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

[MarkOttawa]

Who's the winner?

USAF: Bomber Decision 'Really, Really Close'
http://aviationweek.com/defense/usaf-bomber-decision-really-really-close

U.S. Said Poised to Award $80 Billion Secret Bomber Contract
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-26/air-force-poised-to-award-bomber-contract-tuesday-officials-say

Experts split on likely Long-Range Strike Bomber winner
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/experts-split-on-likely-long-range-strike-bomber-win-418212/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[tomahawk6]

While Northrup built the B2,my money is on Boeing Co.-Lockheed Martin Corp.

 

[CBH99]

Obviously I want the USAF to end up with the best possible contender, for the most sensible cost.

I really wish there was more competition down in the US in terms of defense giants than just Boeing and Lockheed.  Its hard to have a real competition, and its hard to drive even more innovation, when its just two giant corporations competing against each other.  Having more than 2 designs to choose from I think would be beneficial to everybody.

 

[tomahawk6]

These contracts dont come along frequently so you end up going with who has experience.Look at Canada's defense industry compared to say 30 years ago.How often do you buy a warship or a any type of aircraft ? Its not a knock sadly successive governments have allowed Canada's defense industry to fade away or become part of larger foreign companies.Maybe I am wrong- it happens more often than I would like. :-\

 

[MarkOttawa]

tomahawk6: You lost your bet :

Northrop Grumman Wins Air Force's Long Range Strike Bomber Contract
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2015/10/27/northrop-grumman-wins-usaf-bomber-contract/74661394

LRS-B: Why Northrop Grumman Won Next U.S. Bomber
Bill Sweetman
http://aviationweek.com/defense/lrs-b-why-northrop-grumman-won-next-us-bomber

Mark
Ottawa

 

[tomahawk6]

Yes I did.They went with the company with recent bomber building experience.

 

[MarkOttawa]

And at least to keep military aircraft building from being a duopoly/monopoly.  Costs then yikers.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[tomahawk6]

Tell me again how many companies in the world build stealth fighters or bombers ? Its a specialized field and of course there are sub contractors as well.I have long felt though that it would be more cost effective to convert a wide bodied jet to mil specs and use it to carry cruise missiles.I saw one proposal using a 747 to carry something like 75 cruise missiles.

 

[CBH99]

I'm actually really glad to hear that Northrop ended up with the contract.

Now the "Big 3" each have a huge contract sitting on their desks.  LM with the F-35.  Boeing with the KC-46 & P-8.  And now Northrop with the bomber.

Northrop has always had interesting and unique designs, and its good to see that the company without the deepest pockets was able to pull off the win.

And T6, I totally agree with what you were saying regarding my post before.  And it is understandable - that there are fewer and fewer companies that are even able to design/innovate/build the types of machines that are being produced today.

I just wish companies like Sikorski weren't on the menu to be eaten up by the likes of LM.  The more companies innovating/designing, and trying to outcompete each other, the better the value for the taxpayer.  (In my opinion).

 

[a_majoor]

How the USAF sees the B-3 in action. Remember, this is taking the capabilites of the F-35 and ramping them up on a much larger and more capable airframe:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/11/new-sensor-loaded-bombers-will-be.html

New sensor loaded bombers will be central part of an integrated combat cloud

Power projection—the ability to deploy, sustain, and use military force overseas in support of United States national security goals—is a central mission of the US armed forces. It ideally requires unfettered access to international waterways, airspace, and regional ports and air bases. US adversaries, however, have observed the dependence of the American military on such access and have developed asymmetric technologies and capabilities to exploit the weaknesses in this method of power projection. Adversaries are deploying advanced air defenses—interceptors, surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), and radar networks—to defend their airspace and push US forces out of reach; ballistic and cruise missiles along with strike aircraft to attack US regional bases and naval forces; hardened facilities to limit damage from strikes; mobile systems to make the US targeting problem more difficult; attack submarines to interdict sea lines of communication; and cyber attacks to disrupt planning and operations. The combination of these capabilities creates what is known as the anti-access, area-denial (A2/AD) environment.

