Northrop Grumman's Secret X-Bomber

Northrop Grumman's Secret X-Bomber
Bill Sweetman at 5/27/2008 7:02 AM CDT

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.
i14.photobucket.com...

Full size X-47B
she looks like

[edit on 27-5-2008 by Jezza]

I thought the next generation bomber was going to be unmanned.I got a link someplace.

Maj. Gen. Mark Matthews, director of plans and programs at Air Combat Command (ACC) in Virginia, says the service's Requirements Oversight Council in March approved plans for a bomber for early fielding in 2018. Both the date and available funding--scarce as cost for the Iraq war is $500 billion-plus and counting--are dictating the way ahead. Key requirements for a manned system are a 2,000-mi. unrefueled range, primarily subsonic propulsion and a 14,000-28,000-lb. payload.
USAF Not Aiming High For Future Bomber Technology

props to supermod fred t.

I hope im doing this right with linking and thanking.If not let me know.

[edit on 27-5-2008 by alienstar]

[edit on 27-5-2008 by alienstar]

Mod Edit: Fixed link and quote

[edit on 5/29/08 by FredT]

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Fred T started this post,

USAF: Next bomber will be manned with no exotic technology

The USAF is playing it safe with the next bomber. According to sources it will be manned and the key requirements will be a 2000 mile unrefuled range, subsonic propulsion, and a bomb load of 14-28,000 lbs.

This is in stark contrast to many of the proposed manned and unmanned systems that we have talked about here.

[edit on 27-5-2008 by Jezza]

Ha my bad im stupid...my mistake sorries.....your so right ..manned.

no thats not the case mate.
we dont know 100%
The USAF may buy 1 or two platforms,
Meaning manned or un manned.
Could have 1 aircraft manned and 3 following that are unmanned.
Or the whole fleet manned.

why would USAF invest in a platform that basically reflects the B-2's capabilities?...this report seems to me to be hogwash.

They been talking they have technology that can make a bomber fighter to be like a chamelon(like in the movie predator)It can take on its background and reflect what it absorbs back.So would kinda like be flying during the day absorb the blue sky and make itself blue.So they say...anyways just a link for the bombers u posted etc.Weird my link states its unmanned same pic u posted.Who knows ur right.

www.flightglobal.com...

[edit on 27-5-2008 by alienstar]

I think what you'll find is that the joint program between the AF and Navy for an unmanned combat vehicle found irreconcilable differences. The AF wanted a larger more capable (longer range/endurance, bigger payload) UCAV than the Navy needed (has to fit on and operate from a ship deck). This "new" bomber will reflect the outgrowth of the AF project.
That may be why your depiction looks exactly like an upscaled Northrop Grumman UCAV.
I'd put my chips on it being unmanned.

Originally posted by Jezza
Northrop Grumman's Secret X-Bomber

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...

Plenty was learned regarding stealth and aerodynamics in Northrop's X-47 development program.

Consequently, the Northrop Next Gen Bomber project will have "all-aspect, broadband" stealth; in other words it will be stealthy from all angles and frequencies - even to low frequency radar, Russia's active-array VHF (anti-stealth) radar and bistatic radar.

There are indications that the body of this bomber has an RCS (Radar Cross Section) of -70dB per square meter or one-tenth the size of a mosquito. White world engineers will tell you that's impossible.

This project probably began in 2006 when John Cashen, leader of the B-2 signatures team, came back as a consultant for Northrop Grumman.

Originally posted by Jezza
In February I pointed out the lack of visible funding for the Next Generation Bomber in 2008-2010.

Regarding the lack of visible funding:
In April 2008, Northrop Grumman showed their first quarter financial statements to stockholders. The statement showed $2+ billion in new "restricted programs" contract awards for the aircraft division.

There's the "smoking gun"...

Is there any way we can see this statement of +2 billion in the restricted column as it were? Like say where does Bill get his info from etc.

I'm really trying to build up my bookmarks of sites that give out little bits of these clues in order to piece together all of this by someone who frequents them all. Anyone have any that they could share in regards to this subject (to give it some backing) or others in general?

this reminds me of the picture floating about of the `chinese` stealth bomber

bp0.blogger.com...

