Future USAF long-range strike bomber (LRS-B)

[MarkOttawa]

Very interesting--a real Aviation Leak  (usual copyright disclaimer:
http://aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=dti&id=news/DTI-Bomber.xml

NGB demonstrator may be a twin-engine aircraft resembling an X-47B. Initial version will be piloted, but an unmanned endurance version is a probable follow-on.

Is Northrop Grumman building a secret bomber prototype? In late April, the company revealed first-quarter financial results. Data indicated $2 billion in new "restricted programs" contract awards at Integrated Systems, the aircraft division. This almost certainly confirms what DTI first reported earlier this year: Northrop Grumman has a classified, sole-source contract to build a demonstrator for the U.S. Air Force's Next-Generation Bomber (DTI March, p. 30).

USAF budgets show no funding for the Next-Generation Bomber (NGB) itself in 2008, although documents show money for technology work in Fiscal 2008-10. Northrop Grumman CEO Ron Sugar said last year that Integrated Systems had made strides in black programs and identified restricted projects as the top new-business opportunity. Taken together, the evidence points to a single, very large contract win. Northrop Grumman also acquired Scaled Composites in 2007, a company that can develop large prototype aircraft quickly.

The $2-billion contract casts new light on the decision in January by Boeing and Lockheed Martin to reveal their year-old collaboration on NGB. (Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman declined interview requests.) Hailed as an NGB "dream team" combining Boeing's bomber experience with Lockheed Martin's stealth technology, the teaming now looks like an effort to catch up with a rival that has a lead in the next major U.S. combat aircraft program.

It is likely that the prototype will build on technology under development for the Navy's X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstrator (UCAS-D), putting within reach USAF's goal of a 2018 initial operational capability date for the bomber. Industry and USAF sources have talked about a competition in 2010, leading to the start of systems development and demonstration in 2011. But it would be Northrop Grumman's to lose.

Events since 2000 placed Northrop Grumman in pole position. USAF interest in a replacement bomber was rekindled after 9/11, but USAF Secretary Jim Roche and Chief of Staff Gen. John Jumper focused on the Lockheed Martin FB-22, seeing it as a low-risk solution that bolstered the case for the embattled F-22.

The departures of Roche and Jumper in 2005 coincided with a change in thinking. In October, USAF defined a three-stage Next-Generation Long-Range Strike program. Phase I would keep the force effective until 2018, with upgrades to aircraft. Phase II would be a new "2018 bomber," while Phase III encompassed hypersonic concepts. This was the end of the road for the FB-22, since nobody envisioned the F-22 remaining in production long enough to dovetail with Phase II.

Late in 2005, at a conference on unmanned combat air vehicles in London, there were signs of convergence between the bomber requirement and the Joint UCAS project. J-UCAS had been kicked off as a major effort three years earlier, but USAF was interested in a platform larger than the Navy could accommodate.

Northrop Grumman J-UCAS Program Manager Scott Winship said at the time that the company had proposed completing a third prototype as an X-47C with a 172-ft. wingspan and 10,000-lb. payload. J-UCAS leader Mike Francis stressed an advantage of the unmanned vehicle: an inherently lower radar cross-section (RCS) than conventional tailed aircraft.

Despite the tension in J-UCAS, it was a surprise when an early-2006 high-level Pentagon review killed it, splitting resources into a white-world Navy effort and a classified USAF program, while endorsing a plan to field a bomber in 2018.

It's now apparent, however, that USAF had already picked a primary approach to the NGB, and that the next two years of work, starting with the remaining Fiscal 2006 J-UCAS funding, are intended to validate that choice.

This approach emerged from J-UCAS, and particularly from Northrop Grumman, which anticipated the J-UCAS split and was prepared to respond. The company believed that the basic 42,000-lb. J-UCAS was better suited to the Navy than to USAF, had focused on the carrier-based J-UCAS demonstration and picked a design that offered high lift and a simple wingfold.

Northrop Grumman's proposal for a bigger X-47C also preceded -- and may have inspired -- USAF's switch to a larger long-range bomber. This meant, too, that the NGB program could get a running start because it would use aerodynamics and stealth technology that were in the works for J-UCAS.

