Pentagon Official Meets with Northrop About New Long Range Bomber

www.reuters.com...

(Reuters) - Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter traveled to California last week to meet with Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N) Chief Executive Wes Bush and other industry executives about a new long-range bomber, according to three sources familiar with the meetings.

Hi ATS this is my first thread so if I make any mistakes feel free to let me know!

So it is interesting to see the Pentagon working towards such a massive aerospace defense project ($550 million per plane) with all of the economic problems our country is facing and the lack of funding for the F-22.

Also could this be a shift in our defense tactics. Not procuring the original amount of F-22's (our primary fighter going into the future) yet investing in long range, deep penetration fighters is reminisce of Cold War tactics of launching attacks around the world with take off and landing in the continental US. Maybe the Pentagon is realizing how relying on overseas air bases is taking its toll on the defense budget/infrastructure.

IMO,
a complete waste of time and money
with the tech we already have in place.
Not even mentioning a $14 Trillion deficit.

And maybe they are just calling it a bomber
so we won't know it's real capabilities
or functions.

But if they were to use SCRAM-JET
tech on a full size bomber. They could
bomb Russia from the lower 48 before
you could get your Domino's pizza
delivered. 30 mins or less

reply to post by boondock-saint


I agree, it seems to me to be a huge waste of money since our current generation bombers could do the trick. They might be planning on mixing different mission types into one bomber, consolidating much like they did with the F-22 and JSF and slowly phasing out the many older generation fighters/bombers.

reply to post by RequiemAgent

most of the long range bombers we have
are older than the pilots who fly them.

Clearly I'm missing the need/point in this. We've still got more than enough ICBMs, and more importantly, we've got sub launched ICBMs. If you want to beef up our deterrence - build more subs. No one can really detect them, they can launch either ICBMs with a range of 12K kilometers, or you can launch W-80 tipped tomahawks for smaller and closer targets and be sitting on a beach and eating lunch as they fall.

reply to post by boondock-saint


They might be old, but they can still do a lot of work. I guess what makes sense is that they say it's a

30-year Pentagon plan for aviation procurement.

So by then I could see the need for an update, but the price tag is quite hefty regardless.

reply to post by userid1


At the end of the article it does briefly mention something along the lines you have just brought up:
www.reuters.com...

Additional money would be spent on other weapons associated with long-range strike capabilities over the time, including $800 million for a new nuclear-capable cruise missile.

reply to post by RequiemAgent


No. It is all a dog and pony show. The triangles are going to be unveiled before too long, and this is part of the buildup. When you read "bomber" think an electromagnetically field-power triangle, not an AIRcraft. They are being forced to stop the black budget feeding of these craft and relie on visible money.

Besides, large bombers, like battleships and aircraft carriers are not going to be part of any new world war weaponary.

reply to post by RequiemAgent


The existing bomber fleet is ancient. The B-2 is a very picky aircraft that is lacking survivability in the age of digital processing - The Pak-FA will have no problem providing an adequate defense against the B-2. Further - the B-2 is not adept at rapid response.

To elaborate - Strategic bombing has been around for a while. It really became a staple of air power in World War II. The targets were factories and air fields - things used to support the war effort of other countries, not necessarily the armies and navies proper. As we entered the nuclear age - the targets were the same, we were simply planning to use nuclear weapons. As anti-air systems advanced, we developed bombers (or tasked certain initial waves) with destroying these large fixed installations in preparation for the larger waves to follow.

Then the ICBM came out. Strategic bombing almost vanished - spare for a number were simply repurposed with the targets being nuclear silos and installations. Strategic bombing was a sort of back-up or lead-up to a nuclear strike using ICBMs.

Now we have mobile missile launching platforms.

The primary threat is also changing. Where it was once large armies, it is now renegades and militants - some of whom with deep pockets and connections to purchase some pretty capable 'toys.'

I fully expect we'll see the B-52 flying 300 years from now - in some form or another. It's just such a utilitarian airframe that you just can't beat it for what it is.

That said - the demands being placed on the bomber forces we have today (and shared somewhat by strike fighters) requires something closer to a B-1 mixed with a B-2. You need to be able to fly to the target and be able to 'bust a move' once you get there to stay alive (at least long enough to deliver the ordnance).

They need to be able to take on strike missions as well as have considerable loiter time. Payload is also going to be more diverse than ever before, with air-to-air missiles likely coming standard - why spend the extra money on a fighter-escort when you can use a scaled-down AWACS to shoot down threats to the bomber?

