[EDITOR’S NOTE: A little late from our partners at Aviation Week, but I wanted to get this out by the end of the year]
The $2-billion question in development of a new bomber is whether a major black-world demonstration program is already underway, with Northrop Grumman as the contractor.
This hypothesis makes sense of a series of clues that have appeared since 2005. In that year, Scott Winship, program manager for Northrop Grumman’s X-47 unmanned combat aircraft system (UCAS), mentioned that the company—responding to a U.S. Air Force interest in a bigger version of the then-ongoing Joint UCAS project—had proposed an X-47C with very long endurance, a 10,000-lb.-plus weapon load and a 172-ft. wingspan, the same as a B-2. The idea was to match extreme endurance with a “deep magazine”—a large and diverse weapon load for multiple attacks on different types of target. Soon after, in the Fiscal 2007 budget, the J-UCAS program was terminated. While the Navy continued with the X-47B—now undergoing tests before a first flight in early 2010—it was reported that USAF funds were transferred into a classified program. The service also introduced a budget line-item for a Next Generation Bomber (NGB), but the program had no visible funds for Fiscal 2008-10.
During 2007, Northrop Grumman leaders hinted that the company expected to win a major restricted program. A financial report in early 2008 then disclosed a $2-billion surge in backlog at the company’s Integrated Systems division—just after Boeing and Lockheed Martin agreed to join forces on an NGB proposal.
Since that time, sources in Washington and elsewhere have reported that the company did win a demonstrator program for a large stealthy platform, and that the program has survived the budget cuts announced in April 2009.
A possibly related development is the construction of a large new hangar at the USAF’s flight-test center at Groom Lake, Nev. Unlike other buildings on the secluded site, it is screened from the closest public viewing point by a specially constructed berm.
The most likely focus of a flight-demonstrator program would be on the aerodynamic and aero-propulsion aspects of a very stealthy flying-wing design. The B-2 was designed in the earliest days of computational fluid dynamics (CFD), before the complex 3D airflows over an all-wing aircraft could be simulated properly, and represented a low-risk trade between aerodynamics and signatures. Thirty years later, vastly more powerful computing makes it possible to design shapes with better signatures and higher efficiency that nearly ensure they will work in the wind tunnel and in flight. However, a large-scale flying demonstrator can incorporate engine inlet and exhaust effects in the design and evaluate stability and control.
High-altitude performance could be another goal. The Air Force does not regard the B-2 as survivable in daylight because of the risk of visual detection by a fighter aircraft. The B-2 cruises at the same altitude as most fighters and can be caught in the best position for visual detection—silhouetted against the horizon. A high-altitude aircraft operating at 60,000 ft. or above is less likely to be in this position, and the sky above it is dark.
Using a version of Northrop Grumman’s “cranked kite” configuration—designed to be scalable and adaptable to different flight regimes—a new bomber could be around half the weight of the B-2, but about equal in centerline length, allowing it to carry the same types of weapons, possibly up to the size of the 30,000-lb. Boeing-developed Massive Ordnance Penetrator, intended to destroy hardened and deeply buried targets.
Northrop Grumman’s development of an NGB could be facilitated by its work on B-2 upgrades. Improvements being developed for B-2 include changes to the bomber’s rotary weapons launcher, allowing it to carry mixed loads of weapons ranging from Small-Diameter Bombs to 2,000-lb. class bombs; a new Ku-band active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, with the potential for extremely high ground resolution; and stealth-compatible high-rate satcoms systems.
Bomber supporters have mooted the idea of building and deploying a new bomber/ISR (intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) aircraft in phases. An initial version could be manned, powered by versions of existing engines, and use off-the-shelf sensors and avionics. Later aircraft could be unmanned or optionally piloted and powered by advanced engines, improving altitude performance or supplying power to directed-energy weapons for self-defense or attack.
Stealth will be very important to a bomber/ISR platform, and a key advantage compared to low-observable (LO) fighters. According to experts familiar with UCAS programs, blended wing-body and flying-wing shapes offer two unique attributes. First, they can provide all-aspect stealth, with low signatures from the side as well as in the front and rear aspects, whereas more conventional designs (like the F-22 and F-35) have a characteristic “bow-tie” radar cross-section (RCS) plot with peaks to the sides, associated with the body sides and vertical tails. Flying wings also feature “broadband” stealth: at lower radar frequencies, the wingtips, tails and other small parts of a conventional aircraft have dimensions in the same magnitude as the radar wavelength and therefore have a “resonant” RCS that is largely unaffected by shaping or materials. Recently, both Russia and China have unveiled modernized versions of VHF radars, touting their counterstealth performance.