The X-47B was much more advanced, in aerodynamic terms, than it appeared (see sidebar), and the same is likely true of its low-observable (LO) qualities. The aircraft is one of the first to combine a highly blended tailless configuration with new materials developed since the 1980s. The NGB will be the same, if not more so.

Northrop Grumman has stressed the "all-aspect, broadband" stealth inherent in the X-47B. Tailless shapes don't have the "bow-tie" RCS pattern, with the smallest RCS on the nose and tail and peaks on the beam configurations, which characterizes conventional aircraft. They are stealthier against low-frequency radars -- including updated, active-array VHF radars marketed by Russia -- because they do not have shape features which are so small that their RCS in the VHF band is determined by size, rather than shape or materials. It may be significant that John Cashen, leader of the B-2 signatures team, returned in 2006 after 10 years in Australia and is now a consultant for Northrop Grumman.

RCS test facilities across the U.S. have been upgraded since the F-22 and B-2 were designed: USAF's range at Holloman AFB, N.M., was reequipped to handle bistatic measurements, and a sophisticated airborne RCS measurement program based on a modified 737 was delivered in 2001.

How low can LO go? One paper, co-authored by a principal in DenMar Inc., the company founded by Stealth pioneer Denys Overholser, refers to the development of fasteners for a body with an RCS of -70 dB./sq. meter -- one-thousandth of the -40 dB. associated with the JSF, and one-tenth that of a mosquito. DTI queried RCS engineers who don't believe such numbers are possible; but then, when mention of a -30 dB. signature leaked out in a 1981 Northrop paper, nobody believed that either.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Latest new bomber speculation, from Bill Sweetman (usual copy right disclaimer):

Pentagon Bomber Evolution Underway
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/dti/2010/09/01/DT_09_01_2010_p24-249345.xml&headline=Pentagon%20Bomber%20Evolution%20Underway

The latest analysis of future long-range strike needs by the Pentagon will be submitted in time for its recommendations to be reflected in the Fiscal 2012 budget.

Few people, least of all advocates of an active, nonvintage bomber fleet, expect exciting news. Service-centric politics, a joint-service construct under which ground forces heavily influence the study and pressure on procurement budgets (from overruns in the Joint Strike Fighter program) will result in modest recommendations.

The most likely include the endorsement of a long-range, nonnuclear ballistic missile capability, although the time­scale and budget remain uncertain. The conventional prompt global strike (CPGS) concept is a favorite of Marine Corps Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

Expect some backing but little money for two other concepts: a joint-service, long-range cruise missile, launched from Virginia-class submarines and B-52s, and the Navy’s Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV-N), which may be termed a means of extending the range of a carrier air group. Both systems may be linked to another joint-service study defining a future “air-sea battle” and focused on matching China’s growing power in the Western Pacific.

As for a future USAF bomber, conventional wisdom—i.e., views acceptable to Cartwright and Defense Secretary Robert Gates—is that the idea merits study, over and above several dozen studies carried out in the past decade. In June, Lt. Gen. Philip Breedlove, Air Force deputy chief of staff for operations, plans and requirements, was quoted as saying the word “bomber” can no longer be spoken in the Pentagon and requirements “trickling down from the highest levels” call for a much smaller aircraft. Some sources believe Cartwright is pushing the idea of a USAF variant of UCAV-N.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz and Secretary Michael Donley have not taken up the cause of a new bomber. The only four-star to support the bomber has been Strategic Command leader Gen. Kevin Chilton.
[He's now retiring:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iSkl6BLF3tFlCir-OvEtlEItNRTwD9HVTGG84 ]

With little high-level support, bomber advocates are doing what they have done before: changing the name to “reconnaissance-strike [emphasis added].” Lt. Gen. David Deptula, in his last press briefing before retirement, reiterated his view that intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and attack missions are no longer separate. A penetrating ISR platform that cannot be armed makes little sense.

Industry and service studies of a new ISR and strike platform appear to be converging, driven by technological developments, likely operational requirements and fiscal realism.

Technologically, one factor that has arisen in the past few years is the successful demonstration of extremely low-observable (ELO) technology, with wideband, all-aspect signature reductions of -40 to -50 dB. or more, under one or more covert test programs. One step in this process may have been Boeing’s Bird of Prey demonstrator, with a radar cross section (RCS) so small that visual signatures became dominant. A consultant on that project was stealth pioneer Denys Overholser, who has been involved with projects envisioning RCS levels to -70 dB.—the size of a mosquito...