Also of interest regarding the 2.6 billion and its supposed allocation

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.

In my understanding 2 billion while it seems like a lot isn't that high or big enough to fund the development or full production of an aircraft, its respective systems and a production run.

Either this is the start of the build and production run or the first part of development of said black aircraft. 10 years in normal at this point or the trend for full project but we have seen/heard the Polecat and Bird of Prey take much less time then that for 1 off demonstration aircraft.

On a side note wouldn't there be other ways of funding this "project" that are easier to cover from the journalist community?

[edit on 28-5-2008 by Canada_EH]

Originally posted by Canada_EH
Is there any way we can see this statement of +2 billion in the restricted column as it were? Like say where does Bill get his info from etc.

I'm really trying to build up my bookmarks ...

Here ya go:


Northrop Grumman First Quarter 2008 Financial Statement


On page 18, Schedule 5, last sentence in the first paragraph under the Contract Awards section:

"In addition, the company was awarded approximately $2.6 billion for restricted programs during this period."

reply to post by intelgurl


someone has more time for reading around

star for you my lady


R&D would be given a great `leg up` as really its based upon a duck-tailed B2 allready

reply to post by intelgurl


sweet find and another star
the x-47 type would be easy to get to production and in the quickest
time too.

reply to post by intelgurl


Thanks Intelgurl thats a great read. Now where was this link for the pdf from originally haha?

Anyways if you continue to read it they state also a 688 million investment in restricted programs as well in the 3rd section on the page under the Contract Awards section. Also all of this is listed As program(S) so should people be thinking thats it all programs for one root program or series of smaller ones. It doesn't seem "clear".

Sweetman's latest on the subject:
5/29 Sweetman

Originally posted by Jezza
The USAF may buy 1 or two platforms,
Meaning manned or un manned.
Could have 1 aircraft manned and 3 following that are unmanned.

Funny you mention this: A recent AWST article discussed that the USAF was looking at using the future bomber in an unmanned role for recce / sigint roles as an unmanned a/c. I will see if I can dig up the story.

Edit: Here we go (you will need to have a subscription though to read it all)

Next-Generation Bomber Sets Stage for ISR Penetrator The U.S. Air Force plans to fill its long-standing capability gap to collect intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance in defended airspace by using its next-generation bomber also as the basis for a highly stealthy recce aircraft.

The system would provide overhead intelligence even in high-threat environments, a mission left unfulfilled since the retirement of the high-speed SR-71 in the 1990s. Today’s U-2s and the Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle can conduct a variety of missions, but they are operated primarily in a standoff capacity only, because they lack the requisite stealth to be able to comfortably cope with long- and medium-range surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems now in development.

Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne told Aviation Week & Space Technology that alongside the penetrating strike role envisioned for a bomber to be fielded in 2018, the Air Force is also on “a quest to have long-range reconnaissance.”

A proposed unmanned variant of the bomber would handle this “strategic recce” role.

Ultra Stealth

Its AWST but one fo thier stories you can read without an account

It bolsters what Intelgurl was saying about RCS of -70 db's

How low can LO go? One paper, co-authored by a principal in DenMar Inc., the company founded by Stealth pioneer Denys Overholser, refers to the development of fasteners for a body with an RCS of -70 dB./sq. meter -- one-thousandth of the -40 dB. associated with the JSF, and one-tenth that of a mosquito. DTI queried RCS engineers who don't believe such numbers are possible; but then, when mention of a -30 dB. signature leaked out in a 1981 Northrop paper, nobody believed that either.
aviationweek.com.../DTI-Bomber.xml&headline=Ultra%20Stealth

[edit on 5/29/08 by FredT]

[edit on 5/29/08 by FredT]

People are mentioning the X-47 airframe idea as a candidate for this type of role but what about the fabled FB-23?

Sure taking into account all they have learned but the platform that was the 23 was so clever I don't see why you couldn't merge concepts together.

reply to post by Canada_EH


THis may be an offshoot of all of that FB-23 research. The two airframes YF-23 airframes are still MIA BTW.