Pentagon Picks Northrop Grumman For Next Gen Bomber (theatlantic.com) 237
retroworks writes: The B-52s currently in use have been flown by three generations of American Air Force pilots. B1s and B-2 Bombers are also long in the tooth. The Pentagon has been looking for a new model to replace them, and Northrop Grumman has won for the next half-century with a major new order for state-of-the-art bomber aircraft. The bomber will be capable of carrying nuclear weapons, and the contract is worth almost $60 billion. The Atlantic reports, "While the current fleet remains useful, the Air Force wants a bomber that can evade the advancing air defenses of Russia and China—if ever the need arises. The long-range bomber would act as a deterrent against actions designed to keep U.S. forces out of a designated area—what the military calls 'anti-access aerial denial.'"
How it compares to the F-35 contract... (Score:3, Informative)
Here we have 100 bombers delivered under contract for the cost of developing the F-35 with no aircraft delivered. I wonder if it will actually happen tho...
Re: How about (Score:2, Insightful)
Instead of building fighter planes, we spend that money on feeding the poor, educating people with no options for education, and providing infrastructure to help those who lack even running water, let alone electricity, internet, or other amenities of modern life?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually there are. You don't have to leave the USA to find many pockets of 3rd world country living.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: How about (Score:4, Insightful)
The median hourly compensation has fallen in the last 40 years while productivity has more than doubled.
The rich have doubled their ownership, CEO pay has tripled or more.
A basic education is now out of reach for many, and globalization and rampant immigration have mostly annihilated upwards mobility.
You're right, the safety nets established 80 years ago are now ineffective. Time for something much more disruptive.
Re: How about (Score:4, Informative)
Fortunately, there are almost no people like that in the US, despite fabricated horror stories by people with selfish political and economic motives
Do you live in a small town? Or do you live in a city and just never go outside? Or have you actually become blind to homeless people or the parts of cities in shambles?
East Coast, West Coast, all cities have parts that are either in dilapidated housing or have no housing at all. Even Minneapolis and St. Paul up north in MN have huge homeless populations as well as those without adequate housing amenities.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no "that money"; we are running a huge deficit, and this is just placing a burden on future generations.
Don't worry, eventually we won't be able to make the minimum payments on the national credit card, and then the party will be over. Then the big corps will move on to some other country to rape and the U.S will turn into a 3rd-world country.
The party won't last forever, people. Eventually the credit will run out and the bills will come due. Let's see how long our great military power lasts when our noble soldiers and the contractors who supply them start getting paid in dollars that are worthless.
Re: (Score:2)
"we are running a huge deficit"
by choice. We could easily balance the budget, like we did in the 90's, through prudent tax increases.
Re: How about (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From a HUD report:
"In January 2014, 362,163 people experienced
homelessness as individuals "
"here were 216,261 homeless people in families
on a single night in January 2014, accounting
for 37 percent of all homeless people"
approx. 500k homeless total, 30% unsheltered. see https://www.hudexchange.info/r... [hudexchange.info]
approximately 7.8 pct of households have unsafe drinking water. From http://www2.census.gov/program... [census.gov]
I am ashamed and so should you.
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like a minuscule problem, there are 300m people in the US. The question is, why are they homeless. When you look into that you might find that it is mental illness and/or drug addiction. No matter what you do for those people, they will remain homeless. Unless you are advocating for institutionalizing people against their will, which is essentially the opposite of freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
Providing available mental health care would be a real good start.
Re:How it compares to the F-35 contract... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, there is still plenty of time for it to go over budget. Spec changes, unforeseen problems that somehow the government gets to pay for... I'm sure they will find something to pay for the CEO's 3rd yacht*.
Re: (Score:2)
Spec changes, unforeseen problems that somehow the government gets to pay for...
So, you advocate for the engineers to work for free to fix issues with the requirements?
Who else would be expected to pay when the requirements change and therefore "unforseen problems" are found?
Re: (Score:2)
Like the F-35's that nobody wanted
These kind of bleeding edge technologies will feature in the next top fighter aircraft. Its not all waste you see . These are more like technology demonstrators .
Re:How it compares to the F-35 contract... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not a technology demonstrator, it is a classic boondoggle. Gen. Smedly Butler was right when he wrote that war is a racket. This is about money, and nothing else. The US taxpayer is getting fleeced over and over by these overpriced, unnecessary, unneeded weapons systems. But it is damn good for business, if you prefer your business to be focused on weaponry.
Re: (Score:2)
The US taxpayer is getting fleeced over and over by these overpriced, unnecessary, unneeded weapons systems.
