Northrop patents Next Gen bomber configuration

Drawings shown on the Av Week Ares blog:
www.aviationweek.com...


www.aviationweek.com... PostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3aee82f877-8742-40f9-bbf0-91342c6fad53

I can only assume this is to replace the B1 or something - IF it ever gets built. I would say this idea is dead since it is public.

We need to get a fleet of high-speed bombers - enough of this lumbering flying-wing crap. Sure speed = less payload, but seriously are we dropping bombs these days like it is Operation Rolling Thunder? I question the direction of the bomber force these days.

Do we really need slow flying wings or do we need high-speed penetration? I htink that is a legitimate question when looking at our future threats.

[edit on 20-3-2009 by ACEMANN]

Looks simply to be a jacked up B-1...or should I say...a B-1 on steroids.

How much is this one....100 million each?

What happend to the longevity of the B-1 as it was sales pitched back in its heyday?

I think its more of that they get board with one design and need to play around with another..costing us taxpayers billions, and in 20 years, there will be another, costing 200 million or more each.

I do not see the point, and do not see the need.


Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by ACEMANN

We need to get a fleet of high-speed bombers - enough of this lumbering flying-wing crap.

Why do we need a fleet of high speed bombers when those bombs can be launched from orbiting satellite platforms and high altitude carrier aircraft?

A bomb these days can fly itself just like a freakin missile..why would it need something to carry it....just to say the bomb is a bomb and be considered a dumb bomb that needs to be dropped from the belly of a bomber????

I dont see the need for it. Not when there is other extremely more efficient, and deadlier ways to kill.






Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by RFBurns

Originally posted by ACEMANN

We need to get a fleet of high-speed bombers - enough of this lumbering flying-wing crap.

Why do we need a fleet of high speed bombers when those bombs can be launched from orbiting satellite platforms and high altitude carrier aircraft?

A bomb these days can fly itself just like a freakin missile..why would it need something to carry it....just to say the bomb is a bomb and be considered a dumb bomb that needs to be dropped from the belly of a bomber????

I dont see the need for it. Not when there is other extremely more efficient, and deadlier ways to kill.

Cheers!!!!

I was trying to keep it in the context of "what can we do realistically with the budget and treaties in place".

There will always be a need for a manned bomber force. How do you reload space based weapons? What if the uplink is jammed? What about ASAT systems? Cost/benefit of protecting a conventional warhead during re-entry for warhead size? It gets complex when thinking about how to effectively deploy a space-based "bombing" system.


[edit on 20-3-2009 by ACEMANN]

reply to post by RFBurns


A jacked up B-1? Don't you mean B-2, as this looks nothing like a B-1.

This is going to be replacing the B-52s and some of the B-1s. The B-52s are already almost 50 years old. Bombs can fly themselves, but not with a ton of range.

reply to post by RFBurns


Next gen bombers are supposed to be designed for all aspect stealth and be able to deal with long wave frequencies etc.

The nature of the threat has changed as does the bomber. Once built a purpose stealth airframe is not easy modified to deal with changes in threats.

You cannot patent a 3 view sketch without any details of the mechanisms or concepts being patented...


Where is the patent claim itself.



Bill Sweetman is supposedly a respected author. For his sake I hope he has not claimed that is a legit patent.


(There is nothing magic in the shape with regards CFD... its all details, a 3 view sketch tells you f**k all that a few simple hand calcs wouldn't derive).


Much, much, much more likely it is a PR release to throw people off... be that off the real scent, or off the fact there is no scent to trail at all.

Why do we need a fleet of high speed bombers when those bombs can be launched from orbiting satellite platforms and high altitude carrier aircraft?

Say what? Are you seriously telling us there are satellites out in space that are holding bombs to be dropped?

The NG bomber is not a high speed bomber, it is subsonic.

Funny this looks alot like the Locheed Skunk Works failed B-2 proposal.

Just a thought.

reply to post by ACEMANN


To get speed, a compromise must be made. Essentially, stealth will have to be reduced, payload will have to be reduced, and range will have to be reduced. Or price will have to be increased. The real question is this; how do we get a platform that can penetrate enemy airspace at minimum monetary and developmental risk while retaining maximum effectiveness? Probably a VLO all aspect stealth flying wing over anything else.

Looks simply to be a jacked up B-1...or should I say...a B-1 on steroids.

Looks more like a B-2; but is smaller and significantly more stealthy.

How much is this one....100 million each?

Probably 185 million, minimum; as a guess. Given the kick down capability it provides, it isn't all that bad. Let's hope it doesn't get bloated to high hell like most other aircraft; it getting to 300 million wouldn't surprise me the slightest.

