LRS-B (new stealth bomber) speculation

a reply to: Zaphod58

You might have to have a UAV at higher altitude for sensor-support if you were down in the weeds...

You'd probably want one anyway providing ISR so you don't have to lug it around yourself and your weight/performance/cost triangle -- I think we're seeing a move to separate platforms for hunter-killer, and it makes sense. Your manned platform stays far away from the action (and/or scoots through it quickly) while the unmanned platforms loiter in contested space providing ISR or AEA.

Honestly, with an ELO design, I think you're better off with a high-altitude, high-speed profile. Take advantage of that speed and altitude and the ability to minimize the threat bubble and even your standard JDAM could be dropped 25 miles or so downrange. You could toss a SDB more than three times that. Obviously the same principle will extend the range of missiles as well -- all while having the sensor data from the target area beamed to you.

a reply to: _Del_

Yeah, you would be better off, but there are times when a big platform is just over kill, so a tactical platform is necessary. And getting down into the weeds is your better bet.

It wouldn't be hard to have a UAV to extend your sensors out though. And while the extra weapons range would be nice, sometimes a scalpel is needed instead of a sledge hammer.

a reply to: Zaphod58

That's not what they're aiming for with this though.

Maybe they already have an operational tactical strike platform...

a reply to: _Del_

Oh that wasn't for this platform. But they could take some of the technology from it and apply it to a tac bomber.

The LRS-B RFP has officially been issued.

Too bad we won't hear anything from it

Yes and what ?????????? no news

a reply to: BlackDog10

We may, but right now it's literally JUST been released, so no one has picked it up yet, except for one or two aviation specific sites, and it's in their subscription section. We're going to see the new aircraft sooner rather than later from everything I'm hearing.

Good god. They are also looking for a new ALCM, as well as the new bomber, but the word is that the new missile could cost as much as a bomber.

a reply to: Zaphod58

It better be an awesome missile if it costs that much. Stealth ALCM perhaps? It it had a range of 2,000+ miles (current AMG-86 is around 1,500 mi, right?) -- this might be a great asset for the Pacific theater.

Perhaps they could throw some EW gizmos on board to confuse/obfuscate defenses and clear a "path" for the LRS-B?

a reply to: MystikMushroom

There are a few possibilities from previous years that got "cancelled". One of them allowed multiple weapons bays, along with either an EW head, or warhead that would allow it to dive into the last target. It also had a 24 hour loiter time possible.

It's almost certainly going to be stealthy. It's the only way that it would survive into the target area.

a reply to: Zaphod58

If it's stealthy and had an adaptive optical coating, a 24 hour loiter time would scare the crap out of me.

"There be 'invisible missiles' somewhere's out there...waiting to strike at any time..."

a reply to: MystikMushroom

The scary thing is that the 24 hour loiter time was in small scale testing. If you were to increase it up to an ALCM sized missile, you might be able to get it even higher. You could conceivably see 48-72 hour loiter times for a VVLO missile.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Shoot, why don't we just have 24-7 stealth missiles cruising around all the time?

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Because it would cost our annual budget just for missiles.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Bah, we can just print more money! Wouldn't they be cheaper than having a manned platform anyway?

a reply to: Zaphod58
What are the name of aviation site with suscription ?

a reply to: darksidius

You can find it on Aviation Week, in their subscription section.

Don't expect to see a lot. This was from last week:

“The Air Force is committed to a fair acquisition process to select a new long range strike bomber that supports national security requirements at an affordable price for the taxpayer. To ensure this occurs, we are prohibited from releasing information while in the current phase of the acquisition lifecycle. Additionally, many aspects of the program are classified in order to ensure sensitive information is protected from release to potential adversaries. Future release of acquisition milestones will be considered and released as appropriate.”

breakingdefense.com...

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: BlackDog10

We may, but right now it's literally JUST been released, so no one has picked it up yet, except for one or two aviation specific sites, and it's in their subscription section. We're going to see the new aircraft sooner rather than later from everything I'm hearing.

Sooner sounds good