I wouldn't say they're unneeded. Yes, it was a poor idea to smush so many different roles into one plane but it was time for new hardware.
Re:How it compares to the F-35 contract... (Score:5, Interesting)
We need new military hardware that won't be used? Who are we going to fight, Russia? Please. Not only is the public getting fleeced repeatedly with these useless weapons systems, some of the public apparently enjoy being ripped off and getting nothing for it. How about some repaired bridges?, how about a smart, renewable electric grid? How about funding our public schools? How about tuition free community colleges? How about Medicare for all? How about doing something more productive like going back to the moon, and then to Mars with some of those tax dollars? At least we'd get some good pics, videos and rock samples from that. You get nothing from an unneeded, unused, duplicate weapon systems.
Re: (Score:3)
We need new military hardware that won't be used?
The would be the ideal situation yes. If you have to use it, then A) People are going to die and B) It's too late to build it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed, virtually any use of public money would be better for the public than expensive weapon systems. But Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, GE and all the others make a very good living off of weapon systems, and the best part for them is that the systems don't get used in any real world situations, so it doesn't matter if they are actually more useful than current systems or not. It is just money in the bank for them, and less of taxpayer's money left for infrastructure, health care and education. But as long a
Re: (Score:2)
Like the F-35's that nobody wanted
These kind of bleeding edge technologies will feature in the next top fighter aircraft. Its not all waste you see . These are more like technology demonstrators .
That's some serious revisionist history you tried to pull off on the one size fits all mess the F-35 has become.
Evade air defense? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd say it was easily doable if it was a B-52 style 'bomb truck', perhaps even being supersonic like the B-1.
But if it has to survive against modern air defenses that means stealth AND speed. I'm thinking of something like a supersized F-22 or 35.
As such, I'm with Richard - 100 craft delivered for less than the cost of F-35 development? Even if it's just scaling up a F-35, I don't see it happening.
Re:Evade air defense? (Score:5, Informative)
The current understanding of the contract within the military aviation industry and community is that the bomber is not supersonic, doesn't even have supersonic dash capabilities, and is intended to have better stealth characteristics than anything currently developed - looks like they are going for mainly stealth as a defensive measure, with a good dose of active and passive ECM capabilities to make up the difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, because stealth technology isn't a single thing and radar technology isn't a single thing - both evolve over time. Older stealth technology may be defeated, but improved technologies become available, just the same as detection technologies evolve in attempts to defeat stealth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Those high powered ground based radars will be long gone by the time a bomber gets there.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the power is spread across radio and tv transmitters, cell towers, and the like. The radar sites can be largely passive as long as they are synchronized.
Re: (Score:2)
How long do you think those transmitters will be around? They are all valid military targets to begin with doublely so if the detection system is using them.
They are fixed well known locations gone in the opening salvo's. Any new sources will be on the receiving end of AMG-88 and similar in short order.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Evade air defense? (Score:5, Interesting)
Even with older stealth technologies in the F-117 and the B-2, the tactics involved in deploying them recognised they did not eliminate chances of detection but rather reduced the effectiveness of fixed position radar installations to the point where their coverage no longer overlapped, so the entry route into the denied area was planned around those gaps between radar sites which weren't supposed to be there. It wasn't a case of the B-2 could simply fly straight at the defenders radar grid without detection, as there is always a point where the radar energy is enough that you will get a detectable return off of the aircraft regardless, even if its only a few miles out.
So the problem you are describing is not new, and has always been part of the cat and mouse game that is stealth and radar.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can not improve stealth beyond a certain point.
After all: the plane has to fly, it has an engine, it has exhaust, and worst of all it causes turbulences. At night it is covering the stars etc. p.p.
At night if there are either no clouds or the plane is below the clouds you spot every plane with a simple IR camera.
The turbulences a stealth fighter causes are visible on weather radar.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You don't bet "everything on stealth". If you want to nuke a city, you send airplanes using stealth, missiles from Nebraska, missiles from submarines, and low-flying cruise missiles from ships. If you aren't nuking a city, you send radar-seeking missiles and cruise missiles first and make their coverage weaker before sending stealthy aircraft. And for countries without Russian state-of-the-art radars, you just loiter in their airspace dropping ordinance at leisure.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the point of that? They won't obey any of it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why you need dumb bombs, these new bombs are terrible. They're smart, I heard it on CNN. Smart bomb are surely less likely to obey orders to self destruct.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just proves that spell check can't fix ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
The current understanding of the contract within the military aviation industry and community is that the bomber is not supersonic, doesn't even have supersonic dash capabilities, and is intended to have better stealth characteristics than anything currently developed - looks like they are going for mainly stealth as a defensive measure, with a good dose of active and passive ECM capabilities to make up the difference.