The demonstration of reliable, long-endurance, autonomous operations is important. Many bomber advocates agree that a new ISR/strike aircraft should be optionally piloted. If it acquires a nuclear mission, a crew is likely to be mandatory [emphasis added], and crewing would ease mixed-use airspace concerns. On the other hand, the aircraft would be inherently capable of operations beyond human endurance, and an unmanned mode could avoid sending crews beyond the reach of search-and-rescue assets...

The biggest challenge to the bomber is price. Procurement cost in the $500-million range is likely, equivalent to 4-5 JSFs, but carrying 4-5 times the warload five times farther. The total investment in a force of 100 new bombers would be about the same as the cost of replacing Trident submarines. But, as enthusiasts suggest, the bombers would deliver similar or greater longevity and more flexibility.

Concept: Josef Gatial

Mark
Ottawa

 

[CougarKing]

Mr. MarkOttawa, perhaps you should request that this thread be re-titled to "Future USAF long-range strike bomber (LRS-B)"? It would fit with the latest update below.

Reuters

Boeing, Lockheed team up to bid on new U.S. bomber program
By Andrea Shalal-Esa

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Boeing Co and Lockheed Martin Corp will team up to bid on a new U.S. Air Force long-range bomber program, a multibillion-dollar project that U.S. Air Force officials have described as a top acquisition priority.

Boeing, which has played a role in every U.S. bomber program since World War Two, would be the prime contractor on the next-generation bomber program, with Lockheed as its primary subcontractor, the companies said on Friday.

The Air Force has said it plans to buy as many as 100 new bombers for no more than $550 million each. Air Force spokesman Ed Gulick said $581 million had been spent on the Long-Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B) program to date, starting in fiscal 2012.

"The LRS-B is a top modernization priority for the Air Force and critical to our national security," he said. "The Air Force looks forward to working with all participating industry partners on this very important program."

Gulick had no immediate comment on the pact between Boeing and Lockheed. The Air Force estimate of $550 million a plane reflects only the procurement cost of the new weapons, but not the cost of developing the plane or construction of new hangars.

In July, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel vowed to protect several weapons programs, including the new bomber program, if Congress failed to reverse mandatory budget cuts and the military opted to preserve high-end capabilities over size.

Northrop Grumman Corp , maker of the B-2 stealth bomber, is also expected to compete to build the new long-range strike bomber, a program that's expected to reap billions of dollars of revenue for the winning bidder.

Northrop spokesman Randy Belote declined to comment on the Boeing-Lockheed teaming agreement but said his company viewed the bomber program as "vital to both national security and the power projection capability of the U.S. Air Force."


(...)

 

[MarkOttawa]

Good idea, would mods please do?

Meanwhile, will there be the money?

Analyst: Pentagon Budget Could Drop To $415 Billion [by 2021]
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/asd_10_25_2013_p01-02-630363.xml

Analyst: Historical Trends Suggest Budget Cuts Deeper Than Sequestration
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131024/DEFREG02/310240026/Analyst-Historical-Trends-Suggest-Budget-Cuts-Deeper-Than-Sequestration

Much as the USAF wants LRS-B:

Welsh Set to Unveil ‘Air Force 2023′ Strategy [Aug. 23]
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/08/23/welsh-set-to-unveil-air-force-2023-strategy/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[The Bread Guy]

Mr. MarkOttawa, perhaps you should request that this thread be re-titled to "Future USAF long-range strike bomber (LRS-B)"? It would fit with the latest update below.

Reuters

Done.

 

[a_majoor]

Perhaps a real "out of left field" idea that might preempt the LSR-B idea?

http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/11/surprise-lockheed-figured-out-how-to.html#more

Surprise Lockheed Figured out how to make hypersonic planes work and there could be a mach 6 SR-72 spyplane flying by 2018

The SR-71 Blackbird was retired from U.S. Air Force service almost two decades ago, the perennial question has been: Will it ever be succeeded by a new-generation, higher-speed aircraft and, if so, when?