So by then I could see the need for an update, but the price tag is quite hefty regardless.

That's actually a damned good deal, if they can meet that price point. Also - when you consider that, in 30 years' time, the B-52 will be an 80-something year-old airframe while the B-2 will be a 53 year old airframe.... yikes.

It's projected that the B-52s will no longer be able to be maintained beyond 2040 - since you would pretty much have to have new wings built for the things at that point. So, they will either end up doing a complete redesign of the airframe using new materials, or simply do a partial redesign of the wings and other critically fatigued parts and incorporate new materials where appropriate (would likely cost just about as much as a complete redesign or entirely new bomber - though in 20 years' time, that could all change).

Either way you look at it, though, the B-52 is a support bomber - not something you are going to use to penetrate into enemy airspace. Time has changed its role.

Something that has always bugged me about this military procurement, is the costs involved.

For instance, lets look at Megadeath From Above Inc, purveyor of high-tech killing machines. They go to the government and say, "hey, we just had an idea for another fighter, you are gonna like this one even more than the one we previously sold you at huge expense".
Okey dokey says the Pentagon brass and procurement team, all leaving the presentation with their "artist impression" pics and desk models.
So, Megadeath gets the green light to start development and is handed a contract offloading $Billions into their company coffers for the next 10 years. 15 years later, when they have finally built and demonstrated the new machine, they are then given $Billions more from the government to purchase the new product. What is wrong with this picture?
Better yet, having used taxpayer money to pay for development, they then start marketing the new product on the international stage....even more money pours into their coffers!

If I want the latest sparkly new widescreen HD 3D tv set, I don't go to a company and pay them to design and manufacture a new model, I buy the product they have developed and are marketing, off the shelf. Yeah, I know a portion of what I pay is the development cost, but I am not saddled with paying for the whole development cost myself.

Would it be too much to expect the arms manufacturers to actually design and build a product, then sell it to us, instead of me as a taxpayer getting saddled with the development, production and purchase costs? It all just seems to be geared up for enriching the arms industry, which of course is freakin' huge!

reply to post by Aim64C


You tend to ignore what is seen flying daily in the US and strangely also, in GB. What do you put those highly strange appearing craft down too, a common mental or visual aberration to English speakers? Or could it possible be an exotic craft--not aircraft--that is being systmatically introduced into our services? You know, the F-117 fighter was operational for twenty years before it was acknowledged. Yet, all of the experts and self-styled experts--need we mention disinformation specialists?--refused to acknowledge it. And actually, there was a Monogram scale plastic model of it that was a dead-ringer for the actual look of the craft when it was officially acknowledged.

I really get tired of arm-chair experts that believe what they read from the industry and government and totally dismiss the reports and visuals from the common folk that are way ahead in what is real rather than what is PR. And, of course, there the disinfo people that get paid for hushing the chatter about triangles.

reply to post by Aliensun


I disagree with your "armchair" statement aimed at the poster above you, what evidence did you post to expalin your point other than comments about triangles! If, and its a big if that the US are flying around in experimental aircraft shaped liked triangles, do you think they could afford to loose one to the enemy or build something experimental on mass?

To add to the thread.
Wasn't this mentioned by Intelgirl when the hypersonic bomber/Blackswift/sr72 was canceled? I think she said something about a version appearing later after the cancelation.

reply to post by Aliensun

You tend to ignore what is seen flying daily in the US and strangely also, in GB. What do you put those highly strange appearing craft down too, a common mental or visual aberration to English speakers?

A phenomena that puzzles and alarms the military just about as much as it puzzles and alarms the general public.

Or could it possible be an exotic craft--not aircraft--that is being systmatically introduced into our services? You know, the F-117 fighter was operational for twenty years before it was acknowledged.

The F-117 was built with materials and upon principles common and well known within the "white" world and industry. Sure - Radar Absorbent Material was something developed new for the project - but they didn't bust out unknown elements and chemistry unknown to the rest of the industry to do it. They simply put it all together in a specific manner, and may have used some technology that was -very- expensive to produce at the time.

