US Next Generation Bomber Studies

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/LMNG012808.xml

Lockheed, Boeing Team Against Northrop For Next-Gen Bomber

Jan 28, 2008
Amy Butler/Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

Lockheed Martin and Boeing, two rivals in the manned fighter market, have established a partnership to go after the next big U.S. Air Force contract -- the building of a manned, next-generation bomber.

Requirements are far from definite, but the service hopes to have an advanced stealthy bomber on the ramp and ready for use by 2018. Analysts contend this is an ambitious timeline. The initial operational capability date is driven by concern that the B-2 fleet of 21 aircraft cannot attack enough high-value targets - such as nuclear and sophisticated air defense sites - to satisfy current war plans.

The new bomber must have an aircrew, be stealthy enough to evade air defense systems now in development, and possibly have the capability to deliver nuclear payloads.

Lockheed Martin and Boeing are teamed to share data and handle study work for the new bomber. This pits them squarely against Northrop Grumman, manufacturer of the Air Force's stealthy B-2 bomber and the recent winner of the Navy's Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS-N) contract, which will develop some critical technologies that are related to the Air Force requirements.

Though the Air Force isn't expected to put big money onto the program until fiscal 2010, Frank Cappuccio, Lockheed Martin executive vice president of the notorious Skunk Works, says that "to get to 2018, starting earlier is better."

Surprisingly, this doesn't appear to involve work on a prototype. Rumor has it Northrop Grumman is already working on a flying prototype of the system as part of a classified effort. Cappuccio, however, says that any work now on a prototype is "premature unless you want to ensure technology obsolescence for 2018."

Both companies are taking the unprecedented step of sharing all the normally proprietary data for the technologies that will feed into the new bomber design, says Darryl Davis, president of Boeing Advanced Systems. This includes sensitive data about stealth and manufacturing techniques. They declined to discuss how much money each company is putting into the work in advance of funding from the Air Force.

Cappuccio says the relationship is a natural fit. Lockheed Martin, with no direct experience in manufacturing bombers, didn't want a solo effort on this massive contract. "Going it alone would have been a credential issue for us," he says. Boeing's experience supporting the long-lived B-52 was attractive to Lockheed, he says. Talks between Boeing and Lockheed Martin on this program began 36 months ago, early in the Air Force's planning for the aircraft.

Cappuccio says Lockheed Martin also spoke with Northrop Grumman about a potential teaming relationship, but there was a "question of openness" in the relationship that scuttled any agreement. The deal with Boeing was finalized about a year ago, even though both companies declined to discuss any planning for the program at the Paris Air Show last year.

Davis says the Boeing/Lockheed Martin team is "agnostic" on an engine provider. The final requirements for stealth and payload will drive the demands on the system's power plant. Once the requirements are narrowed, the team will finalize talks with engine providers.

Davis and Cappuccio declined to outline the workshare between the two companies. They say the relationship grew out of collaborative work already under way on the stealthy F-22 and Small-Diameter Bomb II (SDB-II). [...]

[IMAGE] The sharply angled engine inlets of the Boeing-Lockheed Martin design for the Air Force’s future bomber closely resemble those of Lockheed Martin’s Polecat UAV demonstrator.Credit: CHUCK SCHROEDER/BOEING-LOCKHEED MARTIN
 

Attachments

  • Lockheed-Boeing NGLRS Feb2008.jpg
    Lockheed-Boeing NGLRS Feb2008.jpg
    49.5 KB · Views: 776
News Breaks / Americas
No New Bomber Money
Aviation Week & Space Technology
02/11/2008 , page 19

The U.S. Air Force’s Fiscal 2009 budget request does not include funding for a new bomber, which the service wants in the field by 2018. A USAF budget official, Maj. Gen. Larry Spencer, says the first funding for the next-generation bomber will come in the Fiscal 2010 request. Instead, USAF is requesting $1.05 billion to continue operating and upgrading its B-1s, B-2s and B-52s.

http://www.aviationnow.com/search/AvnowSearchResult.do?reference=xml/awst_xml/2008/02/11/AW_02_11_2008_p19-29547-04.xml&searchAction=display_result
 
LO, do you mean that this is trick and they are hidden in black R&D budget? Or for you B-2 isn't boring already and you just don't want a new birdy?
 
No, it's just a reflection of how "serious" the USAF is about new bomber.
 
Hi,

the Lockheed long range strike aircraft.
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/2002/2002%20-%201607.html
 

Attachments

  • Lockheed.JPG
    Lockheed.JPG
    26.7 KB · Views: 567
hesham said:
Hi,

the Lockheed long range strike aircraft.
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/2002/2002%20-%201607.html
Click to expand...

