US Next Generation Bomber Studies (FSA, LRSA, NGB)

[Sferrin]

I think you confuse it with the Boeing render at AFA convention in 2011.


This one is only known from a side view.

No. I'm talking about the LM design in both instances.

 

[Sferrin]

I thin resurrecting a couple of hundred b-70 for $200 million a copy is a severely underrated option.

ROFL!!!!!

 

[skyblue]

I thin resurrecting a couple of hundred b-70 for $200 million a copy is a severely underrated option.

All the things that make it impractical, and nonsensical to resurrect the Avro Arrow would apply to the B-70.

 

[Sferrin]

I thin resurrecting a couple of hundred b-70 for $200 million a copy is a severely underrated option.

All the things that make it impractical, and nonsensical to resurrect the Avro Arrow would apply to the B-70.

And then some. At least the Arrow was a conventional aluminum aircraft. I shudder to think what it would cost to bring back a stainless steel honeycomb bomber.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

I thin resurrecting a couple of hundred b-70 for $200 million a copy is a severely underrated option.

ROFL!!!!!

You mean you can't just name your price and it magically costs that much? ;D

I thin resurrecting a couple of hundred b-70 for $200 million a copy is a severely underrated option.

All the things that make it impractical, and nonsensical to resurrect the Avro Arrow would apply to the B-70.

Precisely.

... But I bet that doesn't stop people from suggesting/promoting it.

 

[Sferrin]

I thin resurrecting a couple of hundred b-70 for $200 million a copy is a severely underrated option.

ROFL!!!!!

You mean you can't just name your price and it magically costs that much? ;D

I'd bet it's off by at least a decimal position.

 

[chuck4]

I thin resurrecting a couple of hundred b-70 for $200 million a copy is a severely underrated option.

ROFL!!!!!

Keep choking.

 

[chuck4]

I thin resurrecting a couple of hundred b-70 for $200 million a copy is a severely underrated option.

ROFL!!!!!

You mean you can't just name your price and it magically costs that much? ;D

You mean if you think it would cost a different amount, you are magically right?

 

[chuck4]

I thin resurrecting a couple of hundred b-70 for $200 million a copy is a severely underrated option.

ROFL!!!!!

You mean you can't just name your price and it magically costs that much? ;D

I'd bet it's off by at least a decimal position.

At least 1, so it could be two or three? So It could cost 20 billion, 200 billion each, or 2 million, or 200 thousand?

 

[RyanC]

All the things that make it impractical, and nonsensical to resurrect the Avro Arrow would apply to the B-70.

That said, it's significantly easier to resurrect a B-70 style aircraft, which was built for mass producibility, than say, a SR-71 style aircraft, which was basically handbuilt with lots of weird exotic materials -- though since the fall of the USSR, the price of Titanium has fallen through the floor; as opposed to the situation when the B-70/SR-71 were being designed.

 

[Sferrin]

All the things that make it impractical, and nonsensical to resurrect the Avro Arrow would apply to the B-70.

That said, it's significantly easier to resurrect a B-70 style aircraft, which was built for mass producibility, than say, a SR-71 style aircraft, which was basically handbuilt with lots of weird exotic materials -- though since the fall of the USSR, the price of Titanium has fallen through the floor; as opposed to the situation when the B-70/SR-71 were being designed.

Except that I read in at least one place that the reason Kelly Johnson went with titanium was because working with stainless steel honeycomb construction was even more difficult. By the time things were all said and done I'd wager that it'd be up to B-2 costs - at the least.

 

[Sferrin]

I thin resurrecting a couple of hundred b-70 for $200 million a copy is a severely underrated option.

ROFL!!!!!

Keep choking.

Not choking. Laughing.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Chuck dont take it personally. Its not a question of what I think or ideology so much as it is just the high price of military aircraft. I'm just saying you can't name your price and make it come true. The last price i heard for a prodcution f-22 was 140 million so yes i would Say 200 million is in the hopelessly optomistic category for a 21st century version of a six engined super bomber that was hugely expensive and vulnerable to SAMs then as it would be now. People got their panties in a knot when the LRIP V F-35s hit 200 million each.

So

You mean if you think it would cost a different amount, you are magically right?

