This article first appeared in Aviation Week’s Ares Weblog.
DTI reports this month that Northrop Grumman has won a classified Air Force contract to develop a secret bomber prototype. Naturally, nobody’s confirming this on the record, but we present strong evidence that such a project is under way.
Ares has reported on this development before. I summarized the evidence pointing to a black-project bomber in October, tracing both the evolution of requirements and the money trail from the demise of the Joint Unmanned Combat Aircraft System in 2006 to the USAF’s bomber project.
Later in the month, I reported on Northrop Grumman CEO Ron Sugar’s public enthusiasm for classified programs, including the fact that he directly tied the company’s acquisition of Scaled Composites to advanced aircraft programs. In February I pointed out the lack of visible funding for the Next Generation Bomber in 2008–2010.
More specifically, too, Sugar identified restricted programs as the company’s top new business opportunity for 2008. That comment alone indicated the size of the business that the company was looking at, because — in the white world — the company was competing for BAMS, itself a billion-dollar contract.
As a consequence, those of us who look at these things carefully had our ears pricked up for any indications of progress on this front, and were rewarded on April 26 when Northrop Grumman issued its first-quarter financial results. Discreetly hidden on Schedule 5: “The company was awarded approximately $2.6 billion for restricted programs during this period.” The results also showed that the only Northrop Grumman sector showing an increase in backlog on that scale, from March 31 2007 to March 31 2008, was Integrated Systems, the aircraft segment. So it is there in black and white that Northrop Grumman got more than $2 billion for a secret aircraft program or programs in the first quarter.
Now, consider the late-January announcement from Boeing and Lockheed Martin that they were teaming on NGB. I pointed out on Ares at the time that (contrary to what some analysts said) this looked like a defensive move. I’d say that we now have a pretty good idea about what triggered it.
Covering black programs is a combination of reporting and intelligence, and the “mosaic” is a vital concept: like an archaeologist rebuilding a mosaic, you put the pieces together in a pattern that makes sense. In this case, all the indicators (funds, programs, hints dropped by Pentagon officials) point to the NGB having evolved from J-UCAS, which fragmented in late 2005 because the USAF saw it as a bigger aircraft than the Navy.
If that’s the case, there are many reasons (read the DTI story) to expect that the airplane’s going to look something like a big X-47B.
– Bill Sweetman with Aviation Week’s Ares Weblog
Read the rest of this story, a rif on set it and forget it sensors, the Gripen flies! and French roadside bomb practice videos from our Aviation Week friends on Military.com.
Baloney. They’ve reported claims like this before, which have turned out to be completely bogus. Didn’t the Aviation Week’s weblog supprt the claim that the Air Force “may have retired” a secret orbital spaceplane? The problem with reporting secret projects is that they are secret, and I am highly sceptical that you can conclude that they have been awarded a secret bomber contract based on financial reports, escpecially since the Air Force announced their desire for a new bomber fairly recently.
Oh, and 2.6 billion dollars might sound like alot, but it is not nearly enough to fund a bomber program. A single B-2 stealth bomber costs roughly two billion dollars. The BAMS contract may have been a billion dollar program, but that was for building a few “cheap” UAVs, not expensive high-tech bombers.
“secret bomber” LOL, apparently not
C4Casey, comparing this program to the B-2 doesn’t make much sense. The B-2 was revolutionary, while the point of the NGB is to reduce costs with a smaller less complicated aircraft. Composites are becoming the norm. The $20-$40 billion typically spent on advanced aircraft development is spread over 10 years or so.
I think $2 billion represents a significant investment, well beyond the design and planning stage, they are building this thing right now, most certain.
I agree with Jeff M, especially considering the likelihood that the platform might very well be autonomous … fewer systems, lower pricetag.
I’m with JeffM on this; a few billion dollars can do alot of prototyping, alot of studies, especially if the work is essentially derivative (no hypersonic flight, using time-tested current stealth tech).
Doesn’t make it TRUE, but then again, doesn’t disqualify it on the face of the claim.
Are we really going to use the B-52 for almost a century? I’m guessing it will be aluminum shreds long before that. Either we start building bombers off of commercial airframes (787 with a payload bay, perhaps) or we need something new. The AF would be deficient if they weren’t looking ahead to future needs. Of course, 2.6bn would get you about one nose wheel of a modern military aircraft…
The B-52 will out live us all. You have to realize that it was “overbuilt” for a specific mission, then modified for low level flight. This created a bomber that can fly circles around today’s disposable bombers.
The B-52 also show us a failing in the airforce thought. Making super high tech bombers is fine and great, but when you get down to actual missions, you do not need all the stealth and ecm. We should have a bunch of workhorse “B-52’s” for heavy bombing in low to medium threat environments and a few high end bombers for the for the high threat environments.
