft self-designate and/or program impact points onboard.

 

[TomS]

I don't think this heavy bomber necessarily needs to be nuclear -capable. That's what the B-21 force is for. You could make a case for LRSO, but it's not essential since B-21 is supposed to be able to carry it.

It won't be a civilian airframe, though the engines might well be. (At a stretch, you could hang a new fuselage under a 787 style wing, but you wouldn't be saving much work.)

For a bomb truck/arsenal plane, you need large bays, hard points for non-standard weapons that won't fit in the bays, and maybe a ramp if pallet-launch becomes a standard thing.

And then you need maximum loiter time, so you need lots of gas and very fuel-efficient engines. It's possible that is a BWB, but tube-and-wing has survived a long time because it's pretty efficient and relatively cheap to build.

 

[FlyGuy369]

Where does LM fall in all of this? Is the project that they're working on perhaps to fill this role? They have been stepping out of contracts left and right, where does that put them?

 

[DWG]

You could have an all aspect stealth supersonic delta winged bomber, shaped apropriately for maximum stealth capability.

Why build an exquisitively expensive B-21+, when what they want is probably a subsonic bomb-truck for permissive environments?

 

[DWG]

and maybe a ramp if pallet-launch becomes a standard thing

If you're ab-initio designing a bomber with bomb-bays and rotary launchers, then it shouldn't be impossible to design a droppable pallet that fits in the bomb-bay in place of the rotary launcher.

 

[TomS]

If you're ab-initio designing a bomber with bomb-bays and rotary launchers, then it shouldn't be impossible to design a droppable pallet that fits in the bomb-bay in place of the rotary launcher.

But can you make it interchangable with the pallets dropped off the ramp of cargo planes? That's the only reason I can see wanting it.

Probably a bomber just uses racks and leaves the pallets to other planes.

 

[DWG]

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.​

For the price of doing that, and updating them to use current technology*, then recreating the jigs, you can probably design a new bomb-truck quicker, better and cheaper.

* And I don't even mean new materials, I mean things like can you still get the same fasteners.

 

[DWG]

Certainly but also keep the B-52's outer mould line.

That's perhaps the least important thing on the B-52.

 

[CastleBravo]

If you just want to do that, then use C-17 with Rapid Dragon and FAMM-P or FAMM-BAR - sorted.

But that doesn't meet the potential need for prolonged support of troops in contact, or 'shock and awe' attacks that are still in the B-52 repertoire, even if nowadays they're done using SDB or JDAM. That needs defensive countermeasures and a sensor-suite capable of letting the aircraft self-designate and/or program impact points onboard.

C-17 isn't in production anymore. We need a new C-something anyway, and it could be designed with defensive countermeasures either built-in or on external hardpoints. Ditto for sensors. You could even make the hardpoints support large high power stores like future standoff jamming and/or DEW pods. JDAM pallets are a thing so the cargo bay isn't limited to missiles alone.

 

[DWG]

JDAM pallets are a thing so the cargo bay isn't limited to missiles alone.

Pallets aren't much use if what you need to do is drop a solitary JDAM once every hour or so. Magazine depth isn't measured in solely the number of weapons aboard, but also the ability to deploy them in precisely the number required.

 

[CastleBravo]

Pallets aren't much use if what you need to do is drop a solitary JDAM once every hour or so. Magazine depth isn't measured in solely the number of weapons aboard, but also the ability to deploy them in precisely the number required.

That's why I said build it with external hardpoints. You can put enough bombs on hardpoints to drop one an hour and not run out of weapons before you run out of gas. And Rapid Dragon style parachute pallets aren't the only option, you could also build a pallet that ejects single weapons out the back. Also, multiple MALE UCAVs are a better fit for that role.

 

[yasotay]

B-777. If we can make a gifted 747 the most secure aircraft on the planet, I would think we could make a 777 capable of doing what we do today with B-52, less the nuclear strike role. I don't think anything is going "down town" against potentially peer threats that is not fully stealth. But stand-off bomb truck that can put a large number of extended range weapons does not have to be.