ISR capability would be inherent in a new-technology strike aircraft. Characteristics such as long endurance, wide-band active and passive radio-frequency sensors, and LO-compatible high-bandwidth satcoms are essential for both missions.
Another major issue is whether the new bomber should be nuclear-capable. Analyst Barry Watts, in a February 2009 paper for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, argued that four conventional requirements were the strongest justification for a new bomber: missions requiring a sufficient radius of action from the last air-refueling point to reach targets deep in defended airspace; conflicts in which there is a need to strike targets at intercontinental distances; missions requiring the survivability to persist in defended airspace in order to prosecute time-sensitive targets; and operations in which U.S. forces must have a radius of action beyond the reach of enemy weapons.
Watts saw a need for nuclear missions only in the case of limited, controlled nuclear options against a regional threat and suggested only a moderate degree of electromagnetic pulse hardening.
– From Aviation Week’s Bill Sweetman
{ 39 comments… read them below or add one }
It will be a great day when all children go to private school, and the money saved used to buy new bombers.
“deep magazine”—a large and diverse weapon load for multiple attacks on different types of target
I said this was needed before and I am glad to see that they are taking this into consideration. A 'deep magazine' will be useful in an all out war against a modern enemy and in an insurgency war like the one we are fighting in Afghanistan.
I wonder if this new bomber will be made in TWO versions- manned, and a UAV version….
Think about it. Manned version for nuclear and special strikes, and unmanned for most missions. Instead of designing two seperate airframes, consolidate design efforts and gain economy of scale so the new bombers can be bought in suitably large quantities.
UAV version sounds like another good option to avoid pilot fatigue, especially for long duration operations and a mitigated risk to military personnel…so long as they actually encrypt any and all transmissions going to and from this UAV. ; )
Do we really need what is effectively an unmanned B-2? $2bln for a demonstrator, not a production aircraft… I file this under yet another one-off DARPA wet dream. That $2bln could be better spent elsewhere at this point. Since the buzzword seems to be 'unmanned' where are the programs for converting existing, proven platforms to unmanned use? The weight savings of taking out much of the 'human payload' support equipment alone could make it worthwhile.
One possibility is that they will incorporate the unmanned capability so that on long endurance missions, the pilot can set the control to the UAV software and allow them to arrive at the target area rested. They would only have to wake up to refuel and when they are on approach to the target or near an adversary's airspace.
Yeah, they already have that system. Its called AUTO PILOT. Sperry invented it in 1917. Commercial pilots use it when the screw the air hostesses.
Pete, normal flight crew operations mean at least one of them is at the controls at all times.
Yeah, but they still leave the aircraft on Autopilot. Ohterwise the aircraft would do a barrel role everytime the pilot farted.
They already have a an automonous bomber that has stealth abilities and can carry nuclear weapons. Its called a nuclear missle. Why spend Billions of $$$$ on your Chinese credit card for something that a DC-3 with stand off GPS guided bombs can deliver to the 'terrorist' in third world countries whose only air defence is an RPG-7 with a cut down fuse.
Remember 3 X B-2s cost the same as a $6,000,000,000 aircraft carrier. At $2.200,000,000 for each B2, the cost of the 'new' bomber will be 35 x more expensive. A B-17 cost $3.6 million (adjusted to 2007 $) a B-29 cost $11.4 million, a B-52 $73 million. You are going to have to ask your Chinese bankers for a huge increase in your credit card limit to pay for it. Your kids are already going to have to pay of the existing balance, now you want to have thier kid's kid's up to thier arses in dept as well.
Its like the same mistake the Nazis made building useless 'high tech' V-2 rockets that cost as mush as Three Panther tanks each and took longer to build and consumed valuble strategic metals they desperetly needed for other proper weapons.
Stick to chosing what 'camo' fashion to impress the Taliban with. Its cheaper, and it makes for better photo shots as you are filmed driving over the same bridge the Soviets did when they lost thier war there.
