Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26965 posts, RR: 83 Posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4923 times:
The Seattle Times Business Digest for January 25, 2008 noted that Boeing and Lockheed-Martin are entering a joint development program to replace the B-2 Spirit strategic bomber. Northrop Grumman, who developed the B-2 (with Boeing) is also bidding on the RFP, expected to be worth up to $10 billion.
Boeing would be the lead contractor, with 60% of the work. LM would have the remaining 40%.
The bomber will be manned, with an un-refueled range 2000 miles ( ) and would be subsonic.
As Boeing worked on both the B-2 and the F-22 program, I tend to think they and LM have the inside track over NG. The bomber is expected to leverage the systems of the F-22, so that favors Boeing and LM even more, I would think. With such a short range, I have to guess it will be much smaller then the B-2 and B-1, to say nothing of the B-52H.
EBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4905 times:
Quoting Stitch (Thread starter): As Boeing worked on both the B-2 and the F-22 program, I tend to think they and LM have the inside track over NG. The bomber is expected to leverage the systems of the F-22, so that favors Boeing and LM even more, I would think. With such a short range, I have to guess it will be much smaller then the B-2 and B-1, to say nothing of the B-52H.
Might it be more accurate to say they're developing a stealth fighter-bomber? Something akin to the F-111 in load carrying capability but with subsonic performance. I can't imagine a strategic bomber with a mere 2,000 mile range.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26965 posts, RR: 83 Reply 3, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4837 times:
Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 1): I think that's pretty much monopolizing the market isn't it?
Well there are only three US companies with the expertise to do it. LM has not built a strategic bomber since WWII. Boeing has built two (the B-52 and B-1) and if you add in that they bought Convair's aerostructures unit, that would be four (the B-36 and B-58). And Northrup Grumman only has the B-2, which they shared to a great extent with Boeing.
Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 2): Might it be more accurate to say they're developing a stealth fighter-bomber? Something akin to the F-111 in load carrying capability but with subsonic performance. I can't imagine a strategic bomber with a mere 2,000 mile range.
Well they do refer to it as a replacement for the B-2 and it is supposed to be "long range". It is possible Reuters is mistaken in the 2000 mile range figure.
The mythical "A-17" was supposed to be a swing-wing plane based on the YF-23 that would have replaced the F-111. So it is possible this could be the base design. If the goal was to make a small plane with a large internal bomb-load (to maintain stealth), then volume for fuel tanks would be limited so I could see the range dropping a great deal. A 2000 mile range would allow the plane to tank-up well outside enemy defenses and then penetrate, attack, and egress to re-tank for the flight home.
Lumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 21 Reply 4, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 4811 times:
I started a thread on Gen-Av a year or so back on the possibilities of a LM-Boeing joint venture on the next generation narrow body. Most who replied dismissed the idea out of hand. Maybe I should resurrect the thread? This could point the way to something more than just cooperation in the defense sector?
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
RIXrat From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 774 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4787 times:
The Seattle Post Intelligencer story, however, says that the range should be 2,800 miles, still about 1,100 miles short of the B-52H without refueling. Here is an out-take from that story:
"The Air Force has provided only general design parameters for the new bomber. For example, the new plane shouldn't be capable of breaking the sound barrier and must have a range of about 2,800 miles. Manufacturing a supersonic bomber adds to the cost of the program."
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2530 posts, RR: 6 Reply 6, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4722 times:
Quoting Stitch (Thread starter): The Seattle Times Business Digest for January 25, 2008 noted that Boeing and Lockheed-Martin are entering a joint development program to replace the B-2 Spirit strategic bomber. Northrop Grumman, who developed the B-2 (with Boeing) is also bidding on the RFP, expected to be worth up to $10 billion.
What a waste - tell me again how it wouldn't be wiser and less expensive to just build more new model B-2's? If we go ahead with a replacement bomber program than how can we be assured we don't spend the outrageous amount that we did on the B-2 only to cut the final buy down to just 20 when all is said and done?
Quoting Stitch (Thread starter): The bomber will be manned, with an un-refueled range 2000 miles ( ) and would be subsonic.
Guess we'll be need a lot more of those tankers, maybe we can RFP a few stealth tankers to go along with the new replacement bombers?!
474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9 Reply 7, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4658 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 3): LM has not built a strategic bomber since WWII.
Lockheed built 392 B-47 bombers in the 1950's, will after the end of WWII.