There is a production facility already (unlike the notion of restarting the B-52 line), the development and flight testing will take a long time, but still less than for a completely new aircraft. In an existentially war you already have semi-trained flight crews.

It will never happen, but if I were king for the day...

 

[Desertfox]

If we are going the route of civilian conversion. Then the 767/KC-46 makes the most sense.

And yes it absolutely needs to be nuke capable since that's the primary role for the B-52s.

 

[trose213]

But can you make it interchangable with the pallets dropped off the ramp of cargo planes? That's the only reason I can see wanting it.

Probably a bomber just uses racks and leaves the pallets to other planes.

Or the USAF buys a BWB that can do refueling, cargo and a modified one that has bomb doors.

 

[Sferrin]

Or the USAF buys a BWB that can do refueling, cargo and a modified one that has bomb doors.

The KCB-47.

 

[FlyGuy369]

The KCB-47.

KBC-47 "Killer Big Chungus - 47"

 

[jsport]

The cost would be tremendous


Civilian models as basis for nuclear strike have been rejected decades ago because nobody could gurantee that the airliner entering your airspace isn't actually carrying several nuclear tipped ALCMs. No US cargo aircraft aside from the C-130 is in production anymore, so same issues as with the B-52 line, not to mention that such aircraft are not optimized for that role.

I know many have took a heavy sip from the MIC pushed "muh rapid dragon" kool-aid, but fundamentally both an airlift and a bomber are extremely specialized aircraft designed for specific missions. They're not interchangeable simply because you could in theory drop a pallet out of the other. Of course if one just breaks it down to "aircraft drops something somewhere" than a Cessna losing a screw is also a bomber by that definition.

A purpose build heavy bomber would ultimately have to be a clean sheet design. A manned one at that because nobody wants to entrust drones with nuclear weapons just yet. And with Northrop having their plate already full that obligation would ultimately fall to either Boeing or Lockheed Martin. The latter has not really designed aircraft of such a scale since the C-5 and has consistently lost all of the last bomber competitions which led to the B-1, B-2 and B-21. So you'd either have Boeing develop something brand new or you'd have to take your bets and give that one to LM with shortcomings, already busy NG or even worse start ups like JetZero. Maybe XAC or UAC Tupolev are open for a call?

It is certainly scary to contemplate that the PLAAF, & Russians have the realization bomber plans laying around. The PLAAF can build a Russian design for Australia

 

[TomS]

Or the USAF buys a BWB that can do refueling, cargo and a modified one that has bomb doors.

I just don't think this makes a lot of sense. The structural design of a bomber with big bay doors in the underside and the payload weight hung from the ends of the bays is very different from a tanker or a cargo plane, where the weight of the cargo sits on the floor of the bay.

Also, cargo planes need far more volume for a given payload weight. Building a bomb bay with the dimensions of a C-17 cargo bay would be very inefficient.

 

[Sferrin]

I just don't think this makes a lot of sense. The structural design of a bomber with big bay doors in the underside and the payload weight hung from the ends of the bays is very different from a tanker or a cargo plane, where the weight of the cargo sits on the floor of the bay.

Also, cargo planes need far more volume for a given payload weight. Building a bomb bay with the dimensions of a C-17 cargo bay would be very inefficient.

Yep. Just look at a B-52 from above or below compared to a C-17. A KC-47 based on a BWB might make sense though.

 

[TomS]

A KC-47 based on a BWB might make sense though.

Certainly. Just not adding the B to it.

 

[FighterJock]

The USAF did try that though with a 747 loaded with cruise missiles when they cancled the B-1A back in 1977, they will be making a big mistake when they are faced with future SAM threats.

 

[Desertfox]

BK-47 brought to you by Burger King! Fuel is not volume intensive and ta missile carrier and a tanker have much closer mission profiles than a C-17 replacement.