"Stick to chosing what 'camo' fashion to impress the Taliban with. Its cheaper, and it makes for better photo shots as you are filmed driving over the same bridge the Soviets did when they lost thier war there."
Now that is pure comedy… even more so that it's true.
hOW COOL A NEW HIGH DOLLAR WEAPON SYSTEM THAT WILL FLY WITHOUT A PERSON ONBOARD. JUST WANT WE NEED. ANYTHING THAT CAN FLY AND FIGHT WITHOUT PUT A PERSON IN HARM WAY IS GREAT.
What is really needed is an unmanned bombtruck. Basically a next gen B-52, a simple, reliable, ridiculously unexpensive and yet useful enough workhorse for meniable bombing tasks once surface to air or air to air threats are low. For this task there is no need for ultra high tech and ultra expensive sci-fi bombers that will allow you to have only a handful of planes instead of a large fleet of bombtrucks pummeling down the enemy. This is not like the F-22 where 'first kill' is the key, but a simple task of dropping ordnance like a truck and keeping it easy and cheap. And we all know that it is not possible to do that with B2-like bombers.
$2 billion my eye, that wouldn't even cover the paperwork.
The part that I find unlikely is that both manned and unmanned versions can be developed, for essentially the same R&D dollars. My bet would be that it'll be manned, because this investment is simply too big and expensive, and the science of semi-autonomous UAV flight a bit too new, for anyone to feel comfortable with an airframe of this cost. And why no EMP hardening? The assumption that this' ll only matter in a nuclear -weapons role is unfounded; lots of money is being spent on EMP weapon R&D and an air-to-air EMP weapon within the platform's operational lifespan is quite likely.
I dissagree about unmanned being to new.
The only role that I believe still should be done by people in the cockpit is a fighter jet. A bomber has a simple role, and can easily be done with it being unmanned. of course their will be someone in front of a computer to hit a weapon release button…but other then that, all unmanned.
So I dont think their is a need to spend more money to make this in 2 versions (manned & unmanned).
the only reason to have this size and shape is to be a penetrator of heavily defended targets.
This will be another b-2. a multi billion stealth bomber that is to expensive to risk on the heavily defended targets that might merit such a vehicle.
In the meantime, a b-52 has plenty of carrying capacity.
UAV it?
Seriously, what in the world justifies this? I would much rather have a flight of b-52;'s launching LR missiles at 400nm out. much cheaper. much safer.
two things to start
active radar on a stealth aircraft really defeats the purpose of stealth. if you want to do E-Warfare the most effective way bolt your electronics into a DHC-6. every aero engineer knows this. if it has any active electronics then they were added by a marketing team.
second, to the cost detractors: yes it is another B2. but it is a cheap B2 (at least by B2 standards) . expendabel rockets, used in the fashion you propose are either, unimaginably expensive, horribly imprecice, and/or easily countered in flight.
that out of the way I should point out few things. modern stealth aircraft will look nothing like the 'artist' 's rendering seen above. beyond being a flying wing it will also bear little resemblance to a B2. the final product will be fabricated from carbon fiber and have a much more organic shape. this avoids the aforementioned " "resonant" " radar effects. in fact, thanks to the recent development of electro/ferro fluids, don't be surprised if there are no conventional decelerons either.
remember thew stupid idea some idiots had about using conventionaly armed polaris nuclear missles launched from submarines, until russia and China made them back down as it was a sure fired way of starting WWIII. Now the fact remains, that the only countries that are gig enough to take on the US have, or will have nuclear weapons. Game ended,
The only thing that you can threaten with a conventional bomber are non-nuclear armed countries. OK, so you used the F-117 in Panama, when you hit an empty paddock near some barracks undetected. Well a Cessna 152 could have done the same job. In Grenada, well I am trying to think of what use a bomber could have been there.
The list of other countries worth bombing (that is, must be third world, non-nuclear armed, have LOTS of oil) is getting less by the day.
It seems the US's technology has exceded is sanity, or at the very least, its credit limit.
Before everyone gets too excited, remember this comes from the fertile (ahem) imagination of Bill Sweetman. Lots of CYA caveats in the speculative piece as seen in my hardcopy of Aviation Leak.
