USAF Weighs Four Skunk Works Designs for Interim Strike

[highsea]

This news is a couple weeks old, but no one else has mentioned it, so I thought I'd go ahead and toss it out as a teaser.

STRIKING CONCEPTS

Lockheed Martin designers are taking the wraps off four concepts they're offering to the U.S. Air Force to meet its requirements for an interim long-range strike platform to fit in between the B-2 and whatever will replace the 21 stealth bombers in the 2035 period.

Buried in those presentations are options--some acknowledged by the company and some not--for employing jamming devices, intelligence-gathering sensors and directed-energy weapons, say a number of military and aerospace industry officials with insight into future strike planning. Other proposals involve mounting low-observable external weapons pods and pylons, introducing morphing wing skins for carrying addition fuel, and changing aircraft skin colors for visual daytime stealth.

Air Force analysts had asked for concepts that could be fielded by 2010. Notional requirements for the interim strike capability include fielding an operational vehicle by 2015 with a range of 1,500-2,000 naut. mi. and a 5-15-ton payload. Another consideration is that "we fully expect there's going to be some pretty good energy weapons available by 2015-20," says John E. Perrigo, Lockheed Martin's senior manager for combat air systems business strategy and development.

LOCKHEED MARTIN responded with two aircraft--C-130J and F/A-22 derivatives--that could meet the deadline and would be the least expensive of the company's offerings. However, not even notional prices were discussed. The third concept is an ICBM-derivative, missile-based concept that could evolve over time to a single-stage-to-space system with a reusable suborbital hypersonic delivery platform; it would cost more than the two derivative aircraft. However, it would be designed to place a bomb anyplace on Earth within an hour from a ship, a submarine or a land base.

Lastly and perhaps most intriguing, but also most costly, the company offered the "BMACK" common-body concept, which offers a short-takeoff-and-landing, large-payload stealth aircraft that can be configured as a bomber (B), surveillance/intelligence aircraft, special operations (M) gunship (A) or clandestine transport (C) or tanker (K), Perrigo says. However, he adds the cautionary note that this last concept would be tough to field by the 2015 deadline. It could require another five years based on funding and technology improvements. He says that any all-new, non-derivative design is difficult to field in fewer than 20 years and would cost more than a derivative aircraft.

Addressing the four initiatives in turn, Perrigo described the AC-130J arsenal ship as nonstealthy, subsonic and not designed to penetrate enemy air defenses. However, it would be modified internally to carry 8-12 cruise missiles for standoff attacks. The restructuring would consist of roll-on, roll-off weapon racks and a launch console. Weapons selection is expected to include the conventional air-launched cruise missile, Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile and Jassm-ER and miniature air-launched decoy missiles fitted with electronic attack warheads for close-in jamming.

The FB-22 (at 120,000 lb. gross weight with fuel and bombs) would be a stealthy, supersonic fighter-bomber with enlarged wings to increase lift and carry additional fuel for extended-range missions. Lockheed Martin designers say a $8-9-billion program would produce an aircraft with the range for intertheater strike even if external weapons were added to beef up the internal weapons payload. The aircraft would be fielded with global network links that allow target-updating up to the moment a target is struck. The FB-22 would carry a number of lethal self-protection weapons--which means AIM-9X high-off-boresight infrared missiles, a helmet-mounted cuing system and AIM-120 beyond-visual-range active/passive radar missiles.

Pratt & Whitney's F119 engine could be modified for the new design with new hot-area materials and coatings, allowing it to perform at higher temperatures. The expected result is that the FB-22, a much bigger aircraft, would be able to operate at the same speeds and altitudes as the F/A-22. Pratt & Whitney officials say they are testing derivative F119 engines both for new long-range strike and long-range reconnaissance aircraft concepts.