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 7508 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4621 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 6):
What a waste - tell me again how it wouldn't be wiser and less expensive to just build more new model B-2's?
Exactly. The B-2 is barely in service as it is. It is still the bomber of the future.
If there needs to be a B-2 Mark II, then call it that, and get to work on it.
These companies are getting so large and powerful it is truly scary. This has nothing to do with national defense. It is all about money. Our B-52s are unchallenged. Our B-2s are unchallenged (and largely unbuilt). There is no need for anything beyond the B-2 since we hardly even need that.
If more bombers are needed, let them be refined B-2s. This is ludicrous to go again down the road of "future tech" when our present tech is not even utilized nor needed.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29367 posts, RR: 61 Reply 9, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4594 times:
Quoting 474218 (Reply 7): Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
LM has not built a strategic bomber since WWII.
Lockheed built 392 B-47 bombers in the 1950's, will after the end of WWII.
But they didn't design it, Boeing did.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2530 posts, RR: 6 Reply 10, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4593 times:
Are you sure this isn't the F-15E replacement that Boeing and LM are going into business together for?
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26965 posts, RR: 83 Reply 11, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4522 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 6): What a waste - tell me again how it wouldn't be wiser and less expensive to just build more new model B-2's? If we go ahead with a replacement bomber program than how can we be assured we don't spend the outrageous amount that we did on the B-2 only to cut the final buy down to just 20 when all is said and done?
One of our local Congresscritters - Norm Dicks - has been championing more B-2s. Last I heard, to produce 40 more B-2s would run $28 billion, or $700 million per frame.
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 10): Are you sure this isn't the F-15E replacement that Boeing and LM are going into business together for?
It certainly sounds like it. The Seattle Times had a more in-depth article today and noted range was 2000 miles and payload was 14,000-28,000lbs which is similar to the F-15E and F-111. The plane would need to be larger to carry that store internally, but it would certainly be a much smaller plane then any of our current strategic bombers.
F27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1113 posts, RR: 5 Reply 12, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4519 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 11): It certainly sounds like it. The Seattle Times had a more in-depth article today and noted range was 2000 miles and payload was 14,000-28,000lbs which is similar to the F-15E and F-111. The plane would need to be larger to carry that store internally, but it would certainly be a much smaller plane then any of our current strategic bombers.
if that is what they are going to built (subsonic?!) they would be much better of with an F-22B Strikeraptor
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26965 posts, RR: 83 Reply 13, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4456 times:
Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 12): if that is what they are going to built (subsonic?!) they would be much better of with an F-22B Strikeraptor
The problem with that is most of that ordnance would need to be carried on the outside, which would ruin it's low radar profile.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29367 posts, RR: 61 Reply 14, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4435 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 10): Are you sure this isn't the F-15E replacement that Boeing and LM are going into business together for?
Sure sounds like it.
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 10): The Seattle Times had a more in-depth article today and noted range was 2000 miles and payload was 14,000-28,000lbs
Especially based on those numbers.
Which wouldn't be a bad thing, the USAF has been short a true medium bomber since the F-111 retired (No I don'te count the F-15E).
Actually wouldn't it be great if a follow-on to the old EF-111 was build on this airframe?
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
EBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 2 Reply 15, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4433 times:
Quoting Stitch (Thread starter): I tend to think they and LM have the inside track over NG. The bomber is expected to leverage the systems of the F-22, so that favors Boeing and LM even more, I would think.
I wouldn't be too quick to rule out Northrop-Grumman.
Quoting L-188 (Reply 14): Quoting AirRyan (Reply 10):
Are you sure this isn't the F-15E replacement that Boeing and LM are going into business together for?
Sure sounds like it.
This being so, if it is, then we are talking about a fighter-bomber rather than a bomber in the classic sense?
DEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4452 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4410 times:
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 17): Is this an actual need for the USAF or is it just another very profitable program Boeing's and LM's lobbyists are pushing for?
Going by these previous reports about the project, the answer to both may be in the affirmative.....
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26965 posts, RR: 83 Reply 19, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4392 times:
Quoting A342 (Reply 16): Will the USAF consider a non-stealth design?
I suppose they could, since the F-111 and F-15E are both un-stealthy.
However, with the advances in air defenses, stealth is more and more becoming a requirement to survive. Even though the F-22 is expected to attain complete air superiority over a combat zone, the F-35 is stealthy to help protect her from ground-based anti-air defenses. I would expect the same would be required of a larger penetrator, especially if she was meant to go in with the F-22s at the outset of the battle.