It looks more or less like a lot of concepts developed in the '60s....
 
It's QSP strike platform.
 
Wanted really weird thing? Gotcha... From 2008 AFA presentation. Not clear if this Franky result of someone using barbiturates or one of AFRL concepts.
 

Attachments

  • AFA_2008.jpg
    AFA_2008.jpg
    66.1 KB · Views: 494
Now that's interesting. Some sort of FDL-type fuselage with collaspible wings for low-speed handling?
 
Some sort of ACWFT 1204 Macair-studied aerodynamic shapes plus NextGenAeronautics-style morphing wing
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2392.msg28243.html#msg28243
http://machinedesign.com/ContentItem/69425/Morphingaircraft.aspx
 

Attachments

  • s050ai-a01.gif
    s050ai-a01.gif
    31.1 KB · Views: 382
  • uncle1000jpg_00000045296.jpg
    uncle1000jpg_00000045296.jpg
    29.4 KB · Views: 349
  • mcdd-Single.jpg
    mcdd-Single.jpg
    81.2 KB · Views: 391
  • ACWFT 1204a.jpg
    ACWFT 1204a.jpg
    90.2 KB · Views: 412
  • ACWFT 1204.jpg
    ACWFT 1204.jpg
    165.9 KB · Views: 468
Interesting reading though...CRS report for Congress

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL34406.pdf

The Next Generation Bomber: Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress
March 7, 2008
Anthony Murch
National Defense Fellow
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division

However, industry is moving ahead to field a new bomber by 2018. Boeing and
Lockheed Martin, two of the three industry leaders who are expected to compete for
the bomber contract, recently teamed up to begin work on a new bomber aircraft.
Their main competitor is expected to be Northrop Grumman, builder of the B-2. The
Boeing/Lockheed Martin partnership comes a year after Lockheed Martin’s executive
vice president and general manager of Advanced Development Programs and
Strategic Planning, Frank Cappuccio, expressed frustration over DOD’s lack of
clarity in defining what its wants in its next generation bomber (52) Now that the two
leading defense contractors have teamed up to compete for the next big aircraft
program, it is unknown how this will affect a decision by Northrop Grumman, the
third-largest defense contractor, to compete in the program. If Northrop Grumman
bows out, there would probably be no competitor for Boeing and Lockheed Martin
and the Air Force desire for a “fly-off” might become moot.
 
Skunk Works Head Calls On Industry To Take Lead In Defining Future Long-Range Strike

Publication: Defense Daily

Publication Date: 02-FEB-07
Author: Sirak, Michael


COPYRIGHT 2007 Access Intelligence, LLC.

By Michael Sirak

The U.S. government's lack of clearly defining what it wants to do in the realm of future long-range strike is causing confusion and frustration in the defense industry, a top aerospace executive said yesterday.

As a result, this official called on industry to take the lead in articulating the best paths forward and in helping the Department of Defense, White House and the Congress better understand the technologies and the issues involved with their employment.

"The solution is with the people in this room," Frank Cappuccio, Lockheed Martin's [LMT] executive vice president and general manager of Advanced Development Programs & Strategic Planning, told an industry audience on Feb. 1 at the Precision Strike Association's Winter Roundtable 2007 in Arlington, Va. "In a lot of ways, the industry has to help the program coming into being so that we can solidify what it is that we are doing."

Cappuccio, who heads Lockheed Martin's famous Skunk Works technology innovation division, said his comments were his own and did not represent the company's official stance.

He said the current state of affairs is that there are various requirements being generated within the Pentagon in areas like near-term prompt global strike and long-range strike circa 2018. However, there is a "lack of strategy at the central level," resulting in myriad views on the attributes that these systems should have and how their characteristics (e.g., reach, responsiveness/speed, lethality, survivability and cost) should be prioritized.

Accordingly, he said industry is left in the untenable position of spreading out its internal investments over a wide range of possible solutions like high-speed cruise missiles, expendable ballistic missiles with weapons payloads, subsonic and supersonic unmanned strike platforms, new manned bombers and hypersonic aircraft and reusable space-traversing strike systems.

"We are trying to cover the waterfront because we don't know which way we want to respond to the national need and how to serve our government," he said.

What is needed, he said, is someone to step forward and serve as an integrating function to help industry focus its efforts. However, industry itself may have to serve in this role, he contended.