When you see these newfangled innovations and discoveries in the science forum - you know, the stuff that universities, IBM, and other companies spend a few thousand dollars to develop a single unit? There are guys in the military and under contract with the military who see stuff like that, and say: "Heeeey... that's just what I need to make that modification to the Predator drone we need to support [mission goal/objective]!" That's partly why you see military hardware using stuff that is more advanced than the civilian world - it's not that they are developing secret technology so much as it is they are using stuff that is not cost-effective to market in the civilian world just yet.

Yet, all of the experts and self-styled experts--need we mention disinformation specialists?--refused to acknowledge it. And actually, there was a Monogram scale plastic model of it that was a dead-ringer for the actual look of the craft when it was officially acknowledged.

Plenty of experts speculated on the existence of an "F-19." Again, however, the F-117, SR-71, U-2, etc; classified as they were, were not built using materials "out of time" and substantially more advanced than what could be made in the civilian world. Even the computations used to compute low radar-observable features were based off of patents and university discussions dating back to the 30s and 40s.

I really get tired of arm-chair experts that believe what they read from the industry and government and totally dismiss the reports and visuals from the common folk that are way ahead in what is real rather than what is PR. And, of course, there the disinfo people that get paid for hushing the chatter about triangles.

You've already established your next reply to this. Any 'average' person who disagrees with you is simply ignorant. Someone like myself, who has served in the military and been briefed on the mission and the type of work the Naval Special Warfare Development Group does, as well as having experience in real industry and understanding a fair amount of what goes into designing and building new parts and the vehicles/instruments they comprise.... well - if I disagree, it's because I'm "them."

Anyone who has credentials and disagrees is suddenly made into a bogeyman.

Hence why I decided simply to ignore your first comment.

The idea that the U.S. is using some kind of ultra-secret physics-defying craft to be-bop around all over the planet in entirely insecure and populated regions is silly. The number of operational craft necessary to account for the sightings is substantially larger than the current inventory of F-22s.

They may be craft - but the notion that anything but a fraction of the "genuinely mystifying" sightings are military R&D projects is absurd.

reply to post by Britguy


The reason we contract development of weapons is so that the companies can be bound by contract where and how the developed technology can be sold. Craft like the F-5 were developed with the intention of being sold internationally and rather autonomously by Northrop. Craft like the F-22 are locked up tight.

Arms manufacturers have to be selling something to stay in business - if we want to let them develop their own weapons and then we simply shop for what's on the shelf - we can't get upset when Iran turns up with the same fighters or the same missiles we use.

Further - much of the reason military solutions cost so much to build centers around the fact that inspection and quality control is 100%. That's where most of your cost is in Milspec parts, and why milspec parts often come with higher rated tolerances than non-milspec parts.

Scaled up X-47B look alike perhaps? that is one hell of an interesting project and by all accounts the materials invol;ved are readily available to be scaled up for such a project. makes sense and would keep costs down.


As for AIM64C - Nice work, keep it up

Originally posted by RequiemAgent
So it is interesting to see the Pentagon working towards such a massive aerospace defense project ($550 million per plane) with all of the economic problems our country is facing and the lack of funding for the F-22.

B2s came out to cost around 2 billion per unit (aircraft carriers up to 4 billion). Personally, I can't disagree with the US wanting to modernize its bomber fleet, but new bombers will end up costing much more than the beginning investment (that's just how the industry works).

reply to post by Aliensun


If you are going to make claims on here about triangles and suchlike that you want people to take seriously, you need to make sure that the actual checkable facts you post aren't actually nonsense.
F

You know, the F-117 fighter was operational for twenty years before it was acknowledged.

First flown in 1977, reported on speculatively in Flight magazine in 1980-83, it was deployed in 1983 and public ally revealed, officially, four years later in 1987.

Yet, all of the experts and self-styled experts--need we mention disinformation specialists?--refused to acknowledge it. And actually, there was a Monogram scale plastic model of it that was a dead-ringer for the actual look of the craft when it was officially acknowledged.

Is patently nonsense as illustrated. I think that maybe you are the disinformation agent? But so much of what you write is so easily rebuffed, you may get fired

Snap?

The new bomber will be a hypersonic bomber.

It will fly at 200,000 feet.

With GPS guided bombs you will no longer need large bomb loads like the B52.

And flying hypersonic stealth is not as important, jamming can do much to replace the high tech stealth materials.

With GPS bombs or other form of smart bombs will be smaller because they can hit right on the target from even 200,000 feet.

From 200,000 feet some bombs would not even need to explode. bombs filled with concrete or solid steel bombs would work just as good.
www.strategypage.com...
www.g2mil.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by waynos


To be fair - I like the Monogram F-19 better.