 

[Not James Stockdale]

A thought I had a while back was to combine the B-52 replacement with the NGAS KC-Z (after KC-Y using converted 777-300ERs) in a scaled-up B-21. The B-21 apparently uses a pair of PW9000 engines with a total of 54,000 lbf of thrust, has an empty weight around 35 tons, and has a MTOW around 80 tons. The combination of engines and landing gear make me think it has weights pretty similar to an A320 or 737, which are about half the weight of a B-2.

If you gave the B-21 design four of those engines and scaled it up accordingly, the result would be a flying wing with 108,000 lbf of thrust. It would have 81,000 lbf of engine-out thrust, so it could be heavier than a 767 or A300 with the same amount of thrust. Maybe the empty weight doesn't get all the way to a 120 ton A330 or A340, but 90 - 100 tons compared to the 70 ton B-2 is probably not unreasonable. Similarly, MTOW probably goes to somewhere around 200 - 225 tons. This will not give you a fuel fraction as good as the B-52's, but the flying wing would provide some extra aerodynamic efficiency.

For the airframe, I would expect a length around 80 ft and a wingspan around 180 - 190 ft, basically the same as the B-52. Compared to the B-21, I would treat the stealth issue more like the F-35, focusing on lowering operating cost even if if comes at the expense of stealth. The intent would to fill a middle role between a stand-in bomber like the B-21 and a completely stand-off bomber like the B-52. A flying wing with less stealth could operate on the margins of a defended zone against isolated threats and long-range sensors even if it isn't able to penetrate a dense SAM or fighter belt.

I would want a fleet of 50 - 100 aircraft configured as bombers to replace the B-52 fleet, with internal space for at least two and preferably three LRSO racks or maybe a single long bomb bay to carry 10+ meter long hypersonic missiles. For the KC-Z role, I would want at least 200 aircraft to act as tactical refuelers to move the refueling anchors for F-22s, F-35s, and F-47s closer to enemy-controlled airspace. The MTOW would permit carrying 100 - 120 tons of fuel, slightly more than a KC-135 or KC-46, and the tanker version would have a retractable boom, and may not even have a bomb bay (designing the airframe around a space as big as a bomb bay may mean it's easier to just make everything a bomber and use a stowable refueling system in the bomb bay for the tanker role).

 

[TomS]

BK-47 brought to you by Burger King! Fuel is not volume intensive and ta missile carrier and a tanker have much closer mission profiles than a C-17 replacement.

But tankers often have to double as deployment transports, carrying ground crew and equipment.

 

[Scott Kenny]

According to the blueprints they reduced it to two weapons bay which fits alcm

1 bay with 8x ALCM, an extra fuel tank, and a second bay only long enough for SRAMs.

 

[Desertfox]

But tankers often have to double as deployment transports, carrying ground crew and equipment.

That's what the KC-46s are for. The bombers don't deploy that often and you can just charter a commercial cargo plane in such a situation.

 

[JS23]

RE: Using B-21s to fill the same long-range ordnance-truck role as the B-52

Do we see them ever putting external pylons (LO? ejectable?) on the B-21?

Aside from raw payload (which could be compensated for by using multiple B-21s for every B-52 you would have used, as long as it can carry at least 1 of the ordnance you want), and the cost/benefit argument of using a LO platform for a job that doesn't need it, it seems like the key potential capability gap between the B-52 and B-21 is that the B-52 (and B-1, as we recently saw from some hypersonic missile testing) can use external hardpoints to carry weapons that are awkward to store and/or deploy from an internal bay.

I think that if they're able/willing to strap external stores to a B-21, it could probably do everything necessary, but that might be a compromise they don't want to make.

 

[Seragina]

I don't see ordinary commercial planes ever getting a shot at this. They can't meet the maneuer/g-limit requirements for millitary transports and less so for bombers. In all other cases the military has been chartering airliners. But we are talking about going to conflict zones here.
This news here is justs a courtesy notice to congress so they are prepared. The decision has already been made with the award contract given to JetZero to build a technology demonstrator that's going to be flying months from now (2027).
The data generated is what will be used in this study to play around with different configurations and performance requirement.
They will be looking at possible re-configuration (level) option, their mixes whether different level are needed or separate specialized or any combination. Whether these impact core role requirements and so on and so forth.