The aircraft's combined external and internal payload is expected to exceed 15 tons. Working from the inside out: the lengthened main weapons bay also will have bulged doors to carry two 2,000-lb. GBU-31s and two AIM-120 Amraams, or six Amraams. Two side weapon bays can carry two small-diameter bombs (SBDs) or two AIM-9Xs each. Two external, 5,000-lb.-capacity, low-observable, wing weapon bays on inboard positions would each carry a GBU-31 or a GBU-37 (5,000-lb.) bomb or two GBU-38s (500-lb.) or six SDBs (250-lb.) weapons. Two low-observable pylons would be fitted to outboard wing stations so that each can carry a stealthy Jassm missile.

To curtail down, the FB-22's tail and fuselage would stay the same as the F/A-22's, but with the larger wings and an extended nose to carry a second crewman--a battle manager to run network-centric operations and control unmanned reconnaissance or combat aircraft.

While Lockheed Martin officials won't address the subject, others involved with next-generation stealth say the new Lockheed Martin/Boeing design is to be an even more elusive target than the F/A-22. Efforts will focus on reducing the infrared signature (through redistribution of heat on the skin to eliminate hot spots) and adding an active exterior skin coating that, when electrically charged, will offer shades of blues and grays to match the aircraft's high-altitude background (and thereby avoid optical detection). Similar stealth treatments are expected to show up on operational versions of the Northrop Grumman X-47 and Boeing X-45 joint unmanned combat air vehicles.

Besides extra fuel tanks in the expanded wings, Lockheed Martin researchers are suggesting a morphing wing design that would expand (to hold an extra 5,000-10,000 lbs. of fuel) when full for takeoff and then shrink to the aircraft's stealthy outline as fuel burns off. Notional company drawings show faceted, canoe-like structures on top of the wing about one-third of the way from the fuselage to the wingtip on each side.

The space systems would begin in 2015-18 with a common air vehicle and a small launch vehicle using a solid rocket booster. This ICBM with a conventional warhead concept would eventually give way to an air-breathing, hypersonic vehicle--a wave-rider design that could carry scores of common air vehicles with penetrator warheads or area weapons to near-space for fast delivery around the world. The near-space system would operate at "hundreds of thousands of feet, fly at Mach 7-10 and carry 16,000 lb. of payload," Perrigo says. Prime target sets would include deeply buried and heavily defended facilities. The operational concept for 2030 is to base such aircraft on airfields with conventional 16,000-ft. runways so that they can strike any target within an hour.

BMACK would come in several versions, all of them with structural and systems commonality based on a program being conducted for the special operations forces community. The subsonic, C-130-size aircraft would be stealthy for penetrating missions. Its flying wing shape would provide the lift to carry around 40 direct attack bombs, short-range missiles or other internally carried weapons, including a single Massive Ordnance Air Blast or several GBU-28 5,000-lb. penetrator bombs. It would be designed to take off and land on airstrips as small as 1,000-2,000 ft., Perrigo says.

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/11294wna.xml

I copied the whole article because it's avleak, and I don't know how long it will be up without subscription.

Anyway, the interesting parts are the F/B-22 with the morphing wing and active visual stealth, and the space system with the hypersonic CAV's.

On a related note, just for you YF-23 fans, I have contacted the museums at Edwards and Hawthorne and inquired about the YF-23's. Apparently both AC were removed back to Northrup Grumman several months ago (for "refurbishment"). According to the NASA Dryden YF-23 web page, Northrup will be making a proposal for the interim bomber based on the YF-23. So the BW-2 may just have a future after all in the form of a supersonic bomber. :dance3

 

[gf0012-aust]

I thought we'd put this article up before?? or was it just you and I PM'ing??

 

[highsea]

Yea, that was just PM's. I figured I'd share it with the board.

 

[Gremlin29]

highsea, you might want to check the Air Force museum at Wright Pat. I was there in 02 and had the opportunity to examine "one of" the YF-23's which was in temporary storage.