I think its a pretty safe bet that it will be well in excess of 200 million. Betting that a military program will go over time and over budget is also a very safe bet. This is a plane that was deemed too expensive 40 years ago. I can only imagine what a modern version would cost, and its still not as safe as a B-2.

 

[dark sidius]

I would like to know what kind of bomber can be safe in 21 AA defense?

 

[chuck4]

It doesn't need to actually be safe. It only needs to be able to cost the enemy more to make itself unsafe than its own actual worth.


If you can spend only $20 billion a year keeping a fleet of bombers in service that enemy has to spend $50 billion a year to counter, you win. Yeah, the bombers are unsafe. But it costs the enemy $50 billion a year to keep it that way. Those $50 are what the enemy is spending to make your bomber unsafe rather than your country unsafe.

 

[Evil Flower]

Chuck dont take it personally. Its not a question of what I think or ideology so much as it is just the high price of military aircraft. I'm just saying you can't name your price and make it come true. The last price i heard for a prodcution f-22 was 140 million so yes i would Say 200 million is in the hopelessly optomistic category for a 21st century version of a six engined super bomber that was hugely expensive and vulnerable to SAMs then as it would be now. People got their panties in a knot when the LRIP V F-35s hit 200 million each.

B-70 would be no more vulnerable to SAMs than SR-71 and even then they'd capitalize on stand-off weapons. Besides, by the time they go in enemy defenses will already have been weakened by ICBM and SLBM strikes. It got cancelled because at the time politicians had a hard-on for ballistic missiles.

 

[chuck4]

Chuck dont take it personally. Its not a question of what I think or ideology so much as it is just the high price of military aircraft. I'm just saying you can't name your price and make it come true. The last price i heard for a prodcution f-22 was 140 million so yes i would Say 200 million is in the hopelessly optomistic category for a 21st century version of a six engined super bomber that was hugely expensive and vulnerable to SAMs then as it would be now. People got their panties in a knot when the LRIP V F-35s hit 200 million each.
I think its a pretty safe bet that it will be well in excess of 200 million. Betting that a military program will go over time and over budget is also a very safe bet. This is a plane that was deemed too expensive 40 years ago. I can only imagine what a modern version would cost, and its still not as safe as a B-2.

Given the procurement policy to try to make each item as invulnerable as can be imagined, probably. But if one is willing to accept the losses are acceptable so long as it costs the enemy a lot to inflict the loss, then I think the requirement for the bomber would be much less. A airframe with high Mach 3 persistence is the core requirement. .

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

It doesn't need to actually be safe. It only needs to be able to cost the enemy more to make itself unsafe than its own actual worth.


If you can spend only $20 billion a year keeping a fleet of bombers in service that enemy has to spend $50 billion a year to counter, you win. Yeah, the bombers are unsafe. But it costs the enemy $50 billion a year to keep it that way. Those $50 are what the enemy is spending to make your bomber unsafe rather than your country unsafe.

Agreed. Believe me chuck I see your strategy. But why not just do that with LO and not have to worry about extreme heat, mechanical and other factors of high speed? If the purpose is to get the enemy to spend money why not do that with more mechanically simple LO flying wings?

If its all the same, why sprint when you can jog?

is it more difficult/expensive to build and maintain subsonic stealthy flying wings or Mach 3 super bombers?

discuss

 

[RyanC]

is it more difficult/expensive to build and maintain subsonic stealthy flying wings or Mach 3 super bombers?

B-70A would have had a finish that would have re-radiated offboard infrared energy into wavelengths not commonly used by IR sensors. Said finish would have been cleaned with soap and water.

Meanwhile, B-2A for a very long time had to avoid rain clouds which could degrade the finish system, and even today lives inside specialist hangars.

 

[RyanC]

vulnerable to SAMs then as it would be now.

So TT, whatever happened to the entire production run of the SR-71 Blackbird. I assume they were all shot down by SAMs. Oh wait, nothing but minor skin damage to some SR-71s, despite four digit numbers of SAMs being shot at them.