What happend to the longevity of the B-1 as it was sales pitched back in its heyday?

The DC-3 has also proven to be so; but that doesn't mean we should be procuring new DC-3 aircraft, even though over the years technology and requirements change. The lines for the B-1 and B-2 have been shut down, torn to shreds, the aircraft themselves designed for a different time, and a different need. A 1970's aircraft obviously CANNOT take us to 2030+ where it will be unsurvivable therefore restricted to limited stand-off munitions, like the B-52. This is not what the NGB requirement is for.

If we needed a bomb truck then we would only keep the B-1, or order some modified 737's.

Why do we need a fleet of high speed bombers when those bombs can be launched from orbiting satellite platforms and high altitude carrier aircraft?

Given such a bomb would be ballistic, and newer systems such as the S-400 are anti ballistic Missile shields, tells us that unless the Mach 30 re-entry vehicles are stealthy, any such vehicle would likely be unsurvivable. To get the vehicle to re-enter the atmosphere energy must be taken away, i.e. de-orbit burn. These take large amounts of time, and even then bombing would be constrained to certain orbital planes at certain times of the day. Space based munitions simply cannot make up for a hundred or so bombers carrying 14,000-28,000 lb of weapons; flying multiple sorties a day, on ANY basis. Cost, no. Risk, no. Survivability, no.

If we go into the realm of fantasy we can easily add string theory weapons disintegrating the enemy without physical interaction. Doesn't mean it will happen though.


[edit on 21/3/2009 by C0bzz]

intelgurl posted these last year

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by C0bzz
The DC-3 has also proven to be so; but that doesn't mean we should be procuring new DC-3 aircraft,

Now there is a good suggestion to deal with the global financial crisis. Newbuild DC-3 to take on the roles of the B-1 & 2. No need for those climate controlled hangers. Heck no need for a runway....



Jensy

Stealth? There are no tails and the smallest external features of this aircraft are well over a meter across, and there’s room for deep-section, wideband edge treatments. Result: the NGB should be a wideband, all-aspect design, protected against VHF radars that can cause conventional stealth aircraft problems.

USAF Lt.Gen. Dave Deptula’s comments to Danger Room – “I wouldn't call it a bomber, because that creates a perception based on historical uses of bombers that this platform is going to be well beyond” – are important. First, the program’s backers have to make the case that the airplane is not the next B-2 – with its associated price tag and operational limits.

The NGB should also be adaptable for many missions (and relatively speaking, affordable enough to fill them). The option should exist of making the Block 20 or Block 30 airplane unmanned. With low probability of intercept satcoms – using the same kind of hardware being developed for the B-2 – it becomes an intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance platform (think, someone comments, of the RB-47s and ERB-47s of the 1950s), a communications node, and electronic attack aircraft. Fit an infra-red sensor and load the weapons bay with modified THAAD missiles, and you have a persistent, survivable boost-phase interceptor.

Bill Sweetman - Ares.

[edit on 23/3/2009 by C0bzz]

Some more interesting views. I kinda like it, it's ugly.

www.flightglobal.com...

reply to post by Zaphod58


I'll bet $50 the actual plane will not have canards.

Looks draggy, unnessesary, unstealthy, to me.

Originally posted by RFBurns
Why do we need a fleet of high speed bombers when those bombs can be launched from orbiting satellite platforms and high altitude carrier aircraft?

Well you can't drop bombs from orbiting platforms... Firstly that would amount to weaponising space space - and that is not a very good idea! Because once you do it then the other guys have got to do it and then you have your self on big ass arms race on your hands - Very expensive and very dangerous.

Not to mention you can only drop your payload when your satellite happens to be in the correct position,, any bomb would cost a fortune to put up there in the first place, re arming would be a nightmare, you don't even actually need a 'bomb' - just something that would survive re entry and carry it's kinetic energy through to a target.

Whenever I read your posts I get the impression you just post the first thing that pops into your head without really thinking about it are you just trying to get your post count up! Sorry, that was a little uncalled for.

russia allready had the FOBS system , which the USA cried big tears over since they had (and still dont have) an effective counter for it

Originally posted by Harlequin
russia allready had the FOBS system , which the USA cried big tears over since they had (and still dont have) an effective counter for it

Not like the USA has a counter for any nuclear arsenal. FOBS is unnessesary imo.

reply to post by Harlequin


a project that was scrapped 40 years ago, and our early warning system would track the launch and subsequent orbital path of the vehicle, 40 years ago.

What difference would it have made anyway, MAD would have been assured.