I agree 100%
What I miss in the consideration of future unmanned aircraft are the swarm benefits, ie. the ease with which numbers can be scaled once the software is mature enough.
Smaller aircraft built in greater numbers would allow for quick mixing of capabilities and a higher "damage" tolerance to the system. Also, imagine the network effects of having a recon / electronic attack / aa capability ring around the core, and maybe accompanying stealth tankers.
A manned command plane would be much safer too.
A ballistic missile is NOT a good alternative to this. Why? Think of it from the perspective of say Russia or China who watch for such things. A ballistic missile launch is detected in the US. They would immediately go to full alert posture as soon as one of our birds starts flying without us announcing it to them beforehand. Even then we just fired an ICBM. How long will they trust us if it gets closer and closer to their territory? Or even worse, has to fly over it to its intended target.
A new bomber is needed for a couple reasons. One is the B-2 was new technology when it was made, but since it can only fly at night for missions, it doesn't make it all weather capable. The B-1B has been flying missions more these days as has the B-52. The flight hours can take a toll on the airframes. Replace the B-2 with something like this and make them unmanned as an option.
The special interests and the retired mentors( of star rank) will be working for this program to happen.
Well, since there are a few who seem to insist on repeating nonsense….
PART 1:
RE: active radar on a stealth aircraft really defeats the purpose of stealth
Search the internet for "Low Probability of Intercept Radar"
Much more to come…..
The real problem with acquiring a new technology over the already proven is the enormous cost. One of a kind is not necessarily a waste of money it is just a pitiful waste of an opportunity. The real cost is in the testing; for many years the ability to develop a new weapon in the design room proved to be exactly as intended. Some time ago I worked on a project at White Sands Testing Grounds; the scientist's told me that the problem with cost overruns is the requirement Congress put on everything being developed must be proven with field tests, this is where the real money drain is; they don't build one of anything even test facilities. Take the F-35 virtually every test requirement was proven the first time tested and 50% of all the design configurations were like the F-22 Raptor, did anyone hear them speak of savings and discounts for the developing of the aircraft, no. I still am hearing about the huge cost of the F-35.
How does a craft that is built so much like the Raptor cost 5 to 10 times the cost to build that aircraft. Anything cost's so much more after the first time out but the price should drop off dramatically after the first few off the assembly line. Congress and the Senate will not bring that up because they are looking to find ways to stash the bleed over. Can it be said there is more technology in an Aircraft as apposed to an Aircraft Carrier………….the answer is no. Just because somebody has developed an Aircraft Carrier missle there is talk about abandoning the Carriers for Ballistic or Outerspace weapons that make the carriers expendable. The Carrier will never be abandoned as long as cooler heads runs the White House and the Defense Secretary; the Carrier is a chunk of our Sovereign Nation that is anywhere at anytime a trump card in any fight. I could go on more but I think I've made my point; you don't miss it until it is gone. The only way to protect our assets is to stay way ahead of the game, so far matching our capability is impossible unless we get another Clinton in the White House.
maybe sometime in the future-if we are not bankrupt by then…
Why don’t they just start production on flying saucers
then the fun will really begin!
PART 2
Mmmmmm. I LOVE it when people reference the B-29 costs for comparison with today’s weapon system costs.
The B-29 was conceived and designed about 1939-40 and the AF’s ‘fact sheet’ lists unit cost was $605,360 average per copy in 1944 dollars. This Unit Cost translates into 2008 dollars as:
$7,405,444.55 (CPI)
$6,081,799.30 (GDP deflator)
$14,078,139.53 (consumer bundle)
$13,094,449.56 (unskilled wage)
$18,075,563.58 (GDP per capita)
$39,773,639.24 (relative share of GDP)
Pick your preferred index, although the relative share of GDP is traditionally the most appropriate.
Multiply your chosen index unit cost times the number of B-29s built by the end of the war (~3800) and you get the 2008 cost to create an equivalent number of B-29s in 2008. With the exception of the lowest and probably most inappropriate index cost, that is manifold times what it cost to field the paltry 20 B-2s. That’s ALOT of money for what would be little more than slow moving target fleet in a modern battlespace.