Likewise, it took only over a thousand SA-2 GUIDELINES in 1972 to eliminate fifteen B-52s; or only about sixty-six SA-2s on average per B-52; this despite incredibly uncreative tactics by SAC during the first few nights, which ranged from concentrating all the attack waves into one axis, allowing the North Vietnamese to focus their forces onto one axis, instead of having to deal with threats from all 360 degrees....and the B-52s going into battle with non-functional ECM; against only one of the most dense air defense networks ever built in the history of mankind.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Meanwhile, B-2A for a very long time had to avoid rain clouds which could degrade the finish system, and even today lives inside specialist hangars.

But of course we aren't talking about the B-2 we are talking about the Next Generation Bomber with skin that probably even more advanced and robust than the F-35s (which is darn good) right?

So TT, whatever happened to the entire production run of the SR-71 Blackbird.

Errr It was retired? what do i win?

I assume they were all shot down by SAMs. Oh wait, nothing but minor skin damage to some SR-71s, despite four digit numbers of SAMs being shot at them.

I wonder why the USAF didn't opt for more of that style then? curious... Can you tell me?

Likewise, it took only over a thousand SA-2 GUIDELINES in 1972 to eliminate fifteen B-52s; or only about sixty-six SA-2s on average per B-52; this despite incredibly uncreative tactics by SAC during the first few nights, which ranged from concentrating all the attack waves into one axis, allowing the North Vietnamese to focus their forces onto one axis, instead of having to deal with threats from all 360 degrees....and the B-52s going into battle with non-functional ECM; against only one of the most dense air defense networks ever built in the history of mankind.

Wow! and the B-52s did this all alone, with no other supporting aircraft? why did the USAF even bother to build the XB-70, B-2 and B-1?

So we have a 3 way tie:

A: LO Flying wing
B: Mach 3 70,000ft super bomber
C: B-52

 

[Evil Flower]

I wonder why the USAF didn't opt for more of that style then? curious... Can you tell me?

They did, and the Kennedy administration promptly cancelled it because they had a hardon for missiles. The USAF then went for essentially the same thing again with B-1A which was then cancelled by Carter. If the high and fast concept didn't have merits the USAF wouldn't be pursuing it. Had they not kept ATB black it most certainly would have been canned as well.

 

[Sferrin]

is it more difficult/expensive to build and maintain subsonic stealthy flying wings or Mach 3 super bombers?

B-70A would have had a finish that would have re-radiated offboard infrared energy into wavelengths not commonly used by IR sensors. Said finish would have been cleaned with soap and water.

Meanwhile, B-2A for a very long time had to avoid rain clouds which could degrade the finish system, and even today lives inside specialist hangars.

Yeah but "touching up" the B-70's planned surface would have made the B-2's look easy.

 

[Sferrin]

A airframe with high Mach 3 persistence is the core requirement. .

ROFL! Mach 3 persistence is an oxymoron unless you're nuclear powered.

 

[Arjen]

A-12s and derivatives cruised at Mach 3+.

 

[Sferrin]

A-12s and derivatives cruised at Mach 3+.

So could the Valkyrie. However, "persistence" as typically used today is more like 5-10 to even 24 or more hours. That's a lot of distance covered and a lot of tanking for a Mach 3 aircraft.

 

[chuck4]

A-12s and derivatives cruised at Mach 3+.

So could the Valkyrie. However, "persistence" as typically used today is more like 5-10 to even 24 or more hours. That's a lot of distance covered and a lot of tanking for a Mach 3 aircraft.

Su-27 is typically said, today, to possess unusually high combat persistence for a fighter. In which part of your brain, ROFL, do you imagine it can stay in combat 5-10 hours, or better yet, 24 hours?

 

[Arjen]

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

 

[Sferrin]

A-12s and derivatives cruised at Mach 3+.

So could the Valkyrie. However, "persistence" as typically used today is more like 5-10 to even 24 or more hours. That's a lot of distance covered and a lot of tanking for a Mach 3 aircraft.

Su-27 is typically said, today, to possess unusually high combat persistence for a fighter. In which part of your brain, ROFL, do you imagine it can stay in combat 5-10 hours, or better yet, 24 hours?

I guess you've never heard of UAVs.

 

[Sferrin]

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

Reading comprehension, learn it.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

I wonder why the USAF didn't opt for more of that style then? curious... Can you tell me?

