US Next Generation Bomber Studies

[DrRansom]

I hope that the USAF ignores that opinion piece, what a theoretical mess.

If we have learned anything from the F-22 / F-35 saga and 4th gen fighters, airframes will be hugely modified over their life spans. Designing an LRS-B to a certain systems capability is foolish, as those systems will likely be obsolete before the program finishes.

Instead, design the LRS-B to be a great and reasonable cost airframe with a highly adaptable internal design. Leave systems for separate rapid development programs.

 

[bobbymike]

The Ideal Bomber

—Susan Katz Keating5/14/2015

​The ideal Air Force strategic bomber would offer the best capabilities to fill present and future long-range missions, Maj. Gen. Garrett Harencak told Air Force Magazine on Wednesday. A former bomber pilot, Harencak is assistant chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration on the Air Staff. The ideal long-range strategic bomber should be able to penetrate anywhere in the world, Harencak said. "We've always had to penetrate, and always will have to penetrate," he said. "The aim is to deny all sanctuaries to the enemy." The bomber also should have very long range without refueling, Harencak said, and should have precision and persistence. It should have a large payload, and maneuverability. Long-range bombers performed superbly in Vietnam and in World War II, Harencak said. The need for such capability has not changed.

 

[LowObservable]

The BD piece is full of rubbish. Aside from ignoring the B-24, asserting quite falsely that the LRSB is generally known as B-3, using an ancient picture as "LM/Boeing's B-3 design" and being unable to spell "ordnance", the writer makes a false link between the F-35 and LRSB.


LRSB, as its name suggests to those who passed third-grade English, is quite specifically designed to go places where the F-35 cannot, either because they are deep within defended airspace or because there is no base close enough to the target.


The author also appears to be advocating pre-emptive nuclear strikes against NK and other nuclear powers, which would be irresponsible if it were not laughable.

 

[marauder2048]

the writer makes a false link between the F-35 and LRSB.

Negative, Ghostrider.

(Highlights mine)

 

[flateric]

the writer makes a false link between the F-35 and LRSB.

Negative, Ghostrider.

(Highlights mine)

What the connection between integration of B61-12 on F-35 and LRS-B?

 

[flateric]

Meantime, NG is starting next LRS-B ad campaign stage
(so far kinda quizzy)
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10152910451105975&substory_index=0&id=90319605974&ref=fbwaexpcopy

 

[marauder2048]

the writer makes a false link between the F-35 and LRSB.

Negative, Ghostrider.

(Highlights mine)

What the connection between integration of B61-12 on F-35 and LRS-B?

One of the major points of the BD piece and one of the major linkages : tactical nuclear warfighting.

 

[flateric]

And how long ago LRS-B became a tactical bomber?

 

[marauder2048]

And how long ago LRS-B became a tactical bomber?

Did you read the article? The same time the B-52, B-1b and B-2 did.

 

[flateric]

And how long ago LRS-B became a tactical bomber?

Did you read the article? The same time the B-52, B-1b and B-2 did.

Yes, I did. Still don't understand your waving out with B61-12 integration slide as proof of clandestine role of JSF in LRS-B business as it described in article.

 

[marauder2048]

And how long ago LRS-B became a tactical bomber?

Did you read the article? The same time the B-52, B-1b and B-2 did.

Yes, I did. Still don't understand your waving out with B61-12 integration slide as proof of clandestine role of JSF in LRS-B business as it described in article.

I don't fully follow what you are saying; there's nothing clandestine about the tactical nuclear warfighting capability that LRS-B and
F-35 bring. The USAF has been quite explicit about it and tying them together.

 

[Flyaway]

New bomber on track despite possible $460M cut, USAF says.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/new-bomber-on-track-despite-possible-460m-cut-usaf-412295/

 

[flateric]

I don't fully follow what you are saying; there's nothing clandestine about the tactical nuclear warfighting capability that LRS-B and
F-35 bring. The USAF has been quite explicit about it and tying them together.

Then I'm not sure that you've read article and have understood what LO did mean in his post.