PART 3
Another way to look at B-29 costs – The B-29 cost approximately $3B in 1940s dollars to develop (not including fielding). It was referred to as the ‘$3B gamble’ before it succeeded: more expensive even than the Manhattan Project. That $3B in 1940s dollars translates to 2008 dollars as:
$36.7B using the Consumer Price Index
$30.1+B using the GDP deflator
$69.7+B using the value of consumer bundle
$64. 8+B using the unskilled wage
$89.5+B using the nominal GDP per capita
$197.1+B using the relative share of GDP
So the paltry $2B figure touted for some hypothetical program today would be another bargain: easily a better deal than what we’re apparently getting out of our investment in History, Journalism, and Political Science curricula these days.
My proposed design for the new bomber- B-22 an all flying wing version of the f-22 with a 1600 nmi supercruise range.
..and such a plane would leave a very large portion (huge actually) of the world outside the combat radius of the relatively puny payload carried by said -22. Won't even mention the drawbacks to flying fast on detectability.
Want payload and range? Fly heavy and subsonic.
Its not really your proposal…
It was called the FB-22, it was going to be an interim bomber. Since the USAF wasn't planning on an all new bomber until 2037…so this was going to fill the void until then…..but thats all changed.
The FB-22 wont ever happen. I think Unmanned systems kind of derailed everything.
Ok like the idea for a new bomber but i just see disaster if the airforce is obsessed with stealth again. Stealth as we have seen with,
F22
LCS
FCS
B2
comanche
and F35
Adds way to much cost to the per airframe cost and to total R&D. Its time to ask ourselves do we need a superstealthy super bomber whose stealth can be broken by 3rd world nations. That also is so stealthy and expensive we can never sell it.
Or do we need to consentrate on a large flying wing non super stealthy bomber with superior EW and ECM capabilities with a large payload and range.
Partly im wondering if we need to have a all piloted bomber fleet in the first place. No at present a UCAV can dog fight but it could launch countermessures and follow a bomb track to a target. Heck you could build a smaller nibler aircraft that exist only to give orders and functions as a C&C aircraft.
As for a vehicle to carry a MOP why not just instead invest in the rods from god plan.
Seems to me the airforce is again demonstrating a old and annoying trait. Putting 40 missions into a single aircraft.
First, "…whose stealth can be broken by 3rd world nations" is unsupported by fact. At best it is perhaps an oblique insinuation based upon speculation or perhaps even the bloviating of the defeated Serbs over the loss of an F-117 in OAF?
Second, I am quite confident you have zero insight into Low Observable costs and are at the same time ignoring the now 30 years experience with LO [and please remember that LO is not just about technology, but also about how it is employed]. No amount of technology can assure zero attrition, but attrition without LO will be much higher than with LO for the forseeable future.
Third, As long as the nuclear armed UAVs are flying only over your house and the enemy, that'll work for me.
Simple weapons for simple battlespace. Complex environments require a little more thought.
I've been saying for a while now that the US has needed a new long range heavy bomber. But what I have envisioned as being needed was something along the lines of a new B-1: something very fast at low altitudes, non-nuclear capable, and stealthy only to the point where it begins to interfere too greatly with high speed, low altitude, and moderately nimble maneuverability.
There is a great flaw with the high and slow approach to bombing platforms; once spotted, either by eyeball, IR, or radar, the plane is a sitting duck. Low, fast, nimble, that's the winning ticket.
What this NGB is soundling like is another wonder-weapon designed to be a first strike weapon to be used against super-power type enemies. Its probably going to be too expensive and technologically sophisticated to risk using it except under the strickest of criteria.
We don't need another wonder weapon, given the world geo-political environment; whats needed is a Jack-of-all-trades.
I think Valcan would feel slightly differently about the benefits of stealth technology if it were his posterior being lit up by SAM radars as he crosses the Iranian/Chinese/North Korean border.
"Northrop Analysts: United States Heading Toward ´De Facto Nuclear Dyad,´" in Inside Missile Defense, December 16, 2009 – Vol.15, No.25, at http://www.defensenewsstand.com/cs_newsletters.as...
I strongly oppose this naive and dangerous idea, by the Obama administration to phase out nukes, and destroying the classic nuclear triad, starting with our strategic bombers, and then ICBMs, and finally, SLBMs, as well as, killing the "no-first use" policy of US nukes.