 

[highsea]

That's very interesting, Grem. This is all Gary's fault, he started me on this little investigation...This is what the NASA Dryden page says:

NASA had planned to use one of the two aircraft to extensively study strain gage loads calibration techniques, while the other would remain in storage at Dryden. However, both aircraft remained in storage until the summer of 1996 when the aircraft were transferred to museums. The YF-23A Prototype Air Vehicle 2 (PAV-2), serial # 87-0801, is on display at the Western Museum of Flight in Hawthorne, California, on long term loan from NASA. YF-23A PAV-1 (87-0800) is currently at the Air Force Flight Test Center Museum at Edwards Air Force Base, California.

So I contacted Edwards, this was their reply:

Casey --
We only wish we still had it here, though it was never at our museum. For many months it was parked on a pad along Taxiway E. Then one day a transport, proably a C-5, landed and they took it away, probably to the Air Force Museum at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio.

I tried to contact WP, but my email bounced. The Museum at WP doesn't list it as being in their collection. They have a web page for the YF-23, but this is what it says at the bottom:

This aircraft information is from the USAF Museum Archives.
The museum doesn't have a YF-23

Okay, so I moved on to PAV-2...Hawthorne's web page said it was sent back to NG for a new paint job, and would be returned by mid-August. I contacted Hawthorne to see if it had been returned, and this was their reply:

Sorry Casey,

The YF-23 was refurbished by Northrop but is still on temporary loan to the company. We have no ETA on its return to us at this moment.

This is what wikipedia says:

Two aircraft were built. One is now an exhibit at the Western Museum of Flight in Hawthorne, California and the other at the Air Force Flight Test Center Museum at Edwards Air Force Base.

In late 2004, Northrop Grumman proposed a YF-23 based design for the USAF's interim bomber requirement, a role for which the FB-22 and B-1R are also competing.

I have the number for the curator at WP, I will try to call him and see if PAV-1 went back to them or not. I can't stand a mystery.

 

[gf0012-aust]

highsea, you might want to check the Air Force museum at Wright Pat. I was there in 02 and had the opportunity to examine "one of" the YF-23's which was in temporary storage.

Yeah, blame me for your curiosity. IIRC, it was because I'd been drip fed some trivia as well - so I'm blaming someone else.

:smokingc:

 

[highsea]

Yeah, blame me for your curiosity.

Haha, you're right about that Gary, once I get something like this in my head, I can't get it out until it's solved. I just have to find that stupid plane! Why don't you stop by Dayton on your next trip and check it out for me? :

 

[Kurt Plummer]

Back in the when...

There were some articles in magazines which claimed that the YF-23 ATF configuration in fact _postdated_ a blackworld research project (remember, this is 1980's Northrop and the mythic 'CSIRS' was roughly period) which used a pure delta and which was sometimes called the 'A-17' (which could partly explain why the losers have published no 'history of the Widow' type works as the folks at LockMart did with the YF-22 design process).

Indeed, this latter designator has also been associated with an Aurora type shape as well as one of the early (conventional VG) 'Switchblade' designs derived from it.

My take is that any idiot that wastes money on a 2,500-4,500nm radius 'regional bomber' (non hypersonic) platform which has the crew seated in conventional, tandem, ejection seat cockpits, ought to be shot.

We've already /done this/, with the B-58.

Torqued up the airframes (aluminum fatigue and an iffy FLCS capability to maintain balanced flight modes on the flying gas can wings) on high Mach-runs and suffered /terrible/ avionics/cabin environmentals problems as well on virtually every mission. Of course 80+% of the mission was still flown subsonic and taken together; this kind of thing left the Hustler crews absolutely wasted just flying a SIOP profile up to a polar AAR rendezvous during 'ORI practice'.

Even assuming we now have the CG range, fuel-soak and heat exchanger sophistication to take thermoset resins up to a solid Mach-2 supercruise (a performance point which the latest FB-22 'equilateral triangle' planform does not inspire my confidence in achieving) you are looking at 2-3hrs just to get to the target area (Diego->Kabul), not including up and down times to hit a tanker filled with god knows what kind of 'special' fuels.

