Next generation bomber

[a_majoor]

The USAF is looking at a new bomber to fill the capability gaps that are sure to open as the B-1 and B-52 get older (and to supplement the very limited numbers of B-2s). From a financial and political point of view this is probably a non starter, but we actually need an aircraft like this more than a fighter since we are in the business of projecting force. (I suppose you could fill the weapons bay with long range AAM's if you really want to provide CAP over the North American continent as well).

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

 
Boeing's New Bomber
Posted by Bill Sweetman at 9/16/2008 6:30 AM CDT

On show at the Air Force Association convention:  Boeing's model of the Next Generation Bomber.

The NGB program got a strong boost here from USAF chief of staff Gen. Norton Schwartz. "It's very important. We face increasingly lethal and difficult threats, and it's a vital program. We're going to make a strong, fact-based argument for the NGB as we move into the spring and summer of 2009," Schwartz said, indicating that it will be a high priority as the USAF prepares for the next quadrennial defense review (QDR), due in early 2010.

Boeing's blended-wing-body design is "not a cartoon, it's representative of what we're doing," according to Boeing Advanced Systems president Darryl Davis.

The new design is very different from Northrop Grumman's studies, with a large diamond-shaped centerbody mated to long, slender wings. Davis dropped some hints, too, about Phantom Works research into laminar flow control. Some way of keeping the airflow over the upper surface smooth would make an enormous difference to the drag of the body, while the outer wings are slender enough to sustain laminar flow naturally, like a sailplane.

The head-on aspect is ominous, with a tiny windshield and slit-like inlets - but a close look shows enough depth for a large weapon bay. "You want to make the aircraft as efficient and small as you can," says Davis, with "extreme survivability".

Despite its radical looks, Davis says that the new bomber would not require new technology. The watchword, he says, is "integration, not invention."

Northrop Grumman, too, showed a model representing its bomber studies, albeit one seen before:

Noteworthy is the fact that the "cranked kite" shape yields a relatively long center-section, easing engine integration and making room for a large weapon bay.

 

[belka]

but we actually need an aircraft like this more than a fighter since we are in the business of projecting force.

What?

IMO, Canada will never need a long-rang bomber. They are mostly used for first-strike missions when invading another country, the USA usually takes care of that. What we really need is a CAS aircraft/fighter.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

(I suppose you could fill the weapons bay with long range AAM's if you really want to provide CAP over the North American continent as well).

Didn't one of Dale Brown's books do with with a B52 fitted with AMRAAMs or a similiar missile?

 

[MrWhyt]

Didn't one of Dale Brown's books do with with a B52 fitted with AMRAAMs or a similiar missile?

Pretty much all of his books do. But Megafortress is the one specifically about a pimped out B-52.

 

[McG]

They [long-rang bombers] are mostly used for first-strike missions when invading another country ...

You are absolutely right.  With its large payload and long loiter time, the B-52 is useless for anything other than a "first-strike missions when invading another country" and it has never been the platform to support troops in contact in Afghanistan. :

 

[aesop081]

They are mostly used for first-strike missions when invading another country,

Stick to fixing planes.......

 

[belka]

You are absolutely right.  With its large payload and long loiter time, the B-52 is useless for anything other than a "first-strike missions when invading another country" and it has never been the platform to support troops in contact in Afghanistan. :

All that comes with a large price tag and that's why Canada will never buy them.

 

[George Wallace]

Whooosh!

Right over his head.

 

[GAP]

You are absolutely right.  With its large payload and long loiter time, the B-52 is useless for anything other than a "first-strike missions when invading another country" and it has never been the platform to support troops in contact in Afghanistan. :

..

I beg to differ.....They dropped them right where we wanted them outside the wire at Khe San.....beautiful!! 

 

[George Wallace]

I think you missed the little guy at the end of that post......

 

[a_majoor]

What we really need is a CAS aircraft/fighter.

We actually need lots of planes. This airframe would come with a fairly sophisticated sensor suite, the ability to take lots of off board data, a large weapons bay and long range/loiter time. Patrolling our coasts and the arctic would be possible tasks (and remember the AVRO Arrow pioneered the concept of carrying AAM's in a large internal weapons bay); potential enemies would have a hard time spotting the patrols while the 8hr + flights would be a lot more comfortable for the crews than a CF-18. Long range AAM's move faster than most fighters and can pull more "G" than any human, and I am sure many sorts of sensors and anti-ship or submarine munitions could be carried by such an aircraft as well. This treats the aircraft as the weapons platform or truck and leave the dirty work to the weapons.

As for the bomb truck role, that is pretty self explanatory, and ISAF troops can already tell us the utility of having B-1 or B-52's overhead. The potential for a large buy with economies of scale are there if we want it.

Like I said, there are external factors which speak against us going this route, so I will rest this as interesting speculation (and hope the USAF zoomies will be getting these in good time to support their allies).

 

[Love793]

I'm just picturing the look on a Bear crews face if a BUFF made the intercept over the pole.

 

[TCBF]

... and hope the USAF zoomies will be getting these in good time to support their allies).

- I like an air force with four letters.  Since the RCAF does not exist anymore, USAF is just fine. 

- Know who my air force is? Whoever is in the "air stack" above me.  You wan't to be my air force? Get yer arse in the air stack...

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

As for the bomb truck role, that is pretty self explanatory, and ISAF troops can already tell us the utility of having B-1 or B-52's overhead. The potential for a large buy with economies of scale are there if we want it.

And how would they do evading AA fire, whether by guns or missiles?

 

[dapaterson]

And how would they do evading AA fire, whether by guns or missiles?

High altitudes, reduced Radar Cross Section, ECM, and anti-radar missiles.  Much like current AC.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

High altitudes, reduced Radar Cross Section, ECM, and anti-radar missiles.  Much like current AC.

In the hypothetical situation of a bomber taking over from a fighter type aircraft?

 

[dapaterson]

Even most fighters are now engaging ground targets from significant altitudes - a 500lb bomb with laser or other precision guidance can be dropped from 20 000' or more.

The only AC that routinely go low and slow are the A-10s - which is why they're among the best close support AC, and are always on the USAF list of cuts (and note that there's nothing coming online anytime soon that can replace its capabilities).

 

[thunderchild]

Those pic's are the B-3 or just a concept?  Hers a laugh lets bring back the Avro Vulcan!

 

[aesop081]

Those pic's are the B-3 or just a concept? 

Concepts for the 2018 bomber

Hers a laugh lets bring back the Avro Vulcan!

:

 

[a_majoor]

In the hypothetical situation of a bomber taking over from a fighter type aircraft?

For that sort of role the platform would use its stealth capabilities to remain unobserved, and accept data from off board sensors (another aircraft can use radar while the platform receives the radar echo, the platform can verify with its on board passive sensors etc.), and then unleash a salvo of AAM's at the target if required. The pilot would then prudently pull away at the high port after revealing his platform's position.

Since over the high arctic the target might be a "Bear", long range UAV or cruise missile, the platform's ability to dogfight would not be in question, while the size of the weapons bay ensures the platform would be carrying the AAM load of an entire flight of F-18 fighters. Even in the case of contested airspace, an aerial "gunboat" carrying large loads of AAMs could be a valuable addition to the more conventional fighters in the team.