Ah Rix, while a 747 bomber does have practical advantages, the reason we don’t have any is because if the United States used 747’s to drop bombs, no airline in the world would want to purchase 747’s for commercial flight, you’d get protests and stuff. Even if we used a C-17 to drop bombs, no country would want us airlifting humanitarian support in with our war machines. The C-17 is just a cargo lift.
You can’t honestly tell me you beleive a new bomber program is going to be cheaper than the B2? I guess no-one buys in to the hyper-velocity idea? Sounds expensive to me…
It really depends on the requirements for the new bomber. Last I checked, the Air Force had not made any official decision (at least in public) regarding what role the new bomber would fill.
$2.6 billion is certainly enough money to begin moving forward rapidly on a new design. Remember, the only reason the B-2s cost $2 billion each was because we only bought 20 of them. That’s $40 billion spent on building a stealth bomber from the ground up. If this new bomber utilizes proven technologies, and is not forced to fulfill 1000 different roles (like the F-22), it could be produced at a much lower cost per plane. The $2.6 billion doesn’t have to pay for the whole program — remember, this is just payment for one year.
“Even if we used a C-17 to drop bombs, no country would want us airlifting humanitarian support in with our war machines. The C-17 is just a cargo lift.“
If that’s the case then how did we manage to fly humanitarian aid into Myanmar in C-130’s then? After all, we use C-130’s for AC-130’s and straight C-130’s have been known to drop bombs, MOAB ring any bells? Yet in spite of that we seem to be able to use them for humanitarian aid missions just fine with nary a complaint.
Help me out here. What precisely would be the benefit to U.S. security from not disclosing the fact that it was spending $2.6 billion on a new bomber design.
To be clear, I’m not doubting the suggestion that it is, and that it would want to do so if it was doing so, but I just don’t get their motive.
How would threats to U.S. security act any different if they went public? Spys, for example, already know who the major defense contractors are, so the list of potential espionage targets wouldn’t be much different.
One wouldn’t, obviously, want to disclose detailed capabilities that could be defeated, but it is hard to imagine any counter-defense to the general idea of a next generation long distance bomber that current U.S. capabilities don’t already require them to take. Only Russia rivals the U.S. in that kind of capability right now.
“If that’s the case then how did we manage to fly humanitarian aid into Myanmar in C-130’s then? After all, we use C-130’s for AC-130’s and straight C-130’s have been known to drop bombs, MOAB ring any bells? Yet in spite of that we seem to be able to use them for humanitarian aid missions just fine with nary a complaint.“
Good point, I am not sure about the C-130, it is an older plane that serves multiple purposes. I’m still sticking to my point about 747 bombers though, they would at least have to change a lot about the plane, maybe take the wings back and get rid of the hump, call it something else.
Regarding the 747-bomber comments, I don’t think we’re going to invade China with the American Airlines logo still stenciled on the tail. However, in a low surface to air threat warzone, the B-52 isn’t much more than a bomb truck. Doing close air support at 30,000 feet, it is slow, non-stealthy, and I doubt its ECM gets much exercise. The B-52 is a giant plane, with an insanely long loiter time, and circles the battlefield dropping dozens of JDAMs. Why not a 7X7-style aircraft to replace it?
On an unrelated note, way to take a beautiful aircraft like the B-2 and make a retarded looking cousin for it..one ugly as hell plane right there.
JP, keep in mind that these images were created by a non-Northrop Grumman artist, who derived the air vehicle configuration from official publicly released Northrop Grumman imagery. That imagery in itself is probably disinformation. Considering that the real air vehicle concept is secret, do you think they’ll let YOU take a look at it? Fat chance. Any air vehicle that is actually being developed probably looks nothing like this. I myself think that this configuration looks pretty cool.
Together and he is not a very long time, but I feel very comfortable. He was sometime as a child, lovely, simple, not too many worries, likes a fish in a pure travel freely in the sea. He often took his only cheap GW gold send to me. His world simple, but he is happy.
During the time pass, my union was larger; my union members are very solidarity, when some people have difficult, we all go to help. I also remembered once a people
I felt you seems not as me to your wife, you called me wife is very rarely, although you often send rohan money to me. Every time you ask me, as I am very happy. I really think you are me, just my own, I do not want you leave me. I am afraid you forget me. I slowly understand, sister and brother in law why they will love so painful, why sister in the final will be sad to leave.
And I apply a new number, I prepared to play with her, upgrade and earn cheap rappelz rupees together. I felt she is a good girl, I decided I must change myself for her. Later, we often played together, and we are very happy. She also became my wife. But after a few time, I met many things, I was very sad, and I did not spent a long time to play the game. I did not often to play with her. Finally, I said to her, I will leave the game. I let her find another husband. She was very sad, when I left the game, she also left.
seo???
???
???????????
???????
??????