And for what? When they get to whereever they will not have the 'just outside threat airspace' hangtime (aspect ratio and fuel load) of a subsonic worldcruiser like a B-52. And if the design ends up being a seriously supersonic/stealth platform, 'on a budget', to compliment tacair sortie rates from smaller theaters; I doubt seriously if it will be able to match carriage quantities for even a reduced footprint (over CALCM) JASSM. The latter of which, in the ER-800km version, is itself 'bigger' than the USAF likes to admit to INF/MTCR being. Which means not only warstock compatibility but treaty compliance could get to be a problem.

I suppose we could 'reinvent' the AGM-131 which Clinton gave away (FRSW) but those unitary-warhead targets had bloody well better be both pretty small and worth the juice you pay for the round.

Of course, given our current arrogance, nothing says you /have to/ play smart=standoff. But no menacing holdtime and no long-spear weapons means that you are now a 'commited to hitting something' design (FB-111A and the requirement to deploy ordnance and tanks to make the sortie metric efficiencies work). So now you are 'in and out' wham-bam commited in a 180-350 MILLION dollar platform gallumphing into hostile airspace to deliver...

Ballistic PGM's.

Which puts you right back at the cart and horse question of how (access denied, thus needing ranged airpower or a 'mobile airfield') the Navy is supposed to escort a jet they can't keep up with. To a depth they can't reach. While 'protecting the national asset value' of a _stealth_ platform wherein there is so much vested reputation inherent to the word that the actuall capability cannot afford to be risked let alone proven.

Sigh. We ALL KNOW how much EA/DEAD and OCA the Batwing vacuums out off the daily ATO's people. The one time they let it fly alone was in bombing a bunch of Muslim Hillbillies whose air defense capabilities came down to one SAM site and a bunch of rotting MiG-21/Su-22 airframes. Neither of which had worked as in an 'IADS' sense in probably a decade.

In any case, I doubt SERIOUSLY if the '216' GBU-39 advertised for the B-2 will be even close to matchable in a stretch-Raptor. Particularly given that most of the SDB/Batwing integration photos I've seen depict a single BRU-61 rack on one of the Northrop jets internal rotary launcher's eight stations and that, in total (both bays), only comes up to _64_ such weapons.

Indeed, MPRL/CRL technologies represent one of the most wasteful of volumetric designs; simply because the dead cubic feet inherent to the center spindle translates to yet more added overhead+surround to clear the munitions from the bay ceiling and sidewalls, 'as she goes merrily around'.

Go to flatracked cliploads (i.e. a cross between the current F/A-22 system and the B-52) and, unless you develop a stackable CBM type launcher, you will be lucky to get more than about 4, maybe 6 BRU-61's spaced across the belly or in tandem.

That's all of 16-24, 250lb, shots people. For a jet which will likely take upwards of $500,000.00 per sortie to loft (assuming about 200,000lbs of gas which may be pushing it if the radius goes over 2,500nm).

Anything 'heavier' (GBU-38/35/31/37) just get's worse and worse because the distance you go out from the centerline with all that mass must be set against the longer (14-17ft) munition lengths in a tandem load for both structural load carrythrough and things like aero acoustics for the bay doors and balanced inertias with assymetric (single munition) release.

No.

If we are going to do this, it needs to be something like a CICBM with a CAV type system ontop. Like the Russian Spaceplane or the contemporary X-43. And it will likely need to be equipped with an entirely new generation of GBU-37 class (5,000lb) conventional/SKINC capable penetrators with about 10-40m (granite/concrete or dirt) worth of penetration on a one shot 'stop up the silo or kill the mad dictator' level of capability against places like Iran and the DPRK.

Probably as a function of coming in on a FOBS or other 'funny' (SLBM depressed?) trajectory to monkey with their tracking systems and/or sudden-slant saturate a 'coming soon' Directed Energy threat.


KP


LINKS-
Su-34 Bred To YF-23. I see the Inlet but where's the beef on the weapons bay and fuel?
http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/future/foas2-two-seat_001.jpg

A-17 with Mach-3-4 Wingsweep.
http://www.bearsystems.com/area51/a17.html

B-2 SDB on BRU
http://www.f-15estrikeeagle.com/reference/weapons/gbu39/03.htm