- Joined
- 22 October 2006
- Messages
- 337
- Reaction score
- 61
Flateric, would it be possible for you to give the source of the ngb+f_xuclass picture? thanks
http://www.csbaonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Offset-Strategy-Slides.pdfOgami musashi said:Flateric, would it be possible for you to give the source of the ngb+f_xuclass picture? thanks
LowObservable said:"Though the Long-Range Strike Bomber will certainly have data-collecting sensors to help it function deep inside contested airspace, it won’t be the reconnaissance/strike platform some have envisioned."
That argument was over in 2010. Doyyy.
AFRL/RW, the Air Force Research Laboratory Munitions Directorate is conducting market research for an exploratory development research program which intends to develop wideband conformal antenna and radome technology that is compatible with high speed air vehicles. New classes of air launched vehicles are being researched that will maintain a sustained Mach 3 to Mach 6+ as they journey to their destination. Wideband antenna and radome technology that will survive the flight and operate correctly in the terminal phase of flight is required. The objective of this program will be to design, simulate, fabricate, and test a wideband conformal antenna and radome technology that is compatible with high speed airframes. The critical areas of this program will be as follows: Wideband conformal antennas with appropriate electrical characteristics to operate with L-band, S-band, and C-band sensors of interest, high fidelity simulation of antenna concepts, protective radome material that is compatible with high speed airframes, and development of test hardware that can survive and operate during testing to emulate flight environmental conditions. This program will emphasize development of a robust design backed by high fidelity computer simulations and the demonstration of critical components.
stealthflanker said:Would be interesting to follow.
As far as i know challenge of conformal array lies in controlling the radiation pattern and cooling as the geometry may not be suitable for common cooling practice.
STRATCOM chief: New bomber is integral for deterrence
By Brian Everstine, Staff writer 3:30 p.m. EST February 26, 2015
The Air Force's long-range strike bomber is an integral nuclear deterrent as the rest of the bomber fleet ages, the head of U.S. Strategic Command told lawmakers Thursday.
The Air Force is expected to award a contract this spring to kick off procurement of the next-generation stealth bomber. The service needs to replace its bomber fleet and keep the next generation flying "for decades to come," Navy Adm. Cecil Haney, commander of U.S. Strategic Command, said.
"Our air leg is supported today by the B-2 and the B-52 aircraft," Haney saidat a House Armed Services Committee hearing. "The B-52, which was last off the assembly line in 1962, will be used out until at least the 2040 time period. It is very important we invest in the long-range bomber."
The service's newest bomber, the B-2 Spirit, has also been flying for decades and will continue to fly for decades to come.
The next-generation bomber will replace the B-52 and carry both conventional and nuclear weapons.
"In order to have the strategic and conventional capability, it's important that we recapitalize and move forward as the Air Force is investing in the long-range strike bomber," Haney said.
The contract will be awarded to either Northrop Grumman, which produced the B-2, or a team of Lockheed Martin and Boeing. The Air Force last summer released a request for proposals, kicking off the procurement process, but has since been quiet because of the classified nature of the program.
The service wants to field 80 to 100 of the planes by 2040, and is looking at the aircraft being "optionally manned," meaning it can fly with or without a pilot in the cockpit. The goal is to keep the cost down to about $500 million per aircraft.
bring_it_on said:AFA AWS Panel on Long Range Strike in a contested airspace : Lt. Gen. Robert Elder, USAF Ret., Lt. Gen. Christopher Miller, USAF Ret., Maj. Gen. Curtis Bedke, USAF Ret., Col. Mark Gunzinger, USAF Ret., and Dr. Rebecca Grant
sferrin said:Wow, that was a dumb thing to say.
Talon_38 said:sferrin said:Wow, that was a dumb thing to say.
They might have a fighting chance to meet that if congress doesn't cut the number of aircraft like they did with the B-2.
LowObservable said:Nobody is expecting a B-2/B-1/B-52-sized airplane, for entirely logical and sensible reasons.
LowObservable said:... a rather small number of operational scenarios where one might need 16 B61-12s or 80 500-lb JDAMs.
LowObservable said:Realistically, can you see a practical scenario where you'd need 16 B61s on a single platform? Or a practical way to weaponeer 80 guided 500-pounders?
The US Air Force will consider a supersonic engine among three propulsion options now under review for the long range standoff (LRSO) missile, according to an acquisition notice released on 26 February.
The LRSO is expected to replace the Boeing AGM-86 air launched cruise missile, a subsonic weapon powered by a Williams F107 turbofan engine.
The USAF is considering two subsonic engine options – a derivative of an existing engine with 5% greater fuel efficiency and and advanced engine offering up to 20% better fuel efficiency, according to the request for information released by the LRSO branch of the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center.
A third option under review is a supersonic engine that would be sized comparably to “existing small core expendable engines”, the acquisition document says.
In the past, the USAF has said the LRSO would be a stealthy cruise missile, but never specified whether the weapon would fly at speeds below Mach 1.0, between M1.0 and 5.0 (supersonic) or even faster (hypersonic).
The same document lays out the USAF’s plans for developing and producing the LRSO. At least five engines will be delivered to support a technology maturation and risk reduction phase. Another 89 engines will support an engineering and manufacturing development phase of the programme. Up to 1,000 engines will ultimately be needed for a five-year production run, the request for information says.
The USAF has proposed to accelerate the LRSO acquisition programme by two years in the Fiscal 2016 budget request submitted to Congress last month.
sferrin said:Well then, we should scrap our entire nuclear force as there are "but a small number of operational scenarios where one might need" it. If all they plan on doing is dropping SDBs or B61s in onesies or twosies then say so. But don't try to pitch an aircraft like that as a replacement for the B-52 or B-1B because it does not replace their capabilities. Can it carry 20 ALCMs? Nope. An MOP? Nope. 60,000lbs of weapons? Nope. Be honest and say, "we think we can hit $550 million because we are scrapping 2 types of heavy bombers and replacing them with a medium bomber, and losing significant capability."
This is 5 hour fresh news of engine options.sferrin said:Already cancelled.
flateric said:This is 5 hour fresh news of engine options.sferrin said:Already cancelled.