As we move further into the 21st century, we are experiencing a transition of not just time but also capability—capability that will allow for a paradigm shift in the role aircraft will play in meeting US security needs for the remainder of the century. Since the last B-2A bomber was produced in 1993 we have undergone approximately 15 Moore’s Law cycles (i.e., computer processing power doubling about every 2 Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies 18 months), resulting in an exponential increase in electronic capability with a phenomenal decrease in cost to achieve equal capability. This means that today we can incorporate sensors, processing capacity, and avionics in a single aircraft at an affordable cost to an unprecedented degree

What we previously labeled as “bombers” can play dramatically broader roles than they ever did in the past. To capture this potential, however, requires innovative thought and shedding anachronistic concepts that aircraft can only perform singular functions and missions. The era of specialized aircraft is over, as technology has moved on and resource constraints have grown. The information age allows new aircraft to become much more than just “bombers” or “fighters” but actually sensor-shooter aircraft. When integrated with other system “nodes” in every domain—air, space, land, and sea—they will have the capability to create a “combat cloud,” a manifestation of a self-forming, self-healing intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR)-strike-maneuver-sustainment complex. The cloud has the potential to usher in an entirely new era in defense and to play a crucial role in the “third offset strategy” discussed later in this paper.

Pentagon envisions “combat cloud” as force multiplier for shrinking fleet

The new LRSS aircraft was determined to be a central element in the emerging combat cloud family of systems proposed by Pentagon planners. The critical attributes of the new long-range sensor-shooter are its combination of long-range, large payload, high survivability, and versatility to adapt to new developments. These capabilities makes the system uniquely suited to dealing with the challenges posed by the evolving security environment:

• Long Range provides the ability to respond rapidly, flexibly, and globally; to strike from bases outside the enemy threat envelope; to reach deep into enemy territory and hold any target at risk; to use tanker assets efficiently; to provide persistent attack; and to find and attack both fixed and mobile targets.

• Large Payload provides a “deep magazine” for persistence at long range in an A2/AD environment; increases the capacity of the Air Force to deliver a mix of weapons (including heavy munitions), especially at long range; enables operations at long range with a relatively small, efficient number of aircraft; and permits the destruction of hardened and deeply buried targets.

• High Survivability (involving stealth, tactics, and electronic warfare) enables bombers to enter heavily defended airspace and attack the enemy’s most highly valued targets without suffering prohibitive losses; greatly reduces the requirement for supporting aircraft and tankers; facilitates the operations of other aircraft by destroying enemy air defenses so that friendly, nonstealthy aircraft can operate; enables the use of direct-attack munitions, far more cost-effective than standoff weapons; and places a far greater burden on the enemy defense than nonstealthy aircraft.

• Versatility allows for adaption to new developments, including new threats; for incorporating new technology, such as directed energy weapons, application of effects in the cyber domain, advances in electronic warfare, and kinetic weapons; and for accommodating expanding computer processing power and the new sensor and shooter capabilities associated with that expansion.

 

[CougarKing]

200 future bombers?

Defense News

Advocates Call For 200 Next-Generation Bombers
By Lara Seligman 6:05 p.m. EST November 18, 2015

WASHINGTON — Lawmakers and analysts renewed calls Wednesday for the Pentagon to build significantly more next-generation bombers than currently planned, arguing that the Air Force needs a fleet of 200 advanced bombers to project power in a more dangerous world.

In study released today by the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Moeller made the case for the Pentagon to procure a modernized bomber force of 200 aircraft by 2045.

“America desperately needs to rebuild its bomber force, starting with the [Long Range Strike Bomber] and then moving forward,” Moeller said. “100 new bombers, the analysis finds, is not enough.”

(...SNIPPED)

 

[CougarKing]

It's official: the LRS-B is now called the Northrop Grumman B-21!

Combat Aircraft Monthly

News: B-21 revealed as new USAF bomber

Published 26 February 2016, 14:12

Secretary of the US Air Force Deborah Lee James has revealed an artist impression and designation of the LRS-B. Inviting people to name the new bomber during her speech at the Air Force Association Air Warfare Symposium.