Speed and payload matter. Betting everything on stealth is idiotic.
You don't send in bombers like the B-52 unescorted anyway. You generally send them in with fighter escorts and usually they are preceded by air to ground attacks to take out radar and SAM/AA sites. My assumption is that the stealth is really more about protecting the bombers long enough for their escorts to take out possible threats. Odds are the Air Force intends to use the F-22 or (if it ever actually flies) F-35 to escort these new bombers, because it doesnt make much sense to pair stealth and non-ste
Re: (Score:3)
Odds are the Air Force intends to use the F-22 or (if it ever actually flies) F-35 to escort these new bombers,
I think the new bomber will be there to protect the F-35.
Re:Evade the seafood platter? (Score:3)
Scale it up to a bomber? It barely scales up to a fighter!
Re: (Score:3)
We already do that with air-launched cruise missiles and B-52
Re: (Score:2)
Even if it's just scaling up a F-35, I don't see it happening.
Even if it's delivering an operational F-35 without fudging the definition of "operational", I don't see it happening either.
Re: (Score:2)
Mmm... Coleslaw...
Already flying? (Score:3)
Various sources around the net speculate that this thing is already flying for some years now. Developed as a black program, this announcement would serve only to declassify it. One wonders how many $$$ already went into it ...
Re:Already flying? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, its not just speculation - the program is already fairly mature as all competitors have flown demonstrator scale versions and developed their entries to a higher level than normally required to. As an example, both the F-22 and F-35 programs were awarded based off of non-representative demonstrators, and the actual production examples were then developed from scratch after the contracts were awarded - in this case, the competitors were required to fly demonstrators based on the production examples, and were fully funded to that goal. The winner now gets to continue development on to full scale.
Why the change in approach? Because its run by a different office than normal acquisitions - the LRS-B contract competition was run by the Rapid Capabilities Office, which also handled such programs as the X-37 and thus isn't bound to the normal acquisition rulebook.
Re: (Score:2)
"both the F-22 and F-35 programs were awarded based off of non-representative demonstrators, and the actual production examples were then developed from scratch after the contracts were awarded "
Boeing and Lockheed-Martin were both given $750m contracts for prototype development. This resulted in the Lockheed Martin X-35 and Boeing X-32. After evaluating the performance of the prototypes it was determined that both planes met the design specifications. Those aren't "non representative demonstrators". Th
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, neither the X-35 nor the X-32 were representative of the final product at all - the X-32 had a completely different wing to the design Boeing submitted in their final offer (the X-32 had a delta wing while the final offering had a conventional wing and tailplane), and the X-35 only kept a vague visual similarity in its transition to the F-35.
Nothing other than the general look from the X-35 was carried over to the F-35 - even the engine, high speed turboshaft and lift fan were developed from scrat
Re: (Score:2)
There was a documentary, Nova I think, that really pissed me off and made me hate the F-35 from the start. I actually like the idea - even though it can't be as good as a specialized device, I'm a fan of the Swiss Army Knife for example. Anyhow, I think the documentary name was something like Battle of the X Planes or something akin to that. Neither company actually had a fully functioning model, just concepts, that were actually changed even after the contract was awarded. If they were going to accept that
does Gen know about this? (Score:2)
Imagine the American reaction... (Score:2, Insightful)
... if Russia and China announced new attack planes that were designed with the specific purpose that they couldn't be kept out of American airspace...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like the Su-27 or better? Yeah... Russia's already got planes to do this. So doesn't China but I forget the names - I think I read that they'd kind of copies the Su. I'm not sure what the MiG's are up to but I bet it's fantastic.
The Cold War isn't over - it was just paused for the armistice. They were able to make more money from business deals but now that the economies are coming closer to each other, it will be time to get the war machine rumbling. We can argue if it's a good or bad thing (I sus
Re: (Score:2)
We've already got TWO (Score:2)
We've already got two bombers vastly more advanced than the B-52, both specifically designed to easily nuke Russia. First the (supersonic) B-1B from the 1980s [concordebattery.com], and also the (stealth) B-2 from the 1990s [tumblr.com]. But they just keep using those old dammed B-52s everywhere...