Hypersonic flights tests were way more successful than advertised

Skunk Works has been working with Aerojet Rocketdyne for the past seven years to develop a method to integrate an off-the-shelf turbine with a scramjet to power the aircraft from standstill to Mach 6 plus,” says Brad Leland, portfolio manager for air-breathing hypersonic technologies. “Our approach builds on HTV-3X, but this extends a lot beyond that and addresses the one key technical issue that remained on that program: the high-speed turbine engine,” he adds, referring to the U.S. Air Force/Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) reusable hypersonic demonstrator canceled in 2008.

Despite never progressing to what Leland describes as a planned -HTV-3X follow-on demonstrator that “never was,” called the Blackswift, the conceptual design work led to “several key accomplishments which we didn’t advertise too much,” he notes. “It produced an aircraft configuration that could controllably take off, accelerate through subsonic, supersonic, transonic and hypersonic speeds. It was controllable and kept the pointy end forward,” adds Leland.

If they deliver then reusable first stage spaceplanes would be feasible

This could also give a big boost to spaceplane systems like Reaction Engine's Skylon

More on what SR-72 will do

Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works has revealed exclusively to Aviation Week details of long-running plans for what it describes as an affordable hypersonic intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and strike platform that could enter development in demonstrator form as soon as 2018. Dubbed the SR-72, the twin-engine aircraft is designed for a Mach 6 cruise, around twice the speed of its forebear, and will have the optional capability to strike targets.

Guided by the U.S. Air Force’s long-term hypersonic road map, the SR-72 is designed to fill what are perceived by defense planners as growing gaps in coverage of fast-reaction intelligence by the plethora of satellites, subsonic manned and unmanned platforms meant to replace the SR-71. Potentially dangerous and increasingly mobile threats are emerging in areas of denied or contested airspace, in countries with sophisticated air defenses and detailed knowledge of satellite movements.

A vehicle penetrating at high altitude and Mach 6, a speed viewed by Lockheed Martin as the “sweet spot” for practical air-breathing hypersonics, is expected to survive where even stealthy, advanced subsonic or supersonic aircraft and unmanned vehicles might not. Moreover, an armed ISR platform would also have the ability to strike targets before they could hide.

Mach 4 turbine bridges the gap to scramjet speeds

The Skunk Works design team developed a methodology for integrating a working, practical turbine-based combined cycle (TBCC) propulsion system. “Before that, it was all cartoons,” Leland says. “We actually developed a way of transforming it from a turbojet to a ramjet and back. We did a lot of tests to prove it out, including the first mode-transition demonstration.” The Skunk Works conducted subscale ground tests of the TBCC under the Facet program, which combined a small high-Mach turbojet with a dual-mode ramjet/scramjet, and the two sharing an axisymmetric inlet and nozzle.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory’s parallel HiSTED (High-Speed Turbine Engine Demonstration) program essentially failed to produce a small turbojet capable of speeds up to Mach 4 in a TBCC. “The high-speed turbine engine was the one technical issue remaining. Frankly, they just weren’t ready,” recalls Leland. This left the Skunk Work designers with a familiar problem: how to bridge the gap between the Mach 2.5 maximum speed of current-production turbine engines and the Mach 3-3.5 takeover speed of the ramjet/scramjet. “We call it the thrust chasm around Mach 3,” he adds.

Although further studies were conducted after the demise of the HTV-3X under the follow-on Darpa Mode-Transition program, that fell by the wayside, too, after completion of a TBCC engine model in 2009-10. So, Lockheed Martin and Aerojet Rocketdyne “sat down as two companies and asked ourselves, ‘Can we make it work? What are we still missing?’” says Leland. “A Mach 4 turbine is what gets you there, and we’ve been working with Rocketdyne on this problem for the last seven years.”

The path to the SR-72 would begin with an optionally piloted flight research vehicle (FRV), measuring around 60 ft. long and powered by a single, but full-scale, propulsion flowpath. “The demonstrator is about the size of the F-22, single-engined and could fly for several minutes at Mach 6,” says Leland. The outline plan for the operational vehicle, the SR-72, is a twin-engine unmanned aircraft over 100 ft. long (see artist’s concept on page 20). “It will be about the size of the SR-71 and have the same range, but have twice the speed,” he adds. The FRV would start in 2018 and fly in 2023. “We would be ready to launch the SR-72 shortly after and could be in service by 2030,” Leland says.