The USAF wants to lower big aircraft consumption of 60% total fuel to probably 50%. I don't see this achievable with anything other than a BWB design. Currently, engine improvement gives us about 20% savings which can get to 50% in the case of loitering only. But this won't be sufficient to get it down to 50%. To get there the consumption has to be 40% instead of 60% and that's 4/6=66% or a saving of 1/66%= 50%. Only a combination of engine 1.2x and BWB 1.3x together gets 1.2x1.3=1.56 gets close.

As for bomber requirement imho the smalled bay size will be the B21's. This basic plug and play bay would be about 25+2ft.
The long bay version would 45+2ft. An intermediate would be either 30 or 38 ft, so I don't see a point for these.
The long bay would fit an ordinary design. While a double side-by-side would be more for a BWB.

 

[TomS]

That's what the KC-46s are for. The bombers don't deploy that often and you can just charter a commercial cargo plane in such a situation.

Sorry, I'm confused. I was not talking about tankers dedicated to the bomber force at all. Any USAF tanker might be tasked to help deploy or reposition tactical aircraft, especially if the Expeditionary Air Force model continues. As such, I don't think it makes sense to think about a new scratch-built tanker without a cargo capacity.

 

[Scott Kenny]

RE: Using B-21s to fill the same long-range ordnance-truck role as the B-52

Do we see them ever putting external pylons (LO? ejectable?) on the B-21?

I don't believe so. Ignoring the massively increased drag compromising range, I think it'd be too much of an RCS compromise having the mounts at all.

So we're likely looking at a big subsonic cruise missile hauler. Optionally something like the B-1A or Tu-160, a Mach 2 ish cruise missile hauler but that will be more expensive.

I don't think it makes sense to think about a new scratch-built tanker without a cargo capacity.

I think that we'd be looking at a slightly compromised BWB in that case. Blended wing and tube aft fuselage, instead of the very flat BWB cargo bays that have been proposed. Call it a BWT?

 

[Training_Dummy]

one perspective worth considering: instead of thinking

B-2 -> B-21,

perhaps it’s more like

B-2 <-> B-21

Said another way, I’m in the camp that perhaps the B-21 can give rise to a modernized B-2 (maybe bigger for larger bays) with Raider subsystems, design, materials, assembly, four of its engines and its rough planform.

This seems more realistic than a hybrid role BWB or a supersonic long-range striker.

 

[JS23]

So we're likely looking at a big subsonic cruise missile hauler. Optionally something like the B-1A or Tu-160, a Mach 2 ish cruise missile hauler but that will be more expensive.

Rather than very high speed in addition to long endurance, what about very high altitude and long endurance? Especially if it's just a platform for strapping bundles and bundles of cruise missiles to.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Rather than very high speed in addition to long endurance, what about very high altitude and long endurance? Especially if it's just a platform for strapping bundles and bundles of cruise missiles to.

I dunno, if it's carrying nukes it will be manned and that puts a pretty solid limit on the flight endurance.

 

[NMaude]

USAF Is Going To Explore What Will Finally Replace The B-52​

https://www.twz.com/air/usaf-is-going-to-explore-what-will-finally-replace-the-b-52

The logical replacement to replace the B-52 is a B-52 with a 21st century update.

 

[warspite]

The logical replacement to replace the B-52 is a B-52 with a 21st century update.

....and then a 22nd century update .... a 23rd century update .... ad infinitum.....

 

[GeorgeA]

Somewhere on the internet is a picture of a Starfleet ceremony with a B-52 flyover.

 

[isayyo2]

You rang?

Somewhere on the internet is a picture of a Starfleet ceremony with a B-52 flyover.