 

[marauder2048]

I don't fully follow what you are saying; there's nothing clandestine about the tactical nuclear warfighting capability that LRS-B and
F-35 bring. The USAF has been quite explicit about it and tying them together.

Then I'm not sure that you've read article and have understood what LO did mean in his post.

Did you look at the slides? The USAF position (slide 9) is that strategic bombers can, do and will operate at the tactical level. That same view is presented in the article. The USAF view is that from nuclear warfighting standpoint, both F-35 and LRS-B will be penetrating assets and in the tactical scenario both armed with the same tactical nuclear glide bomb. LRS-B can persist and can prosecute more distant (or time critical, relocatable) targets with LRSO.

 

[flateric]

Oh, I've found a comment to BD article that exactly fits my thoughts that you can't fully understand:

"The mission of the bomber, like every other aircraft, is to support and enable the F-35! Or at least, so you might imagine from reading Robbin Laird, who never fails to mention the "global F-35 fleet" (whatever that is) in every column he writes." - Ming the Merciless


BTW, ironically, at your slide no single line at all connects F-35s to LRS-B...

 

[LowObservable]

I have not heard anyone from the USAF talk about "tactical nuclear warfighting", at least in the PCW era. The strong assumption (even on the hawkish side) is that the US will remain dominant in conventional terms. The worry is that this approach pushes other powers to acquire nukes and maintain ambiguous postures that could be used to offset conventional inferiority.


Clark Murdock and the CSIS Project Atom appears to be leaning towards tactical warfighting, with a call for a lot of F-35-delivered B61s and specialized low-collateral-damage weapons (low-yield, ERW, EMP). But that's different from the current F-35 DCA plan with B61-12, which primarily appears to be an update for the Nato force (as Tornado and F-16 retire).

 

[marauder2048]

Oh, I've found a comment to BD article that exactly fits my thoughts that you can't fully understand:

"The mission of the bomber, like every other aircraft, is to support and enable the F-35! Or at least, so you might imagine from reading Robbin Laird, who never fails to mention the "global F-35 fleet" (whatever that is) in every column he writes." - Ming the Merciless


BTW, ironically, at your slide no single line at all connects F-35s to LRS-B...

The particular slide number that I highlighted was to provide the USAF view of strategic bombers (present and future) operating at the tactical level. Earlier, you had been quite dubious on the matter ("And how long ago LRS-B became a tactical bomber?")

A big premise of the article is the "second nuclear age" (in the paragraph after the bullet points) which is not a throw-way line but the title of a book by Paul Bracken. I'm sure you've read it and understood it. LRS-B and F-35 are linked in this manner.

 

[marauder2048]

I have not heard anyone from the USAF talk about "tactical nuclear warfighting", at least in the PCW era. The strong assumption (even on the hawkish side) is that the US will remain dominant in conventional terms. The worry is that this approach pushes other powers to acquire nukes and maintain ambiguous postures that could be used to offset conventional inferiority.


Clark Murdock and the CSIS Project Atom appears to be leaning towards tactical warfighting, with a call for a lot of F-35-delivered B61s and specialized low-collateral-damage weapons (low-yield, ERW, EMP). But that's different from the current F-35 DCA plan with B61-12, which primarily appears to be an update for the Nato force (as Tornado and F-16 retire).

"Tactical nuclear warfighting" is just the truth behind the term "extended deterrence." With the retirement of TLAM-N* and the INF treaty, there's no other way to provide credible extended deterrence to NATO, Japan, South Korea and to a lesser degree, Singapore or anyone else without first and foremost the F-35 and then LRS-B.


* I'm assuming that a nuclear tipped version of a naval LRSO or whatever replaces TLAM isn't going to happen.

 

[sferrin]

I'm surprised we don't have a nuclear JASSM yet.

 

[Flyaway]

Looks like the waiting on this is almost over.

U.S. Air Force expects to award bomber contract in one to two months.

The U.S. Air Force's acquisition chief said on Friday he expects the Air Force to announce the winner of a hard-fought competition to build a new long-range strike bomber in one to two months.