"It's not going to come from the military," he said, noting that he considers the Pentagon's Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System, its requirements-generation and -validation process, too slow and cumbersome for addressing these issues.

COPYRIGHT 2007 Access Intelligence, LLC.
 
Translated: "Will you please quit monkeying around and acknowledge the black program so that everyone knows what we're doing?"
 
"The B-2’s data processing systems, based on the Intel 286
processor, are limited in their ability to be upgraded to interoperate with other DOD
systems. This limitation makes real-time mission changes more difficult in
comparison to more modern aircraft like the F-22 or F-35. The B-2’s current
processing capabilities also limit the aircraft’s ability to incorporate the latest
enhancements (sensors) that would enhance its survivability."

The Next Generation Bomber: Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress
March 7, 2008
Anthony Murch
National Defense Fellow
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
 
flateric said:
based on the Intel 286
Click to expand...

icon_lol.gif
 
Interesting 2001 AFRL document showing attempts to understand how fast future bomber should be (obviosly, it's a persistent question torturing AF brass heads), and now, when it's decided that it will be subsonic, interesting to see arguments for this choice expressed in now far 2001.
http://www.zshare.net/download/111464595a2c5526/
 
Remembering that Shuttle flew well with Intel 8086 and 512 Kb RAM (not talking about Apollo) ...and Buran RAM was so dense that landing program was loaded from the magnetic tape prior the re-entry...http://www.cpushack.net/space-craft-cpu.html
So then if Shuttle fleet computers were upgraded to 80386 not so long ago (certified for use in space under MIL-STD-883), why it's so hard to upgrade B-2 fleet with something more appropriate?
 
If they're not off the shelf 286 chips that would make a difference.
 
Orionblamblam said:
flateric said:
Interesting 2001 AFRL document ...
http://www.zshare.net/download/111464595a2c5526/
Click to expand...

My malware detectors went nuts when I clicked on that link.
Click to expand...

Malware detectors?

Zshare.net is an uploading service comparable to Rapidshare. I would sincerely doubt that there is any malware threat, although to be safe, you should only use a Mozilla browser with the NoScript extension. Selective script blocking is entirely necessary and it is no longer safe to use the IE or Opera browsers.
 
flateric said:
Interesting 2001 AFRL document showing attempts to understand how fast future bomber should be (obviosly, it's a persistent question torturing AF brass heads), and now, when it's decided that it will be subsonic, interesting to see arguments for this choice expressed in now far 2001.
http://www.zshare.net/download/111464595a2c5526/
Click to expand...

Now that is really interesting.

That study seems to be leaning toward a Mach 2.4 sweet spot as having the lowest life-cycle costing and a reasonable balance of responsiveness and low technical risk.

I'd guess that recent combat experience where bombers have been used in a loitering on-call mode more than in out-and-back max-ordnance-on-target mode makes the subsonic option more attractive.
 
flateric said:
Remembering that Shuttle flew well with Intel 8086 and 512 Kb RAM (not talking about Apollo) ...and Buran RAM was so dense that landing program was loaded from the magnetic tape prior the re-entry...http://www.cpushack.net/space-craft-cpu.html
So then if Shuttle fleet computers were upgraded to 80386 not so long ago (certified for use in space under MIL-STD-883), why it's so hard to upgrade B-2 fleet with something more appropriate?
Click to expand...

Maybe because there are so few B-2s that the USAF are wary of making changes to anything that is doing its job well enough?

Starviking
 
Or because it is zarking expensive. That aside, I saw a Commodore 64 being used to run a test-rig on a Froggie nuclear missile component (umbilical cable) in 2002.
 
Presumably LMSW long-range bomber study from mid-late 90s.
 

Attachments

  • 18_long_range_bomber.jpg
    18_long_range_bomber.jpg
    21.1 KB · Views: 656
flateric said:
Presumably LMSW long-range bomber study from mid-late 90s.
Click to expand...

Good find, I had never seen that one. More than a little bit in common with Darkstar...I wonder if that was before or after they found out what can of worms high aspect ratio and low sweep flying wings can be.
 
It goes from one of these USAF New World Vistas studies of mid '00s if you know what I'm talking about
 
AeroFranz said:
flateric said:
Presumably LMSW long-range bomber study from mid-late 90s.
Click to expand...

Good find, I had never seen that one. More than a little bit in common with Darkstar...I wonder if that was before or after they found out what can of worms high aspect ratio and low sweep flying wings can be.
Click to expand...

LMSW had things of that nature in flight test since the late 70s or early 80s. Some of that experience was later applied to Tier 3, Polecat, Darkstar, etc.
 