I suspect that if they are making an announcement like this they are probably much farther along than they are admitting to bring the program from "Black" to "White". A hypersonic strike craft would probably eject weapons from rear facing racks or rails in the weapons bay, and a round falling on target at 6X the speed of sound will pack a considerable punch even without an explosive charge.

 

[CougarKing]

Speaking of the SR-72 mentioned in the above post:

Speed is the New Stealth

Meet the SR-72
In 1976, U.S. Air Force SR-71 Blackbird crews flew from New York to London in less than two hours, reaching speeds exceeding Mach 3 and setting world records that have held up for nearly four decades.
But those world records may not stay unbroken for long.

That’s because today, at the birthplace of the Blackbird – Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works® – engineers are developing a hypersonic aircraft that will go twice the speed of the SR-71. It’s called the SR-72.

Son of the Blackbird

The SR-71 was developed using 20th century technology. It was envisioned with slide rules and paper. It wasn’t managed by millions of lines of software code. And it wasn’t powered by computer chips.  All that changes with the SR-72.
Envisioned as an unmanned aircraft, the SR-72 would fly at speeds up to Mach 6, or six times the speed of sound. At this speed, the aircraft would be so fast, an adversary would have no time to react or hide.

<snipped>

source: lockheedmartin.com

 

[CougarKing]

USAF General Harencak tries to makes his case on why the B-52 fleet must be replaced by the LRS-B.

Wall Street Journal video: "Can America afford a new Nuclear Bomber?"

23 hours ago, WSJ Live

In an era of belt-tightening, the Pentagon hopes to spend $550 million each for new bombers. Too much? Air Force Major General Garrett Harencak talks with The Wall Street Journal's John Bussey.

 

[CougarKing]

Since he's an outgoing SECDEF, is his blessing for this program really that crucial? Wouldn't it depend more on Armed Service Committees of Congress?

Defense News

Hagel backs Air Force plans for long-range strike bomber

WHITEMAN AIR FORCE BASE, Mo. — Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told airmen here Tuesday that the nation's nuclear mission is as important as ever and he voiced strong support for the Air Force's plans to build a costly new long-range strike bomber.

On one of his last trips as the Pentagon's top official, Hagel came to this rural air base to speak to the airman who fly and fix the B-2 Spirits, the iconic nuclear-armed stealth bombers. While the aircraft is rarely used in operations, Hagel said it is nevertheless critical to national security.

"It's always about strategic deterrence so that we don't have to send our men and women into conflict," Hagel told several hundred airmen. "Our adversaries have to know and have to believe, and essentially have to trust that we have deterrent capability, that in fact we have everything we say we have."

(...SNIPPED)

 

[a_majoor]

The need to start work on a new fighter is also important, and this article demonstrates there may be many ways to skin the cat:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-air-force-wants-a-futuristic-swarm-of-exploding-autonomous-warbirds/article/2559986#!

The Air Force wants a futuristic swarm of exploding autonomous warbirds
By Tara Copp | February 9, 2015 | 11:55 am

Last week, the Navy had its say on what a sixth-generation fighter should look like, and on Friday, the Air Force joined the discussion.

The Navy envisions heavy firepower and the electronic means to suppress enemy air defenses, while the Air Force imagines a futuristic swarm of autonomous warbirds that explode on target.

Both are part of the initial designing and innovations under consideration as the Department of Defense begins funding the studies and technologies it seeks in a sixth-generation fighter.

“There are different problems that the different services’ air arms face. So you should expect us to come off with different solutions because we’re asked to do different things,” said Lt. Gen. James Holmes, Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Plans and Requirements.

The future fighter, which Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work pushed into the spotlight as DOD unrolled its budget last week, isn’t in a design stage yet. In his introduction of the fighter, Work noted the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency would take the initial design lead and develop a prototype for the Air Force and Navy, and would likely take 15 years to develop. The fiscal year 2016 budget allocates $8 million to begin the design and development; and hundreds of millions more are scattered throughout research and development accounts to push forward some of the propulsion and materials technologies it may apply to a future fighter.