The public disclosure of B-21 follows the US Government Accountability Office denying Boeing’s protest over the award of the $60 billion LRS-B contract award to Northrop Grumman. The decision was announced on February 16 following a 100-day review.
Boeing said it will review its legal options to continue its protest.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[Journeyman]

It's official: the LRS-B is now called the Northrop Grumman B-21!

B-2

I wonder how much $$ was spent on R&D to come up with such an... innovative... design. 

 

[MarkOttawa]

Or as a friend puts it: B-2.1 ;D.

Mark Collins

 

[MarkOttawa]

North American XB-21 Dragon:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_XB-21

Lost out to Douglas B-18 Bolo which RCAF acquired as Digby:

http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_bombers/b18.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[CougarKing]

The B21 in jeopardy?

McCain Threatens To Block New Air Force Bomber
By Joe Gould and Lara Seligman, Defense News
February 25, 2016


WASHINGTON and ORLANDO - The powerful chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. John McCain, told reporters Thursday he would not authorize the Air Force's Long Range Strike-Bomber so long as it was procured using a cost-plus contract - a contracting vehicle he has railed at in the past.

McCain's comments came ahead of a formal, closed briefing during which Air Force officials will brief the committee on LRS-B, a top general told Defense News.

The Air Force pointed out in a statement following McCain's remarks that the LRS-B contract, awarded to Northrop Grumman Oct. 27, will actually be divided into two parts: one cost-plus and one firm fixed price. For the first phase, engineering and manufacturing development, the contract has been set up to be cost-plus with incentives; the second part, for initial production of the first five lots of aircraft, will be firm fixed price. Those first five lots will cover the production of 21 bombers.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[MarkOttawa]

Note low-frequency radar issue:

America's Lethal New B-21 vs. the B-2 Stealth Bomber

With the U.S. Air Force revealing concept art and a designation for its shadowy Northrop Grumman B-21 Long Range Strike-Bomber (LRS-B) last week, there are many details that we can now glean about the new warplane.

First and foremost, the new B-21 looks very similar to its B-2 Spirit predecessor. In fact, the new aircraft look startlingly similar to the original Advanced Strategic Penetration Aircraft (ASPA) and the later Advanced Technology Bomber concept from the 1980s that ultimately resulted in the B-2. But the Spirit was redesigned late in the game to operate at low altitudes after Dr. Paul Kaminski’s—current chairman of the Defense Science Board—Red Team cautioned that the B-2 might have to resort to low-level penetration as the Soviets built new, more capable radars—as legendary Aviation Week journalist Bill Sweetman points out in his book “Inside the Stealth Bomber.” The redesign caused a decrease in range and payload, as well as a larger radar cross-section.

If the current B-21 design is truly representative of the direction the Air Force is taking, the new aircraft will take the B-2’s all-aspect stealth design to the next level. Particularly, the B-21’s low observable design will be more effective against low frequency radars operating in the UHF and VHF bands, which are increasingly coming into vogue as a means to counter stealth aircraft. Indeed, as then Air Force chief of staff Gen. Norton Schwartz told the House Armed Services Committee in 2012, even the B-2 is starting to lose its ability penetrate hostile airspace. “The technology on which they were designed with respect to signature management . . . is ‘80s vintage,” Schwartz told the committee, adding, “the reality is that the B-2 over time is going to become less survivable in contested airspace.”

The B-21 design—which is similar to the original high-attitude optimized B-2 design—is built to counter the low frequency radars that can detect and track tactical fighter-sized stealth aircraft. Unlike an F-22 or F-35, which are designed to operate in an environment where the enemy might be aware of their presence, the B-2 and B-21 are designed to avoid detection altogether. Basically, the B-21 (and B-2 to an extent)—with its large flying-wing design—reduces its low frequency radar cross-section to the point where it blends in with the background noise inherent to those UHF/VHF band systems. That’s similar in concept to how a submarine hides in the background noise of the ocean. But—like all stealth aircraft—it will not be invisible. Stealth is not a cloak of invisibility, after all. Stealth technology simply delays detection and tracking.