I was talking the other day with an aerodynamicist who consulted for Abe Karem's leading systems at the time of the Tier II+ competition. Their entry was designated WB-570, and was apparently a high aspect ratio flying wing. I never found a picture on the web (I should probably start a new thread before I go OT). Anyway, they suffered big time from aeroservoelastic problems and had to stiffen the structure while shrinking the span. I wonder if these days you could take care of that with your control surfaces, do some gust load alleviation. At least that's how i'd do it :-\
 

Attachments

  • W570.gif
    W570.gif
    14 KB · Views: 561
Air Force Magazine
March 2008, Vol. 91, No. 3

Team Bomber

By John A. Tirpak, Executive Editor

Boeing and Lockheed Martin, the Pentagon’s two biggest airplane makers, announced in January that they have been secretly teamed for more than a year, preparing to compete for the Air Force’s new bomber program. Company officials said they expect money in the Air Force’s budget for the aircraft in Fiscal 2010, and wanted to have as much time as possible to prepare, since USAF needs to declare operational capability with the aircraft in 2018. That date was mandated in the Pentagon’s 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review.

Frank Cappuccio, Lockheed Martin general manager of the Skunk Works and head of strategic planning, said in a teleconference with reporters that his company approached Boeing nearly three years ago about the project, and the two made a formal deal in early 2007. He said they had to “make sure” that they had “adequate time” to develop options for the Air Force that are technically “mature.” The two are involved in a variety of trade-off studies and are verifying the art of the possible so that they can have high confidence in whatever they end up proposing for the USAF requirement.

Darryl Davis, Boeing’s president of Advanced Systems, said there won’t be enough time to develop a new engine for the 2018 bomber, so it will have to be off the shelf or a derivative of one flying today. However, he said that the team will try to keep the design flexible so a new engine could be an “incremental upgrade” on later models. Of specific interest for the follow-on engine are variable-cycle technologies that would allow an aircraft to fly efficiently both at supersonic speed or during long loiter missions.

The team is “agnostic” about whether the vehicle will be manned, unmanned, or “optionally manned,” Davis said. Cappuccio added that making the vehicle unmanned is not as big a deal as it has been made out to be, since the technology to remotely pilot an aircraft is well understood.

Although the two spokesmen declined to describe the specifics of the relationship, saying they are “proprietary,” industry officials said Boeing is the team leader. Cappuccio said expertise is being drawn from across both companies. He said Boeing was a good fit with Lockheed Martin because it possesses skills in producing both fighters and large aircraft, while Lockheed has unique capabilities in rapid prototyping and stealth.

Although the team subsequently released an artist’s concept of a B-2-like flying wing design, Cappuccio said the team doesn’t have a particular configuration in mind already, since the Air Force hasn’t yet firmed up its requirements. It would be hard to get engineers and designers to “let go” of a “pet” configuration, Cappuccio said, even if it wound up not answering USAF’s needs.

The two said that the FB-22 concept—a two-seat, large-wing variant of the F-22A flying today—will not meet USAF’s stated goals for the bomber and won’t be offered.

The team believes the 2018 goal is achievable, because the technologies are in hand and because the government has used terms like “time certain” and shown a willingness to freeze the design and curb add-on requirements, Cappuccio said. Improvements can be made along the way as “spirals” to later versions.

The 18-month run-up to the Air Force’s expected request for proposals will “allow us to take the data ... and the concepts we have and then substantiate our claims [through] no-kidding, hard testing,” Cappuccio said. He also said Lockheed Martin had held discussions with Northrop Grumman—a partner on the F-35 fighter—about teaming for the bomber, but felt Boeing’s expertise made it an “overwhelming,” better partner for the bomber program.

Davis said that in order to make the 2018 deadline, first flight will have to occur in 2015, and production in 2016.

http://www.afa.org/magazine/march2008/0308watch.pdf
 
Firefly said:
Very pleasing from an aesthetical viewpoint.
Click to expand...

Everything old is new again it seems.
I have to wonder if Boeing and LM are even trying at this point, I would not be surprised if the model was just pulled out of a cabinet locked since 1993 and repainted!
 
Boeing pulls back the curtain on the NGB. Photos courtesy of Bill Sweetman on the Aviation Week website:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3acfe7ae59-0e54-40e3-a40a-55be78ed725c
 

Attachments

  • 4af76863-4810-4f9f-a178-33933596875a.Large.jpg
    4af76863-4810-4f9f-a178-33933596875a.Large.jpg
    19.9 KB · Views: 320

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom