Air Force Wants A Bomber That Balances Cost With Capability

Gestart door jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter), 16/01/2013 | 11:53 uur

jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)

What The B-3 Bomber Should Be 

By Robbin Laird 
on May 12, 2015

The bomber has a long and distinguished history in the Air Force and its predecessor, the Army Air Corps. When the B-17 Flying Fortress was born, it was a controversial aircraft, but proved its worth when Nazi Germany controlled a continent and only the B-17 fleet could deliver strikes inside Nazi-controlled territory, thanks to the bomber's range and payload.

But the road to the B-17 was not smooth. Before the war, fighter pilots and bomber advocates argued who was best and the bombers won, at great cost. B-17s flew unescorted into Nazi territory and their crews died in great numbers until long-range fighters were deployed. Since then, bombers and fighters have fought as interactive capabilities.

With the addition of the B-29, a new tool set was added to Pacific operations and it became the harbinger of things to come in the Cold War when the B-52 entered the fleet. Air Force bombers became "strategic" assets for their role as a central part of the nuclear triad. Then their usefulness in conventional conflicts became clear during the Vietnam War because of the amount of ordinance it could deliver.

Flash forward to 2015 and the B-52 is still around. It's been joined by the B-1 and the B-2; all of which are playing roles unimagined at the time the B-52 was introduced. Today bombers perform tactical missions such as Close Air Support, thanks to precision-guided munitions and the sensors that can be used to guide them to their targets.

There has been an inversion of the strategic and tactical with the evolution of bombers, whereby small groups  of aircraft can deliver strategic effects while conducting what would normally be described as tactical missions. Any new bomber like the Long Range Strike Bomber — generally becoming known as the B-3 — will be born in a period where the tactical and strategic are being redefined.

Although the new bomber is not going to be designed as a leap-ahead capability — since it will depend mostly on existing technologies such as enhancements made over the years to the B-2 — the B-3 is not just a successor to  to the B-2, any more than the Osprey was a replacement for the CH-46. As Marine Lt. Col. Berke – the first F-35B squadron commander who also flew F-22s — has put it: "The Osprey is the chronological successor to the CH-46 but that is about it. It compares in no other way."

The B-3, which will be built either by a Boeing-Lockheed team or Northrop Grumman, will enter a fleet in the midst of a revolution in air combat. Sea and air operations are now inextricably intertwined with air power, so much so that airpower is the ubiquitous enabler for 21st century combat operations. With the introduction of the F-35 global fleet, a re-norming of airpower is underway and an offensive-defensive enterprise is being created for the US and its allies to prevail against wide-ranging global threats.

Modern systems such as the F-35 create a grid so individual aircraft can operate in an area as a seamless whole, able to strike or defend simultaneously. This is enabled by what we've dubbed the evolution of C5ISR (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Combat Systems, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance).

The B-3 is not simply going to provide more ordnance over greater distance to do strategic missions; it is about reinforcing and enabling greater capabilities for a radically different combat air force. Range and payload will be important elements of the basic platform, as will leveraging new concepts of stealth to provide low observability. But that is simply a foundation.
◾First, the bomber needs to be capable of drawing upon the sensor rich environment being delivered by the global F-35 fleet, unmanned systems, and both American and allied ISR assets.
◾Second, it needs to have a C2 system whereby it can obtain and provide tailored information to the warfighter engaged in a mission.
◾Third, with the scalable force, it will need to be able to provide battle management capabilities for more forward-deployed or shorter-range assets.
◾Fourth, the weapons revolution is accelerating, and over time, different weapons could well be placed on different platforms, so that the B-3 will need to able to not simply to manage the weapons it has onboard organically, but to be able to operate in a sensor-enabled strike environment, where it is a key asset but not necessarily the lead or even most important asset.
◾Fifth, not only will the B-3 become a nuclear delivery vehicle but a deterrent asset able to work with the combat air force to deliver timely and effective strikes against nuclear powers like North Korea before they can use their missiles and weapons against US and allied targets.

In other words, the B-3 is part of the re-norming of airpower, a key enabler of the forward deployed F-35 global enterprise, a key element in both living off and providing targeted information, and key user and provider of sensor enabled weapons, and a key deterrent weapon against second nuclear age powers.

This has little to do with the B-17, somewhat more like the B-52 but not really about building a powerful organic strategic asset like the B-2.  It is about being a highly effective enabler of more effective longer-range engagement operations, which can effectively tap into joint or coalition airpower.

For example, fifth generation aircraft and missile defense systems can find targets for the weapons on the B-3. It can then function as the battle manager for integrated air operations. This means that that the sensors, the C2 and information management capabilities of the bomber are a crucial element of its capability.

At the heart of shaping an offensive-defensive enterprise is what one might call the S3Revolution. Sensors, stealth and speed enable the air combat enterprise to find, kill and respond effectively to the numerous threats that global powers and pop up forces can present to the US and its allies.

As the central force in the air combat enterprise, the B-3 can ensure the United States has the upper hand with the Chinese in a 21st-century strategic engagement. The bomber, acting as the battle manager, provides a new kind of presence, linked by highly interoperable, Lego-like blocks that can work with allies that allow for scalable forces with reach-back to U.S. capabilities in the littoral and the homeland. The bottom line: U.S. forces need to be highly connected and interoperable with our allies. The bomber will provide a core reach-back capability enabling the entire allied force.

It is not simply about being a powerful thing in itself — a bomber — but by providing significant enhancement of the capabilities of 21st century American and allied airpower.

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/05/what-the-b-3-bomber-should-be/

jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)

Why Northrop Grumman Ran A Super Bowl Ad For A Stealth Bomber

2-2-2015

How many American consumers are looking to purchase a new long-range stealth super-bomber? None. So why would Northrop Grumman spend big bucks on producing such a glitzy ad and pay to have it run in Washington DC and Dayton, Ohio during the Super Bowl? Defense contractors have learned a thing or two from Steve Jobs.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-northrop-grumman-ran-a-super-bowl-ad-for-a-stealth-1683062602

Harald

Misschien interessant voor sommigen, een Ho 229 is herbouwd en getest door Northrop op z'n stealth eigenschappen.


Huzaar1

Citaat van: Ace1 op 02/02/2015 | 20:00 uur
Tuurlijk zullen ontwerpers de ontwerpers van Nortop de Ho 229 hebben bekeken en hebben daar de bruikbare dingen van overgenomen maar ze hadden natuurlijk de nodige kennis in huis met de Northrop N-1M en de Northrop N-9M. Nortop was eerder met dit soort vliegtuigen dan de Nazi´s




De Duitsers waren absoluut een heel stuk verder met deze ontwerpen.
De Amerikaan was niet meer dan een  experimenteel houten constructie waarbij 2 propellers zorgden voor een vliegtuig wat een vent de lucht in hield.

De Duitsers waren bezig met een straal aangedreven gevechts jager in staat om een ton aan bommen mee te nemen met een topsnelheid van 1000 kmph.


Dat is hele andere koek. Jaartallen tegenover elkaar zetten doet geen recht aan de feiten. Het stadium waar de Northrop zich in bevond, daar waren de Duitsers al voorbij. Het toestel won een gesimuleerde dog-fight met de Me262, ook een straaljager.



"Designers pursued the all-wing dream from the first decade of powered flight, notably Jack Northrop in the U.S. and the Horten brothers in Germany. Reimar and Walter Horten were a step ahead, testing an all-wing sailplane in 1933, a twin-engined pusher in 1937, and a turbojet fighter-bomber in 1944. When the war ended, Reimar was working on a six-engine Amerika bomber to carry a hypothetical atomic bomb to New York City.""

http://greyfalcon.us/The%20Horten%20Ho%20229.htm





"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion" US secmindef - Jed Babbin"

Ace1

Citaat van: Huzaar1 op 01/02/2015 | 15:38 uur
Grappig die  YB-35 .. wel erg goedkoop dat ze pretenderen dit zelf ontwikkeld te hebben, ding is afgeleid van de Hortens, maar geen woord wordt daar meer over gerept.