While the Air Force’s rendering of the B-21 gives us some clues as to the configuration of the new aircraft, most of its other parameters remain unknown. The B-21’s size and payload will largely be determined by whatever propulsion system is readily available to power it. Given that the LRS-B is slated to enter into service in the mid-2020s, the aircraft will necessarily have to use an existing engine design. Moreover, that engine must have a profile conducive to a stealth aircraft...
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/americas-lethal-new-b-21-vs-the-b-2-stealth-bomber-15352

Read on.

Mark Collins

 

[CougarKing]

Over 200 B-21s in the USAF's future?

Defense News

House Lawmakers Want Air Force To Consider Buying More B-21 Bombers
Lara Seligman, Defense News 10:12 a.m. EDT April 20, 2016

WASHINGTON — As advocates call on the Pentagon to buy as many as 200 next-generation bombers to counter growing threats, House legislation released this week urged the Air Force to take another look at how many B-21s commanders really need.

Both top military officials and experts outside the Pentagon have recommended the Air Force buy more than the 100 planned Northrop Grumman B-21 bombers to ensure enough aircraft are available to meet combatant commander requirements, according to the House Armed Services Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee’s markup of the 2017 defense policy bill, released Tuesday.


(...SNIPPED)

 

[CougarKing]

Would one of the moderators please merge T6's thread titled Should the B-21 be unmanned? with this thread? Since they are both on the same B-21 bomber topic.

Defense News

Air Force Digs Its Heels In On Bomber Cost Secrecy
Valerie Insinna, Defense News 3:38 p.m. EDT June 22, 2016


WASHINGTON — The Air Force official charged with managing the B-21 program reaffirmed that the service has no plans to disclose the overall contract value, contending that publicizing the figure would give U.S. adversaries too much insight into the program.

Despite congressional pressure to release the total value of contracts awarded to Northrop Grumman for B-21 development and production, the service maintains that doing so could compromise the secrecy of the classified program, said Randall Walden, program executive officer of the Air Force’s Rapid Capabilities Office. The office is responsible for procuring the bomber and other classified weapons systems.

“Releasing that [data], releasing other things that may be more insightful to our adversaries, I don’t think helps the taxpayer and I don't think it helps — certainly — the warfighter,” he said during a Tuesday event hosted by the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies. “All we're doing is putting in that risk and we're showing our hand of what we believe this nation and the states' workers can deliver this particular weapon system for.”

(...SNIPPED)

 

[MarkOttawa]

New nuke ALCM also for B-52, B2:

USAF reaches milestone A on nuclear cruise missile

The US Air Force has released a classified request for proposals to industry for the replacement of the nuclear air launched cruise missile, known as the Long Range Standoff Weapon.

The Pentagon approved Milestone A, or entry into the TMRR phase, on 28 July, USAF spokeswoman Leah Bryant said in a 29 July email to FlightGlobal. With its 29 July RFP release, the service and the Pentagon have reached the milestone A decision just before their projected August date. The USAF had expected to reach that milestone by the end of June, but the Pentagon’s top acquisition chief Frank Kendall delayed the decision after he asked the service to re-examine the cost of the missile body.

The classified RFP details the contract requirements and proposal instructions for the LRSO’s technology maturation and risk reduction phase, the air force said in a statement Friday. A maximum of two contracts will be awarded in the fourth quarter of Fiscal 2017, the USAF states.

“After receipt of industry proposals, the air force will conduct a source selection and award contracts to up to two prime contractors,” the USAF states. “The prime contractors will execute a 54-month effort to complete a preliminary design with demonstrated reliability and manufacturability, which will be followed by a competitive down-select to a single contractor.”

The service projects production by 2026 and could field the weapon by 2030, Gen. Robin Rand, chief of Air Force Global Strike Command, told this US Senate earlier this year. The air force has plans to purchase 1,000 LRSOs to replace the legacy AGM-86B air-launched cruise missile, and employ them on the B-52, Northrop B-2 and next-generation B-21 bomber.

Although the LRSO has faced some political headwinds from Democrats in the US Congress, efforts to thwart Fiscal 2017 funding for the weapon and the life-extension program of the W-80 warhead, which will be fielded on the new missile, have proved futile.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-reaches-milestone-a-on-nuclear-cruise-missile-428037/

Mark
Ottawa