There are commonalities among both services’ ideas; for now, stealth is falling as a priority for both the Navy and Air Force as competitors’ technological gains make the once-futuristic technology detectable.

Based on competitors’ gains in radar and sensor technologies, “stealth is necessary, but may not be sufficient,” Gen. Holmes said. “There’s a whole lot of pieces to stealth. We tend to focus on the reduced radar cross section part of it, but there’s an entire spectrum — from your electromagnetic emissions to your [infrared profile].”

Last week, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert said that for him, stealth was not as important as firepower.

Due to the limits of technology and advances by competitors, “you can’t become so stealthy that you become invisible — you are going to generate a signature of some sort,” he said “So you have to deal with that, you have to be able to deploy weapons that are going to be longer range, be smarter and have more of them. I believe you are going to have to do more overwhelming of the defenses, if you will.”

Both the Navy and Air Force are pursuing an unmanned version, with the Air Force considering the autonomous capabilities to enhance a future airframe’s ability to detect and evade air defenses before destroying a target.

“We are not looking at trying to play chess with it,” Holmes said, noting that the autonomy would be narrowly tailored to assist it in contested environments. But looking at the future air-to-air and ground-to-air threats, he said, “you can see some applications for a swarming, autonomous ability to go target surface-to-air defenses. We want to see, does that work, how much would it cost? If it’s expendable, is it worth the cost to pay for autonomy in something that is going to blow itself up when it hits the target? There’s a lot of things we still need to learn.”

Production of an actual warplane is still 15 years out, if the new fighter beats production schedules of its predecessors. The fifth-generation fighter it would follow, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, isn’t in service yet, even though it started its development the same way that the sixth-generation fighter is slated to go — as a DARPA-led program back in 1995.

Since then, the program has faced significant program delays and cost overruns; each airframe is now slated to cost about $100 million and the total cost of the program, including the development and procurement, is estimated to be $323.5 billion.

The U.S. Marine Corps Variant of the fighter, the F-35B, was originally scheduled to be fully operational in March 2012, it is now scheduled to join the service this July. The Air Force variant is slated for 2016; Navy’s variant won’t be ready until 2019.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Another news story,

Bomber Leads Way on USAF RDT&E Request
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/budget/2015/02/02/bomber-leads-way-on-usaf-rdte-request/22749943/

and a critical piece:

Rethinking Deep Strike in the 21st Century
http://warontherocks.com/2015/02/rethinking-deep-strike-in-the-21st-century/?singlepage=1

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Aussie think tank blog post:

What might America’s new long-range strike bomber cost? (Part 1)
http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/what-might-americas-new-long-range-strike-bomber-cost-part-1/

A bit of history–US Navy and B-36: “Revolt of the Admirals”:
http://www.amazon.ca/Revolt-Admirals-Fight-Aviation-1945-1950/dp/1931641137/ref=sr_1_cc_2?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1425502572&sr=1-2-catcorr&keywords=revolt+of+the+admirals

http://www.usni.org/magazines/navalhistory/2011-12/naval-aviations-most-serious-crisis

Mark
Ottawa

 

[FSTO]

What does the manned bomber bring that cannot be done by cruise missiles? The cost of developing an aircraft to carry a payload to a target and survive the return trip are bordering on the obscene. All these multi-billion dollar machines are reaching the point that they will be too expensive to deploy in anything but the most benign environment. Maybe something cheaper that you can build more of?

As Stalin said. "Quantity has a quality of its own."

 

[MarkOttawa]

Often wondered why this not pursued:

Why Boeing's Design For A 747 Full Of Cruise Missiles Makes Total Sense
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-boeings-design-for-a-747-full-of-cruise-missiles-ma-1605150371

Esp. as cruises may now be able to hit mobile targets:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usn-officials-upbeat-about-new-uses-for-tomahawk-missile-409566/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[dimsum]

What does the manned bomber bring that cannot be done by cruise missiles? The cost of developing an aircraft to carry a payload to a target and survive the return trip are bordering on the obscene. All these multi-billion dollar machines are reaching the point that they will be too expensive to deploy in anything but the most benign environment. Maybe something cheaper that you can build more of?