Tuurlijk zullen ontwerpers de ontwerpers van Nortop de Ho 229 hebben bekeken en hebben daar de bruikbare dingen van overgenomen maar ze hadden natuurlijk de nodige kennis in huis met de Northrop N-1M en de Northrop N-9M. Nortop was eerder met dit soort vliegtuigen dan de Nazi´s


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_N-1M

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_N-9M

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229






jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)

Pentagon's Five-Year Plan Busts Spending Caps by $155 Billion

feb, 2 - 2015

The Air Force plans to spend $13.8 billion in fiscal 2016 through 2020 on research and development for a new long-range strike bomber, including $1.17 billion in 2016. Spending would build to $3.79 billion in 2020. Falls Church, Virginia-based Northrop Grumman Corp. is competing against a team of Lockheed and Chicago-based Boeing Co. for the program. The Air Force plans to select a winner this year.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-02/pentagon-s-five-year-plan-busts-spending-caps-by-155-billion

Huzaar1

Grappig die  YB-35 .. wel erg goedkoop dat ze pretenderen dit zelf ontwikkeld te hebben, ding is afgeleid van de Hortens, maar geen woord wordt daar meer over gerept.
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion" US secmindef - Jed Babbin"

dudge

Zegt ook wel iets over hoe de wapen industrie daar werkt.

jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)

Northrop Ad To Run During Super Bowl: Hints At Next-Gen Bomber 

By Colin Clark 
on January 31, 2015

It will be one of the great weapons competitions of the 21st century. Northrop Grumman is competing against a team of Boeing and Lockheed Martin to build the Long Range Strike Bomber. The company has also created design teams to work on so-called sixth generation fighters for the Air Force and the Navy.

With the Pentagon budget due out on Monday — and the bomber program expected to occupy a proud place in the Air Force budget – Northrop Grumman will air its new ad during America's hottest television ad event — the Super Bowl. The shrouded aircraft at the end of the ad is clearly intended to suggest either the LRSB or the next-generation fighter — or both.

The ad begins with the very old and very cool YB-35, a tail-less blended-wing plane. Next up is the B-2 bomber, followed by the X-47B aircraft, which did what many thought would be very difficult, if not impossible — land and take off from an aircraft carrier without a human on board.

140817-N-CE233ATLANTIC OCEAN (August 17, 2014) – The Navy's unmanned X-47B conducts flight operations aboard the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71). The aircraft completed a series of tests demonstrating its ability to operate safely an
Northrop X-47 carrier landing

We don't know much about the highly classified LRSB program, beyond the fact that the plane will be optionally manned, will boast advanced low observable characteristics, highly advanced sensors and may also include drones controlled by the bombers.

Northrop, of course, built the LRSB's predecessor, the fabulous and fabulously expensive B-2 bomber, of which only 21 planes were built.

How big will this new program be? Todd Harrison, one of the country's top defense budget experts, estimates the bomber will cost up to $25 billion for the bomber's research and development costs. The Air Force plans to buy 100 aircraft and says the flyaway cost will be about $550 million per plane in 2010 dollars. Harrison notes the plane would already cost about $600 million in current dollars.

Harrison notes that funding the LRSB will swell to significant levels around 2020 just as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will be reaching full production numbers, the effort to build America's next-generation nuclear missile submarine — the Ohio Replacement Program — will be ramping up, the KC-46 airborne tankers built by Boeing will be hitting full production and the Air Force's next-generation trainer aircraft –T-X — will be bought in bulk.

That will make the competition for dollars within the Air Force and between the services intensely competitive, not to mention the competition between the defense companies for all that new revenue. Northrop is clearly positioning itself early and big to make sure taxpayers know what it is doing and to try and convince them it should be getting a big slice of what may be a shrinking or static budget pie.

I don't think any defense company has advertised during the Super Bowl, but I didn't live in the US for a long stretch during the 1970s and 80s, so I may be wrong. Regardless, Northrop's bold strike is a clear sign of just how high the stakes are for the company as it competes for the bomber and for the next generation of fighter aircraft for the Navy and Air Force in a time of declining budgets.

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/01/northrop-ad-to-run-during-super-bowl-hints-at-next-gen-bomber/

jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)


Harald

Citaat van: jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter) op 29/01/2015 | 21:44 uur
Let op de laatste secondes, de schaduw in de wolken

Dat had ik ook al gezien, geen B2 vorm, meer ala SR71 Blackbird

Iets zoals de SR72, alleen deze is van LM
http://aviationweek.com/blog/meet-sr-72


jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)

Citaat van: Ace1 op 29/01/2015 | 20:43 uur
Mooie Commercial van Northrop Grumman


Let op de laatste secondes, de schaduw in de wolken

Ace1


jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)