Though Testors/Italery were a -little- closer




But not by much.

The blended body designs being anticipated were well ahead of the actual implemented technology. However, the designs would, if they were to be redesigned to modern LO technologies, end up getting chiseled outlines as opposed to the smooth blending shown (which, from what I understand, generates a rather nasty return at all angles).

But, really - I'm partial to the Monogram render, despite its implausible downward bend in the wings.



I even have an original 1:48 plastic model kit of it. One of these days, I'm going to put the parts into a CAD system using a 3d scanner, then use rapid prototyping to print out parts for building additional models. Same with my F-23 model.

reply to post by ANNED

The new bomber will be a hypersonic bomber.

Worked out well for the B-70 Valkyrie.

Beautiful airplane and concept. Not as practical as first thought.

It will fly at 200,000 feet.

So, it's a recoverable ballistic missile.

With GPS guided bombs you will no longer need large bomb loads like the B52.

Ever hear of Datalinking? It's the idea that a soldier on the ground can light up a target with a laser designator/GPS designator on the ground and have mail-order bombs dropped on their head (among a number of other things for air combat - such as being able to have your wingman lock one of your missiles onto a target at your 6).

In fact, 'medium bombers' are going to become the standard for strike aircraft since the larger airframe allows for deeper strike missions, larger payloads, and bleed-over into interception roles (traditionally performed by massive engines attached to wings and a cockpit with large missiles strapped to the bottom and an even larger radar bolted to the nose - at least, that's the way the design was prioritized).

The military is wanting to go to more cost-effective "do everything" aircraft. For whatever convoluted reason - they decided it would be best to take a small airframe with stubby wings and try to make this happen. They should really start by giving bombers the latest radar technology and a dedicated air-to-air missile bay (mainly on the B-1) and work their way down to smaller airframes around the size of an F/B-111 (smallest) to an SR-71 (average) - with modified B-1s piloting the concept before their wings fall off.

And flying hypersonic stealth is not as important, jamming can do much to replace the high tech stealth materials.

No... no, not really.

First - as we discovered with the SR-71, the friction heating of the airframe also heats the air and causes a radar-refractive region that completely destroys low-observable radar considerations. Not to mention the only larger IR target out there is the sun.

Further - any radiating energy source can be used to track and intercept a target. Home On Jam is a completely passive function that is impossible to jam - it works by simply using wide-band receivers located across the body of the missile to triangulate the source of the jamming emissions. It's just like SARH - except your aircraft is illuminating itself by attempting to jam.

Now - there are decoys for this - the Miniature Air Launched Decoy (MALD) is one, and I've heard mention of 'towed arrays' (similar to maritime warfare) before - but that could have been in one of the book series I read. The "holy grail" is a jamming system that could radiate nonlocally - IE, the 'source' of the jamming field be some location other than the antenna (in empty space). That, however, would require a new understanding of physics to make work.

With GPS bombs or other form of smart bombs will be smaller because they can hit right on the target from even 200,000 feet.

Laser designators are still more accurate than GPS. Laser-gyro INS systems are superior, even to that. You are also going to need a different kind of guidance system that can handle adjusting at those velocities. Further - re-entry velocity would create localized radio disturbances that would make the munition unable to receive GPS coordinates. Even if this could be offset somehow - the velocities involved are far too fast for anything other than self-contained INS systems to handle. Even IR laser designation would be disrupted by aerodynamic friction.

From 200,000 feet some bombs would not even need to explode. bombs filled with concrete or solid steel bombs would work just as good.

Really depends upon the target. If your target is a building - then, sure. Even mechanized heavy armor would be obliterated. People, however, are a little more pesky. For that, you need area-effect munitions. Further - a number of modern air-delivered munitions, such as the AGM-154, allow for multi-target acquisition and destruction. These are some absolutely terrifying weapons, as it allows a single bomber to eliminate entire armor formations in less time than it takes to boot up your computer.

Dropping them from space is simply unnecessary, and something more suited to a dedicated, and more permanent fixture serviced by specialized flights.

In the news here in Norway it is mentioned today that the US might not be able to afford a single F-35 and might have to abandon the whole project. This is mentioned by Ashton Carter.

Norway is still planning to purchase their batch of F-35s.

This link is in Norwagian; www.dagbladet.no... 6594802/