If anyone has a dammed good reason those two are pieces of crap, and a new bomber is necessary, I'd love to hear it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:We've already got TWO (Score:4, Informative)
Firstly, the B-1B only has supersonic dash capability at low Mach - it lost the ability for sustained high Mach flight during its redesign between Carter and Reagan (specifically, it no longer has variable intakes so high Mach airflows are out of the question). Its a fine platform, but its also devilishly expensive to operate, having more than twice the per-flight-hour cost of the B-52.
The B-2 is also a fine platform, but its also very very expensive, and incredibly maintenance heavy. It requires specialist hangars and maintenance routines due to the age of its stealth technology, while more modern techniques means aircraft such as the F-22 and F-35 require much less preventative and ongoing maintenance solely for its stealth capabilities.
When it comes to dropping bombs, the B-52 is still the most cost effective, and has the lowest per-flight-hour cost of any heavy bomber currently in the USAF capability range - the point of the LRS-B contract is to produce a much more cost effective aircraft to replace both the B-2 and B-1B, bringing costs much more in line with those of the B-52.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder, could we take a B-52 and reskin it with composites and call it a day? It would likely require quite a bit more than just that to make it more stealthy, but the B-52 (BUFF) does still have its fans and it does the job asked of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Completely wrong. The B-1 is actually LESS EXPENSIVE to operate than the B-52, while possessing greater capacity:
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/sta... [theatlantic.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The B-1B has more than 2x the payload capacity of the B-52. 125,000 pounds vs. 60,000 pounds. So the cost per flight hour isn't the issue since each B-1B effectively replaces two B-52s. IIRC, the problem was lower availability (greater downtime for maintenance) than the B-52, and intelligence from a Soviet defector that the new (at the time) MiG-31 had look-down radar capability
Re: (Score:2)
The B52 has loiter capablities and sheer mass of bombs other platforms cant match - the B52 is one hell of a cruise missle launch vehicle and holds far more missles per sortie... the B1 and B2 just cant launch / drop the sheer amount of FUCK YOU a B52 can. Oh and a B52 can be used for say a biiiiig FAE bomb for that extra fuck you.
So basically, if you want flatten the fuck out of something without a nuke, you want a B52. Hell, the B52 is perfectly good at big fucking nukes too.
Re: (Score:2)
The B-1B was designed to defeat Soviet radar by flying low and fast. We now know that this won't work against a modern air defence systems that know how to deal with ground clutter. While at present only the big boys
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The B-52 is entirely obsolete for the first-line nuclear bomber role that it was designed for. The reason it is still in use is because it is big and relatively cheap to operate and we're fighting wars where air dominance is easily attained by US forces.
The other two bombers are not big ugly fuckers who truck tons of bombs and missiles like the B-52 does. They're more expensive to operate and maintain, and don't carry as much.
However, they are significantly better for situations where you don't have compl
Re: (Score:2)
And the B-52 is 60 and is planned to be in service another 40.
The problem with the B-2 I believe is range.
Re: (Score:2)
B2 is thirty years old now. B1 older
When looking to make a stand for or against military aircraft programs, "neckbeard" is hardly a fucking argument given the average age of the rest of the fleet.
As an example, age hardly implies an inferior product when you consider the continued domination of the F-16 design in the skies today. Even future designs are struggling.
Hell, if anything within the caustic landscape they must thrive in, age would more often imply battle proven design.
Re: (Score:2)
B-52 - 70,000 lbs of bombs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
B-1 - 125,000 lbs of bombs (75k internal, 50k external)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
B-2 - 40,000 lbs of bombs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The B-52 is kept around because it costs less to operate, not because it carries so much more. The B-1 is king of armament capacity.
Re: (Score:2)
Except it also costs more to operate than the B-1:
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/sta... [theatlantic.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't know the figures so trusted others saying that. That "begs the question", why do we use the B-52 at all.
Typo? (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow...! (Score:2)
The bomber will be capable of carrying nuclear weapons
You mean like virtually every bomber manufactured after we stopped using wood and cloth for airframes?? You don't say! ;)
What's it going to look like? (Score:2)
Modified F-35 (Score:4, Funny)
Just weld some bomb releases on that badboy and let it do it. It will be cost efficient having only one airplane model
What's in a name (Score:2)
The headline is certainly prescient: This may indeed be the plane that will bomb the next generation
So a new bomber would differ how? (Score:2)
Why bother (Score:3)
60,000,000,000 could buy you a LOT of drones. So what if they aren't all that stealthy or fast or whatever. Send 10,000 of them.
Rather than have one bomber carrying lots of bombs, that might get taken down by AA measures, have MANY bombers, with a few bombs, overwhelming defenses. Make 'em cheap. Lose a bunch, who cares, no pilots to die. Also makes the enemy use up their ariel weaponry for the next wave etc...