As Stalin said. "Quantity has a quality of its own."

The one thing I could think of is if the strike was called off for whatever reason, what happens to the cruise missile?  With a bomber (manned or not), it would fly back and offload its munitions. 

 

[FSTO]

The one thing I could think of is if the strike was called off for whatever reason, what happens to the cruise missile?  With a bomber (manned or not), it would fly back and offload its munitions.

True, but the cost of these planes. It is getting absolutely crazy. And how long can the US economy afford this?

 

[MarkOttawa]

More on costs:

USAF Eyes Cost-Plus Bomber Contract
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/03/05/lrsb-bomber-cost-plus-contract-air-force/24432697/

Good blinking luck,

Mark
Ottawa

 

[a_majoor]

Swarming or flocking cruise missiles that overwhelm the target by attacking in force in multiple angles and directions would seem to be the future of strike assets, except for one small thing: cruise missiles on their own have short ranges and need a long range platform (with some persistence) to bring them to the target area and hold targets at risk.

Simple analysis of the program on various sites often compare the cost of a single B-2 with the number of Tomahawk cruise missile you could have bought for the same price, and advocate for scrapping a bomber with a potential 3 billion dollar/unit price tag for boatloads of cruise missiles. While interesting, having thousands or even millions of cruise missiles isn't helpful when you don't have the facilities to hold or maintain such a huge fleet, nor the means to deliver them when the time comes. Even arsenal ships carrying 500 missiles apiece are not going to be cheap, and of course you are then limited to however far inland from the littorals that the cruise missiles can actually fly. Lots of cruise missiles plus lots of relatively cheap launch platforms is perhaps the best calculus for striking targets. Distributing the platforms among several types is also important, to make defence much more difficult (subs, surface ships and bombers or airborne carrier aircraft).

The real issue with the program is twofold. First, the project definition really isn't very clear or specific, so the project can be subject to endless changes during the design and development phase, endlessly driving up costs. Second is the very complex and poor program management by both the DoD and the contractors. Streamlined program management means a lot. SpaceX, a civilian rocket company, has developed a rocket from scratch and gone through several generations of evolution in only a decade and a bit. Rockets are very high tech items with demanding specifications to survive the stresses of launch and spaceflight, yet SpaceX has done this and can charge @ $50 million/launch to put a satellite into orbit. ULA, the government contractor, uses rockets that were designed and developed in the 1950's (so the R&D was amortized long ago), with roughly the same performance as the SpaceX Falcon 9 (so satellites can only be about the same size and go into the same orbits, capabilities are not significantly different), yet charges $400 million/launch.

If SpaceX were to design and build a bomber for the program, it would most likely cost a fraction of a comparable Boeing, Northrup/Grunman or Lockheed design simply because there would be few layers of "management" to pay for. Lockheed's "Skunk Works" was also famous for being able to put together very cutting edge projects fast and cheap back in the day, another example of how it "should" be done.

 

[tomahawk6]

Anyone remember this week of a satellite that exploded ? The PRC I think has the weapons to take out satellites.Lose some satellites and your cruise missiles wont work.They are similarly at risk,but right now they are not as reliant on satellites to vector weapons systems.The major weapons platforms are too expensive to field.Somehow the geniuses in R&D need to figure out a low cost means.The F-35 program is a complete failure.Great idea fairy at work there.

 

[Ostrozac]

Anyone remember this week of a satellite that exploded ? The PRC I think has the weapons to take out satellites.Lose some satellites and your cruise missiles wont work.They are similarly at risk,but right now they are not as reliant on satellites to vector weapons systems.The major weapons platforms are too expensive to field.Somehow the geniuses in R&D need to figure out a low cost means.The F-35 program is a complete failure.Great idea fairy at work there.

There are several versions of Tomahawk that incorporate Inertial Nav and Terrain Following -- it's not a GPS only weapon. Similarly there is a new version of the Excalibur that gives you an option between GPS and laser guidance. Several air dropped precision weapons are similarly dual GPS/laser.

And when you are talking about actually using ASAT weapons you're pretty close to a full on WWIII scenario. The US has billions of dollars worth of hardware in orbit. I expect there will be significant pressure to do whatever is required to defend those assets.