USAF Next Generation Bomber LRS-B

[RobWilliams]

During a period of 'upgrading' the majority of it's stock of aircraft, the USAF has requested funding in it's FY2013 budget of $292million to develop their next generation bomber, christened the Long Range Strike - B, in order to replace it's current stock of bomber aircraft. This is due to the overall US policy of primarily focussing on Asia and therefore a next generation strike aircraft with modern stealth, propulsion and avionics with the potential to be able so successfully hit targets in the PRC.

The USAF is supposedly planning to buy 80 -100 aircraft.

The main driving force behind this aircraft is to keep the costs under control and hopefully keep them under $550million per aircraft. This will primarily be done using plenty of OTS equipment.

One interesting thing to read about this program is that apparently the USAF isn't "trying to jam all of these advanced capabilities,” — such as ISR, EW and communications support — into the new airplane" and instead relying on greater support on a "family" of different systems.

They're aiming at a cost of maximum $550million per aircraft, a long way off the $2bn per B-2 (i think was roughly the cost).

Won't be a bad price for what the aircraft will be which - i believe - is a shot at trying to replace. As this is a recent revival of the program (Feb 2012 i think), if we wan't any actual details as to what systems it will carry or what sort of performance it will have then we've got to look back at 2011 data. If the requirements have changed, I have no idea.

It's been thrown around that the max range will be circa 5000nm and that it'll have the option to be unmanned + will eventually be nuclear capable. Anyway i'll drop a few links for you to have a leaf through (but keep an eye out for the 2011 articles, may not be correct). Personally, I think it'll be a very potent platform given the advances in LO tech and avionics since the B-2 came about

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/02/24/afa-new-bomber-program-underway/
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/02/13/the-air-forces-simple-no-frills-advanced-new-bomber/
Schwartz Defends Cost of USAF’s Next-Gen Bomber | Defense News | defensenews.com
U.S. Air Force May Buy 175 Bombers | Defense News | defensenews.com
New bomber could conduct long-range missions - Air Force News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Air Force Times

I'm gunna look like a right tit if it's been cancelled since February.

 

[shaun]

Cost could be a problem that was one of the driving forces behind the F- 35 it as problems become encountered price goes up so numbers of aircraft are reduced to save money again raising the price so the F35 has rocketed in price.to keep costs down are they looking at a UAV option? If not it has to be a straight forward airframe with a single role if it turns out to be adaptable and upgradeable the same as a B52 then that is a bonus but it should not be designed that way if they want a bomber it has to be just that no fancy variants I suspect most of the tech already exsists in the American inventory to get the results they need.

 

[RobWilliams]

Cost could be a problem that was one of the driving forces behind the F- 35 it as problems become encountered price goes up so numbers of aircraft are reduced to save money again raising the price so the F35 has rocketed in price.to keep costs down are they looking at a UAV option? If not it has to be a straight forward airframe with a single role if it turns out to be adaptable and upgradeable the same as a B52 then that is a bonus but it should not be designed that way if they want a bomber it has to be just that no fancy variants I suspect most of the tech already exsists in the American inventory to get the results they need.

They're planning to buy OTS for most/all of the avionics and EW systems so that'll help keep the costs controlled unlike the F-35 which (AFAIK) has a large amount of newly designed systems designed for the program, alongside the fact that they're not looking for supersonic performance etc it should be a fairly straightforward design. Then as LO technology is more effective in this day and age and probably relatively cheaper to build in comparison to a B-2.

There was a 'requirement' for it to be "optionally unmanned" but as to if it'll actually be used as a UAV or not I have no idea.

In terms of upgradability it'll probably be similar to the F-35/F-22, 90-95% software updates rather than hardware.

Of course, I could easily be talking a load of cobblers about this.

 

[Belesari]

They're planning to buy OTS for most/all of the avionics and EW systems so that'll help keep the costs controlled unlike the F-35 which (AFAIK) has a large amount of newly designed systems designed for the program, alongside the fact that they're not looking for supersonic performance etc it should be a fairly straightforward design. Then as LO technology is more effective in this day and age and probably relatively cheaper to build in comparison to a B-2.

There was a 'requirement' for it to be "optionally unmanned" but as to if it'll actually be used as a UAV or not I have no idea.

In terms of upgradability it'll probably be similar to the F-35/F-22, 90-95% software updates rather than hardware.

Of course, I could easily be talking a load of cobblers about this.

I think you have the right of it.......or atleast you Should have the right of it...

 

[SpudmanWP]

If they want OTS with plenty of easy upgradeability, then go with the F-35's avionics.

It is already highly upgradeable, includes UAI, and will be produced in such large numbers as to keep the cost lower than any equivalent system.

 

[RobWilliams]

If they want OTS with plenty of easy upgradeability, then go with the F-35's avionics.

It is already highly upgradeable, includes UAI, and will be produced in such large numbers as to keep the cost lower than any equivalent system.

Agreed, I'd expect to see some extremely powerful arguments if they don't pick at least some of the systems the F-35 uses.

All the graphics i've seen look pretty much like an updated B-2, which is very good. IMO it's definitely interesting that rather than fitting all the avionics in one airframe that they're looking to using a whole network of systems.

 

[fretburner]

If they want OTS with plenty of easy upgradeability, then go with the F-35's avionics.

It is already highly upgradeable, includes UAI, and will be produced in such large numbers as to keep the cost lower than any equivalent system.

If Grumman or Boeing wins this contest (assuming they'll join in the first place), will Lockmart "give" them the F-35 software?

 

[the road runner]

If Grumman or Boeing wins this contest (assuming they'll join in the first place), will Lockmart "give" them the F-35 software?