Northrop Grumman Corp, maker of the B-2 bomber, is competing against a team of Boeing Co and Lockheed Martin Corp to build 80 to 100 new LRS-B aircraft for the Air Force at a fixed price of no more than $550 million each.

William LaPlante, speaking to reporters after a speech hosted by the Air Force Association, gave no details but said the source selection for the new bomber was going well.

He said his focus was ensuring the decision was carefully thought through and justified, rather than meeting a deadline to announce the decision.

"It's only done when it's really done," LaPlante said. "What I care about and everybody cares about, is that it's done right."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/15/us-usa-airforce-bomber-idUSKBN0O018T20150515

 

[bobbymike]

I'm surprised we don't have a nuclear JASSM yet.

I'm surprised we have 'nuclear' anything at this point ;D Re-open nuke production lines and produce a new tactical nuke for JASSM and JASSM-ER.

I think I posted an article on the LRSO in the nuclear news thread that mentioned something along the lines that it would be a JASSM-ER type configuration and not 'clean sheet' design.

 

[sferrin]

I'm surprised we don't have a nuclear JASSM yet.

I'm surprised we have 'nuclear' anything at this point ;D Re-open nuke production lines and produce a new tactical nuke for JASSM and JASSM-ER.

I think I posted an article on the LRSO in the nuclear news thread that mentioned something along the lines that it would be a JASSM-ER type configuration and not 'clean sheet' design.

There are stockpiled W80s from TLAM-Ns and GLCMs that would be perfect.

 

[bob225]

Isn't this thread about the next gen bomber? Just saying

 

[bobbymike]

From AFA:

LRS-B May Not Be Must-Win

Though some analysts have suggested there will be a shake-out of the major airframe primes based on who does—or who doesn’t—win the Long-Range Strike Bomber contract, Air Force acquisition chief William LaPlante suggested Friday there may be enough work to keep everyone in the game afterwards. “It’s a much bigger consideration than any one program,” LaPLante said at an AFA-sponsored, Air Force breakfast. “You have to look at the [foreign military sales] situation” as well as other known programs like the Navy’s UCLASS ISR/strike drone and intense prototyping that will attend the Air Dominance 2030 project. Three times, though, LaPlante noted, “There’s things going on in the classified world” that companies may either already have in-hand or could compete for. After looking at that, he said the Pentagon then looks at the situation “using game theory” and then sets up its source selections “in the context of that broader problem.” However, “it would be wrong … at the 11th hour” to make industrial base considerations a key discriminator, he said. While DOD can’t “control the behavior of companies” after a major award, he said it strives to avoid doing anything “inadvertently” that would “push someone out of the market.” Asked about how the industrial base would affect the LRS-B contract, pentagon acquisition executive Frank Kendall recently said, it would be awarded “on the merits” of the proposal

LRS-B Delays

—John A. Tirpak 5/18/2015

The choice of a contractor to build the Long-Range Strike Bomber will be delayed from the initial forecast of “late spring” 2015, but more important is “getting it right,” Air Force acquisition chief William LaPlante said. “It doesn’t matter to me if it’s done June 1 or July 1 or August 1,” as long as the contract is properly structured, he told reporters after an AFA-sponsored, Air Force breakfast in Arlington, Va. Asked why the award is delayed, LaPlante said, “it’s a lot of work. First of all, the teams are killing themselves,” and there continues to be a flurry of back-and-forth questions between the contractors and the Air Force that must be answered and checked. “It’s only done when it’s really done,” he said, adding that he thinks it was a “good take” for Congress to subtract $460 million from the program in Fiscal 2015 because the service wouldn’t be able to spend the whole amount anyway. Though LaPlante declined to call the contract as it is being structured “protest proof,” he did note that out of 140,000 Air Force awards last year, only 140 were protested, and of those, only two were sustained, with “corrective action” on just 20.

 

[marauder2048]

I'm surprised we don't have a nuclear JASSM yet.

I'm surprised we have 'nuclear' anything at this point ;D Re-open nuke production lines and produce a new tactical nuke for JASSM and JASSM-ER.

I think I posted an article on the LRSO in the nuclear news thread that mentioned something along the lines that it would be a JASSM-ER type configuration and not 'clean sheet' design.