They did, and the Kennedy administration promptly cancelled it because they had a hardon for missiles. The USAF then went for essentially the same thing again with B-1A which was then cancelled by Carter. If the high and fast concept didn't have merits the USAF wouldn't be pursuing it. Had they not kept ATB black it most certainly would have been canned as well.

Wait canned by who? And the ATB isn't a Fast flying bomber remember? its a VLO flying wing.

But why did the USAF choose to retire the blackbird then, when modern versions of the U-2 are still being used?? Why would the USAF opt for VLO? I mean hasn't the USAF fielded far more VLO aircraft than mach 3+ machines? why did it retire the mach 3 machines at the earliest convenience? Why does the USAF even bother with aircraft that can't go mach 3? Surely there must be a reason?

I mean even the B-1B had redesigned inlets that optimized stealth over speed. the Mach 2.0 dash requirement was dropped, and radar evasion more emphasized. can you explain this?

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

You know a man means business when he is breaking out humpty dumpty qoutes.

Su-27 is typically said, today, to possess unusually high combat persistence for a fighter. In which part of your brain, ROFL, do you imagine it can stay in combat 5-10 hours, or better yet, 24 hours?

Chuck didn't you concede that the 21st century B-70 would be hideously expensive? why are we still on this, bud?

 

[chuck4]

That depends on how "21st century" you want to make the B70.

I contend that a fleet of B70 not greatly modified from its intended 1960s configuration, armed with stand off weapons, would already pose a very formidable problem for existing air defense. I also contend B70 without 21st century whistle and bells won't be as expensive as you think. The B-1's incremental unit cost was about one hundred million or so in mid 1980s, equivalent to $200 now. But only a fraction of that went into the airframe and engines.

If properly program managed, a B70 should leverage the testing program from 1960s, and using mechanical control ought to largely skip aerodyanmic and flight control validation and change. We already said few if any new systems of avionics woud be developed for it, and not a great deal of new electronics will be used on it. So even if B70 airframe is much more expensive simply to manufacturer than a B1 airframe, the overall incremental unit cost still should be in the ball park of a B-1B because leveraging of sunk cost, and avoidance of features and capability periferal to its intended role, which is a expendable target that would be both threatening and disproporationately expensive for the enemy to shoot down.

 

[Sundog]

They retired the Blackbird because they didn't need it. At the time, most of the recon missions it flew were for the NRO and the U.S. Navy, but the money came out of the USAF's budget. They had other things they wanted to spend their money on so that's why it was cancelled.

As for the redesigned B-1B, the USAF thought they could get a "B-2" on the cheap. They couldn't.

As for the XB-70, it had the RADAR signature of a ship. Missles would have easily defeated it. That's why it's replacement, the B-1A, and even the B-2, were designed to operate OTD below RADAR. Also, don't forget that in the eighties and nineties they were worried about the capability of SAMs vs the Blackbird.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

As for the XB-70, it had the RADAR signature of a ship. Missles would have easily defeated it.

But, but it was so fast and could fly so high... :'(

Also, don't forget that in the eighties and nineties they were worried about the capability of SAMs vs the Blackbird.

Surely you must be mistaken Sundog, Because Ryan says it was invincible up until the day it was retired, and Chuck is saying that a modern B-70 is still a viable option.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

armed with stand off weapons,

Wait why do we need a Mach 3+ super bomber to launch Stand off weapons?

I also contend B70 without 21st century whistle and bells won't be as expensive as you think.

But doesnt the USAF also want an ISR platform as well?

If properly program managed,

I bet Santa could do it. (If you believe in these sorts of things. )

 

[chuck4]

They retired the Blackbird because they didn't need it. At the time, most of the recon missions it flew were for the NRO and the U.S. Navy, but the money came out of the USAF's budget. They had other things they wanted to spend their money on so that's why it was cancelled.

As for the redesigned B-1B, the USAF thought they could get a "B-2" on the cheap. They couldn't.

As for the XB-70, it had the RADAR signature of a ship. Missles would have easily defeated it. That's why it's replacement, the B-1A, and even the B-2, were designed to operate OTD below RADAR. Also, don't forget that in the eighties and nineties they were worried about the capability of SAMs vs the Blackbird.

If you can force any enemy to make Soviet level investment in air defence, you probably win.

Also, keep in mind the heart of Soviet Union is deep inland. Any bomber penetrating will have to fly over multiple layers of integrated air defence to even come into stand-off weapon range of its intended target.

Assuming new American bombers are mainly intended to vex China, then the situation is totally different. The heart of China is spread out in a line along the cost, going perhaps 200 miles deep from the shore. Mach 3 bombers approaching from the sea will have to fly over nothing. The chinese SAMs, as forward deployed as possible, say right on the beach, will still have to compete in range against any stand off weapons launched from the bombers. Chinese surface based air defense have to, for reason of geogrpahy, be point defense. No SAM in depth. Only Chinese fighters could really provide stand off and in-depth defense.

B-70 could make an end run around any Chinese fighter defense, even the supercruising J-20. Unlike Soviet Mig-31s which can race around and fend off subsonic B-52, cruise missiles and B-1s. So in effect, the Chinese have to deploy so many fighters as to literally statically block the entire coast line to keep out the B-70. Again, force China to tie down huge numbers of fighters to block B-70s that may or may not come. You win.

 

[bobbymike]

They retired the Blackbird because they didn't need it. At the time, most of the recon missions it flew were for the NRO and the U.S. Navy, but the money came out of the USAF's budget. They had other things they wanted to spend their money on so that's why it was cancelled.

As for the redesigned B-1B, the USAF thought they could get a "B-2" on the cheap. They couldn't.

As for the XB-70, it had the RADAR signature of a ship. Missles would have easily defeated it. That's why it's replacement, the B-1A, and even the B-2, were designed to operate OTD below RADAR. Also, don't forget that in the eighties and nineties they were worried about the capability of SAMs vs the Blackbird.

If you can force any enemy to make Soviet level investment in air defence, you probably win.

Also, keep in mind the heart of Soviet Union is deep inland. Any bomber penetrating will have to fly over multiple layers of integrated air defence to even come into stand-off weapon range of its intended target.

Assuming new American bombers are mainly intended to vex China, then the situation is totally different. The heart of China is spread out in a line along the cost, going perhaps 200 miles deep from the shore. Mach 3 bombers approaching from the sea will have to fly over nothing. The chinese SAMs as forward deployed right on the beach will still have to compete in range against any stand off weapons on the bombers. Chinese surface based air defense have to, for reason of geogrpahy, be point defense. Only Chinese fighters could really provide stand off defense.

B-70 could make an end run around any Chinese fighter defense, even the supercruising J-20.

Also if you look at recent Long Range Strike 'Family of Systems' studies the bombers will be preceded by hundreds and hundreds of MALD's and JASSM-ER's and cruise missiles and maybe HTV's, Microwave missiles or other Prompt Global Strike systems. A VLO aircraft will be approaching an already, hopefully, devastated air defense network. It will be the full measure of American mean

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Mach 3 bombers approaching from the sea will have to fly over nothing.

As would subsonic flying wing VLOs....

The chinese SAMs, as forward deployed as possible, say right on the beach, will still have to compete in range against any stand off weapons launched from the bombers.

so once again... why do we need B-70s then? You just said that its not like the USSR and yet you still feel you need a B-70 because thats the best way to beat a USSR style network. why not have a bomber that sacrifices mach 3 speed to carry more fuel and more stand off weapons instead? Do we really need an expensive mach 3 cruise missile plunker?

You keep trumping your own ace. ;D

 

[chuck4]

Mach 3 bombers approaching from the sea will have to fly over nothing.

As would subsonic flying wing VLOs....

The chinese SAMs, as forward deployed as possible, say right on the beach, will still have to compete in range against any stand off weapons launched from the bombers.

so once again... why do we need B-70s then? You just said that its not like the USSR and yet you still feel you need a B-70 because thats the best way to beat a USSR style network. why not have a bomber that sacrifices mach 3 speed to carry more fuel and more stand off weapons instead? Do we really need an expensive mach 3 cruise missile plunker?

You keep trumping your own ace. ;D

You keep cherry picking what I said.

 

[Sferrin]

Surely you must be mistaken Sundog, Because Ryan says it was invincible up until the day it was retired, and Chuck is saying that a modern B-70 is still a viable option.

According to at least one Blackbird pilot even the SA-5 could have taken them out, "anytime it wanted".