The B-1 and B-52 are plenty capable of precision moving mud in great amounts once the air and ground defenses have been neutralized and stealth is no longer necessary.
Texl1649 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 239 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4353 times:
If the A-17/F-23 attack derivative(s) do in fact exist in the black world, this requirement is definitely odd. Similarly, if you've actually got an SR-71 replacement flying around, it's tough to see why you need this aircraft.
I dunno, but carrying that much weaponry at sub-sonic speeds really would make me wonder if the US would in the future be willing to risk pilot's lives. That F-16 tail and ejection seat in the Kosovo museum comes to mind.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12736 posts, RR: 79 Reply 22, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4121 times:
It does seems more sensible to go for those 40 more B-2's, replacing some of the legacy heavy bombers.
Covering the very upper end of this new requirement.
But, re-jigging an existing (if dormant) production programme means little in the way of tax $ for an all new design & development, all the poor lawyers and 'consultants' not needed, including for no loser to challenge the winner either.
For the lower end, I too think a FB-22 would be a good idea, it might have to carry stores internally, say a bunch of JDAMs, but any bigger stand off weapon would surely be stealthy as well as having a decent range.
Allowing their external carriage not undermining LO, remembering the stand off capability too.
The US has programmes for these, the European Storm Shadow is similar in concept (and used in action), so that's hardly a potential problem 10 years hence.
No all new type needed, for what is a quite small, narrow requirement with no exports, can this be a good use of Defence $ when existing programmes are under pressure, like F-22 and F-35?
Which are needed in numbers to replace an aging fleet of types like F-15/F-16.
F27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1113 posts, RR: 5 Reply 23, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4011 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 13): The problem with that is most of that ordnance would need to be carried on the outside, which would ruin it's low radar profile.
for 10 G$ they'd be more than able to design and built a slightly bigger strike raptor. It would sure beat the slow small concept they invisage now.
Wvsuperhornet From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 516 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3972 times:
Guys and Gals (if any) keep in mind our military is the king of mis-information its been long know that the USAF has been looking for a meduim range bomber to replace the F-111 and the funds havent been there maybe this is there way of trying to sneak one in. I cant imagine anyone being dumb enough to replace an intercontental bomber with a short range one especially after the trouble they had trying to secure air bases after 9/11. There is still also the Advanced bomber program that is still very much alive for long range needs so maybe they are trying to go 3 tier system like their nuke delivery systems Short Range: FA-22/F-35 Meduim Range: FB-22 (or something simular to the YF23) Long Range: A new bomber all together. We current have the B-1B/B-2/B-52H for long range the B-52 being the oldest would be the likely choice to be the first replaced by something the B-2 and the B-1B would do the long leg work while the new meduim bomber is put into service then by that time most of the work designing and building a new long range bomber would be done to replace the other two. Just my thoughts on it.
25 DEVILFISH: Are they going to replace one of these..... .....with this?..... .....or this?..... http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2006/q4/061027b_pr.html Quote:
26 F27Friendship: well, the spec posted here doesn't suggest anything near strategic bombers. A blended wing body with an F-111 payload would be nice for boeint to mat
27 Cloudy: Both. Technology like this has such a long development lead time that it is worth pursuing even if there is no current need. Yet because of the huge
28 F27Friendship: the F-22 more or less already does that
29 AirRyan: And if they have any brains they'll make it crewed by at least two persons.
31 STT757: With today's JDAM's and other such accurate munitions does a FB-22 need to have the same payload capacity as the F-111 to be just as if not more effe
32 F27Friendship: it does meet the payload range mentioned in the requirement for the new bomber. Also, it is a platform with growth potential.
33 Cpd: This plane would be exactly what is needed to replace our F111s. We don't need something as big as the B2 Spirit, but we do need a plane more capable
34 R2rho: The outcome of the KC-X competition makes my prediction at the beginning of the thread even more likely...
35 Stitch: I just learned about the "B-1R" proposal - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-1_Lancer#B-1R. That looks like it could be a nice option - and cheaper then
36 EBJ1248650: My guess is we'll see a scaled down B-2A or a very scaled up F-22. I don't see a scaled up F-35; better to go clean sheet of paper than go that route
37 MCIGuy: The B-2 is a strategic bomber with 6000 mile reange. How are you going to replace it with something the 1/3 the range and less than half the load and
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26965 posts, 
) and would be subsonic.
From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1113 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4656 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8498 posts, 
From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4452 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12736 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