Im under the impression that the US government "owns" the intellectual property of all things JSF,after all the US is the "client'' who invested in R and D for the JSF.

LM is the contractor who builds the JSF on behalf of the US Department of Defence.

 

[SpudmanWP]

In every contract there are sub-contractors. LM could just be the sub-contractor for the avionics suite.

 

[colay]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the new bomber would be a black program... not sure if this is actually the case specially if the intent is to make extensive use of OTS technology.

 

[jack412]

They could mean black, as in stay away from Congress and journalists till it's finished.

GF can expand but AFAIK there are several nations IP on the F-35, if they wanted to include those in the bomber they would have to ask.

 

[SpudmanWP]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the new bomber would be a black program... not sure if this is actually the case specially if the intent is to make extensive use of OTS technology.

F-117 was Black and had a lot of OTS.

 

[colay]

My notion of a black program is one that the public is unaware of, e.g. U-2, SR-71, F-117 and B-2. My understanding is that the extreme lengths undertaken to maintain secrecy added significantly to the overall cost of said programs. Maybe LRS-B need not be kept black if the intent is affordability though I can appreciate the appeal in restricting info to the media and politicians.

 

[Marc 1]

F-117 was Black and had a lot of OTS.

Main landing gear IIRC was the same as that used on a Learjet. Damn fine idea - why redesign bespoke gear out of unobtainium when you can get something ready made.

 

[hauritz]

Just about every attempt to build a fleet of new bombers has ended in abject failure ... at least since the B-52.

The Valkyrie, B-1, and B-2 have all be subjected to cutbacks and even outright cancellation due to costs and changing strategic circumstances.

The USAF should be looking at much cheaper solutions. Commercial aircraft designs with standoff weapons might be the best solution.

 

[StobieWan]

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the new bomber would be a black program... not sure if this is actually the case specially if the intent is to make extensive use of OTS technology.

If it was black, we wouldn't have heard about it at such a stage. As has been pointed out, the F117 used substantial chunks of OTS kit - the FBW system was from an F16, the engine and a lot of avionics were F18 sourced - the list goes on. Smart way to do it I think.

 

[colay]

If it was black, we wouldn't have heard about it at such a stage. As has been pointed out, the F117 used substantial chunks of OTS kit - the FBW system was from an F16, the engine and a lot of avionics were F18 sourced - the list goes on. Smart way to do it I think.

A lot of what we've heard is from unofficial sources speculating about the LRS-B.. e.g. CSBA put together a laundry list of OTS components from existing military aircraft and a civilian airliner that they think could go into a new bomber but that's pure guesswork on their part just like 99% of the stuff floating around on the web. I'm still waiting for confirmation one way or the other if the LRS-B is going to be black or not.

 

[StobieWan]

If it was to be a black program, we'd first hear of it when it was unveiled, we wouldn't be hearing about RFP's in the public domain.


I'm fairly sure it won't be a civilian air liner either - the body will be LO which rules out anything commercially available. I suspect it'll re-use a shape already seen in a military aircraft.

 

[Waylander]

Just about every attempt to build a fleet of new bombers has ended in abject failure ... at least since the B-52.

The Valkyrie, B-1, and B-2 have all be subjected to cutbacks and even outright cancellation due to costs and changing strategic circumstances.

The USAF should be looking at much cheaper solutions. Commercial aircraft designs with standoff weapons might be the best solution.

The B-1B wasn't a failure. What was a failure is that the Air Force was a bit slow in adopting it to the conventional role after the iron curtain fell.

The Bones gave a glimpse of their potential in the conventional role during Desert Fox/Noble Anvil and the Kosovo air campaign with a pretty good availability rate. As soon as they integrated JDAMs the Bones really began to shine during Iraqi Freedom and even more in Afghanistan.

Their ability to loiter over the battlefield with lots of ammunition on board waiting for the calls of the troops on the ground or waiting for flight control to vector them to a target of opportunity makes them very valuable in current fightings. Add to that the fact that they are still pretty survivable and with a boatload of JASSMs or JSOWs can even act as a first day strike aircraft they are still a very decent aircraft.

In the opening phase of Afghanistan a few lancers employed ca. 40% of the weapons and continued to provide lots of the air support used in A-stan.

During the opening 24 hours of Iraqi Freedom ten Bones hit 240 targets with 2.000lb JDAMs and later on dropped 43% of all JDAMs used in OIF.

The new weapons which got added ((L)JDAMs, JSOWs, JASSMs, WCMDs,...) and the new equipment (Sniper Pods, multi-weapon rotary racks, upgraded ECM/ECCM,...) ensure that it remains an important part of the air force.

The air force is now aware of the capabilities heavy conventional strike bombers bring to a conflict. The new bomber, while maybe becoming a bit smaller than the Bone, will be developed with the conventional role in mind right from the beginning. That means modern ammunitions and multi-weapons racks as well as for example a targeting pod will be integrated right from the beginning.

As many here don't get tired to explain is that systems make a fight not platforms. And a modern bomber brings alot to the table when integrated into an air force like the USAF. For example, how many people thought that the Bone would become the premier CAS craft in a conflict like the one in Afghanistan in the late 80s?

 

[RobWilliams]

The USAF should be looking at much cheaper solutions. Commercial aircraft designs with standoff weapons might be the best solution.

Seeming as the aim is to create a long range VLO stealth bomber capable of withstanding the air defences of China (I think Iran is in there somewhere) and then eventually having a nuclear capability, I highly doubt that strapping some bombs on a 747 would fulfil that criteria.

Unit cost of a B-2 was $2bn, for this project they're trying to make it $550million per aircraft.