There are stockpiled W80s from TLAM-Ns and GLCMs that would be perfect.

Good point; the W80 is said to weigh < 300 lbs which would be quite a weight reduction for JASSM-ER.

 

[Flyaway]

From AFA:

LRS-B May Not Be Must-Win

Though some analysts have suggested there will be a shake-out of the major airframe primes based on who does—or who doesn’t—win the Long-Range Strike Bomber contract, Air Force acquisition chief William LaPlante suggested Friday there may be enough work to keep everyone in the game afterwards. “It’s a much bigger consideration than any one program,” LaPLante said at an AFA-sponsored, Air Force breakfast. “You have to look at the [foreign military sales] situation” as well as other known programs like the Navy’s UCLASS ISR/strike drone and intense prototyping that will attend the Air Dominance 2030 project. Three times, though, LaPlante noted, “There’s things going on in the classified world” that companies may either already have in-hand or could compete for. After looking at that, he said the Pentagon then looks at the situation “using game theory” and then sets up its source selections “in the context of that broader problem.” However, “it would be wrong … at the 11th hour” to make industrial base considerations a key discriminator, he said. While DOD can’t “control the behavior of companies” after a major award, he said it strives to avoid doing anything “inadvertently” that would “push someone out of the market.” Asked about how the industrial base would affect the LRS-B contract, pentagon acquisition executive Frank Kendall recently said, it would be awarded “on the merits” of the proposal

LRS-B Delays

—John A. Tirpak 5/18/2015

The choice of a contractor to build the Long-Range Strike Bomber will be delayed from the initial forecast of “late spring” 2015, but more important is “getting it right,” Air Force acquisition chief William LaPlante said. “It doesn’t matter to me if it’s done June 1 or July 1 or August 1,” as long as the contract is properly structured, he told reporters after an AFA-sponsored, Air Force breakfast in Arlington, Va. Asked why the award is delayed, LaPlante said, “it’s a lot of work. First of all, the teams are killing themselves,” and there continues to be a flurry of back-and-forth questions between the contractors and the Air Force that must be answered and checked. “It’s only done when it’s really done,” he said, adding that he thinks it was a “good take” for Congress to subtract $460 million from the program in Fiscal 2015 because the service wouldn’t be able to spend the whole amount anyway. Though LaPlante declined to call the contract as it is being structured “protest proof,” he did note that out of 140,000 Air Force awards last year, only 140 were protested, and of those, only two were sustained, with “corrective action” on just 20.

I can't see such an important contract not being protested by the loser.

 

[flateric]

Martin Baker is bidding with Mk16E as ejection seat for LRS-B, and UTC Aerospace Systems with ACES 5

 

[bobbymike]

From AFA:

More Bomber, Electronic Warfare Info Coming

—John A. Tirpak

6/2/2015

​Despite some official dithering about when the Air Force will announce the winner of the Long-Range Strike Bomber contract, Air Combat Command chief Gen. Hawk Carlisle predicts “it’s going to be sometime in July, maybe August.” Speaking with reporters after his AFA-sponsored talk in Arlington, Va., on Monday, Carlisle said there would be “a little more” information about the bomber, and its “family of systems,” revealed “as that decision is made.” He said LRS-B “is going to be part of” the Pentagon’s overall electronic warfare strategy, especially “penetrating capability, and what that looks like.” Although the Navy has suggested it may need more EA-18G Growler stand-in jamming aircraft, Carlisle said “with a limited [budgetary total obligation authority], you’ve got to think hard about buying brand-new legacy airplanes versus next generation [ones] as we go forward.” More information about the LRS-B and its mission set will probably be disclosed gradually, “over time,” he said. Northrop Grumman and a Boeing-led team including Lockheed Martin have made bomber proposals.

 

[pedrospe]

This is another image i saw today,on Erik Simonsen facebook for an supersonic bomber.

 

[hesham]

Great find Pedro.

 

[FighterJock]

Any word on who designed this plane? Looks like a Skunk Works design to me.

 

[pedrospe]

Thanks hesham,my dear Fighterjock,i saw this image on Erik Simonsen facebook,and i think this is one of is artwork designs,if you search the web, you can find is website,it has some cool pictures of many known and whatif concepts,if you have a facebook acount search for Erik Simonsen,there is many great pictures also.


best regards


Pedro

 

[bring_it_on]

 

[flateric]

Any word on who designed this plane? Looks like a Skunk Works design to me.

This is AFRL concept.

 

[FighterJock]

Any word on who designed this plane? Looks like a Skunk Works design to me.

This is AFRL concept.

Ask a stupid question time. What is AFRL? First time I have ever heard of AFRL.

 

[flateric]

www.google.com/search?q=AFRL

 

[FighterJock]

Thanks flateric.

 

[bring_it_on]

Air Force Magazine

 

[bring_it_on]

Kendall, LaPlante Complete Long Range Strike Bomber Review: EXCLUSIVE

PENTAGON: The Pentagon’s top acquisition official, Frank Kendall, and the head of Air Force acquisition, Bill LaPlante, have just completed a review of the Long Range Strike Bomber program.

“We looked at the design to make sure it’s at the level of maturity it’s supposed to be,” Kendall told me in an interview in his Pentagon office last evening (the selection of either the Boeing-Lockheed team or Northrop Grumman as the prime is expected before the end of summer).

Kendall also revealed for the first time that he is the Milestone Decision Authority for the program. That means that, while he doesn’t run it day to day, he is accountable for cost, schedule, and performance reporting to Congress and to Defense Secretary Ash Carter.

The bomber will cost up to $25 billion for the bomber’s research and development costs, several budget experts believe. The Air Force plans to buy 100 aircraft and says the flyaway cost will be about $550 million per plane in 2010 dollars (that’s at least $600 million already).The program is run by the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office. It reports directly to a board of directors chaired by Kendall. Board members include Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh, and LaPlante.

The undersecretary of acquisition, technology and logistics noted he couldn’t say very much “as it’s an open competition.” But he offered a few clear hints about what really matters in the companies’ overall approach to what many people are calling the B-3 bomber.

“We looked at the design to make sure it’s at the level of maturity it’s supposed to be,”Kendall said. Modularity is important because it “gives us a chance to change horse in the middle of the competition if we run into trouble.”

The acquisition guru has already made it clear that the Pentagon “will compete upgrades” of the program. That’s all clearly part of the Pentagon’s effort to keep the industrial base as resilient as possible and it may explain why Kendall keeps saying that industrial base issues will not be relevant to the decision of which company will build the bomber, at least for the first 100 planes.The Senate Armed Services Committee, clearly with an eye on the classified program, includes language in its version (Sec. 235) of the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act requiring that the Pentagon provide a report within six months of the bill’s final passage about the Technology Readiness Levels of technology “critical” to the program. By sheer luck, I asked Kendall about the program’s TRL levels, as they are considered by many systems engineers to be at least good starting point for determine the risks to a program.

TRLs will not play a key role in assessing risk of the program, Kendall told me. “I look at the TRLs, but I spend more time on what the risk actually is. I think the department got a little fixated on that grade (of a TRL level), if you will.” Instead of just pickinga technology because it’s at TRL 6 or 7, he said, “you have to look at exactly what riskis and what you can about it to mitigate it.”

Here’s how he explained this approach. “Bill LaPlante would say, and I would agree: ‘Bureaucrats look at TRLs, and engineers look at what work has to be done.”

How serious is Congress about this report? It also requires a review of the Pentagon report by the Comptroller General, who heads the Government Accountability Office. So, while Kendall may not consider TRLs a fine enough tool to judge the B-3’s risk, Congress will be watching them.

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/06/kendall-laplante-complete-long-range-strike-bomber-review-exclusive/

 

[sferrin]

Something to remember when the usual suspects start trying to get attention by exaggerating costs is the $550 million is FLYAWAY cost in 2010 dollars. R&D not included in that $550 million. Give it a day or two and you'll see headlines screeching, "New bomber already at $1billion a piece. Death spiral commencing."