Time to cut the USAF budget by $60B (Score:2)
The mission of this aircraft is idiotic. If we use this thing to bomb Russia or China we get nuclear war. Period. As such, the mission of any long range stealth bomber's can be achieved equally well by our simply nuking ourselves. Since we already can do that now, let's cut the USAF budget by $60B and declare "Mission Accomplished".
Re: (Score:2)
The mission of this aircraft is idiotic. If we use this thing to bomb Russia or China we get nuclear war. Period. As such, the mission of any long range stealth bomber's can be achieved equally well by our simply nuking ourselves. Since we already can do that now, let's cut the USAF budget by $60B and declare "Mission Accomplished".
That is probably the best point made about the cost. The question shouldn't be about particular capabilities, but having enough capability to act as a deterrent. Is there a risk that our ICBMs and cruise missiles wouldn't make it through and someone would be willing to bet the world on it? Then yes we need these bombers. But is that a real risk? You are probably correct, I don't know for sure either way.
But I'd much rather see a larger military with more soldiers who can more flexibly respond to variou
Re: (Score:3)
It's not for bombing Russia or China, it's for bombing some country with Russian or Chinese air defences as a proxy for bombing Russia or China.
"capable of carrying nuclear weapons"? (Score:2)
Re:I pick....canceled (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, we do. Bombers get old. And we no longer have the capability of building B-52's. The assembly line is long since gone to wherever old assembly lines go when they stop making something.
Since the B-52 is pre-interwebs and mostly pre-computer, recreating the ability to manufacture B-52's is likely to be even more expensive than designing a new bomber from scratch, even ignoring that we want stealth and other fun things in a new bomber.
Note that the B-1 and B-2 suffer some of the same problems - not making them anymore means recreating the ability to make them with modern machine tools may be as hard as or harder than starting a new bomber from scratch.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we do. Bombers get old. And we no longer have the capability of building B-52's. The assembly line is long since gone to wherever old assembly lines go when they stop making something.
Since the B-52 is pre-interwebs and mostly pre-computer, recreating the ability to manufacture B-52's is likely to be even more expensive than designing a new bomber from scratch, even ignoring that we want stealth and other fun things in a new bomber.
Note that the B-1 and B-2 suffer some of the same problems - not making them anymore means recreating the ability to make them with modern machine tools may be as hard as or harder than starting a new bomber from scratch.
No we don't. The point he was making is the old bombers we have now murder just fine.
Re:Possibly a lost cause. (Score:4, Interesting)
I guess you could detect a radar shadow of cm waves coming from a satellite.
There are potentially techniques to fight this though. There are the metamaterial invisibility "cloaks", also with lots of phased arrays on the bottom of the plane you might be able to detect the incoming radiation on top and relay it to the bottom.
Re: (Score:2)
That and, if such a system existed, we'd simply take out the satellite long before we were sending manned bombers over there. We can target a satellite from the deck of a ship that's floating on the water - with all the movement that entails and all the accuracy that requires. If such exists, we know about it. We'll defeat that long before sending bombers over. It will be much like how we'll sit off-shore and fire missiles that target static radar platforms before sending in the stealthy planes. We're prett
Re: (Score:2)
You'd need an awful lot of detectors because the plane would have to fly directly overhead. You could maybe do it the other way, with a satellite detecting a radar shadow from lots of emitters, but I would think it would be easier (nowhere near easy) to detect the actual shadow against background street lighting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you being serious?
I know. Those are the fact. The reasons for cancelling the Apache given were the funds were needed for the Osprey. Go figure. It had nothing to do with "replacing" the apache. And I do believe cruise missiles can replace bombers. You haven't convinced me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I might agree with the F-35 stoppage, but I'd prefer that they fixed the dogfighting aspects of it. We need fifth generation attack fighters that work.
The A-10 is great, but it does one thing very, very well. If it was a choice of keeping it and a a *working* F-35, I'd take the F-35. As the F-35 seems flawed, I certainly don't want to drop the A-10 yet, but I can understand why we don't want to maintain two strike platforms.
I disagree entirely about bombers, though. Bombers carry cruise missiles too. A
Re: (Score:2)
The United States never was credibly at threat of an actual invasion during WWI or WWII, unless you mean small Alaskan Islands or maybe Hawaii. That didn't prevent us from needing bombers.
If it gets to the point where someone can actually threaten to invade the US, we're already in an incredibly dire position. You'd have to have bases to launch a campaign from which probably means either Canada or Mexico. To get to that point, the world order would have had to have changed enough so that you could actual