Forum: General F-35 Forum

I'm not so sure LRS-B will be subsonic. The F119 engine has incredible performance and the easiest way to built a bomber as in the past would be to build a 4 engined variant. Its thinking that a 4 engined variant can do everything...that's the key to ballooning cost.

F-16.net Sponsor

Another angle to consider is the likelihood that the LRS-B will operate in coordination with. UAVs and other off-board systems, resulting in a ,relatively simpler,and cheaper bomber that need not be packed to the gills with a full range of capabilities.

Read what is written : The LRS-B is an UAV.

Manning it, is optional.

I would think three F135 or four F100/110 would be more affordable than F119. And if it's subsonic stick to F118.

vilters wrote:

Read what is written : The LRS-B is an UAV.

Manning it, is optional.

Well, yeah it's got to be manned sometimes. They got to or else no one in the USAF will ever make General.

Personally, I have a difficult time believing they'll leave a pilot out of the loop. With a half-billion-dollar airplane, plus billions in development, are you going to rely on computer software for everything? Are you going to trust real-time communications can't be jammed? Spoofed? Don't think so. The only unmanned missions my mind can see as minimizing risks is ferry flights, and just perhaps, ultra-long endurance naval patrols measured in days rather than hours.

Ah, its all speculation anyway. Those that know aren't talking, and those that talk, they don't know.

Boeing should use this program to promote the BWB concept. Just need three engines. Push a variant later on for tankers and transports.

sewerrat wrote:

vilters wrote:

.. The LRS-B is an UAV..Manning it, is optional.

..Well, yeah it's got to be manned sometimes.. .. With a half-billion-dollar airplane, plus billions in development, are you going to rely on computer software for everything? .. Don't think so. The only unmanned missions my mind can see as minimizing risks is ferry flights, and .. ultra-long endurance naval patrols measured in days rather than hours....

For discussion;

1. if the design is bwb, does the optional "pilot/ passenger house" need to be located in the "pointy end"?
a. better to insert the module over the c.g. (for trim)
b. optional fuel module
c. optional module for additional i.s.r. mission systems
d. optional weapons module
2. if the "p./p. h." is not in the "pointy end" does it require windows? (mine would have windows, Ha!)
3. autonomous (loss of comm link) modes; 1. take-off, 2. landing 3. rtb 4.?? (mission profile)?? Wink

vilters wrote:

Read what is written : The LRS-B is an UAV.

Manning it, is optional.

A UAV performing the nuke role? Shocked

vilters wrote:

Read what is written : The LRS-B is an UAV.

Manning it, is optional.

A UAV performing the nuke role? Shocked

neptune wrote:

sewerrat wrote:

vilters wrote:

.. The LRS-B is an UAV..Manning it, is optional.

..Well, yeah it's got to be manned sometimes.. .. With a half-billion-dollar airplane, plus billions in development, are you going to rely on computer software for everything? .. Don't think so. The only unmanned missions my mind can see as minimizing risks is ferry flights, and .. ultra-long endurance naval patrols measured in days rather than hours....

For discussion;

1. if the design is bwb, does the optional "pilot/ passenger house" need to be located in the "pointy end"?
a. better to insert the module over the c.g. (for trim)
b. optional fuel module
c. optional module for additional i.s.r. mission systems
d. optional weapons module
2. if the "p./p. h." is not in the "pointy end" does it require windows? (mine would have windows, Ha!)
3. autonomous (loss of comm link) modes; 1. take-off, 2. landing 3. rtb 4.?? (mission profile)?? Wink

I guess you have to figure out whether that window is worth the radar signature.

From the tone of the conversation, we can probably settle on two different bomber designs.

1) Backfire - A medium bomber with a supersonic sprint capability. It would be upgraded with advanced stealth coatings and use probably the F-119 engine with super cruise.

2) NGB - The original plan for the NGB, this would be a 20k payload stealth aircraft, with subsonic capability and extreme levels of stealth.

Depends on what you think is more likely. It does not make sense to combine supersonic flight with a flying wing, unless someone has made a massive leap forward in aerodynamics. Remember, a nominal goal of the program is to build the bombers at a reasonable cost per plane.

I think that it will be design No. 2. This fits the need for deep penetration, high stealth to survive within an anti-access perimeter, and lower costs as it does not aim to combine stealth and speed. Furthermore, the shape will allow the bomber to survive the 2020 - 2040 radar threat, bistatics, low frequency, etc., better than a supersonic bomber. The speed gained from supersonic flight will most likely be unable to compensate for the larger detection radius. When they can get a high-speed supersonic bomber, say Mach 3+, then you can redo the calculation.

Why can't the F-22's supercruise apply here? Because the bomber won't have the ability to 'leave the fight' like the F-22. The F-22 is unlikely to be used on a deep penetration mission, a thousand or more miles behind the enemy lines. When near the front lines, the F-22 can super cruise in, attack, then fly out. But when the opponent has several hours to direct interceptions against you, you're probably better off trying to sneak your way through. Here escort UCAVs will be the most useful, they can do A2A missile launches against enemy interceptors.

Seems like a good time to post this.
http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RS21848.pdf

weasel1962 wrote:

Seems like a good time to post this.
http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RS21848.pdf

I got a chuckle out of this bit:

Quote:

Some argue that by leveraging the
F/A-22 cockpit, engines, computer systems, production methods and materials, the FB-22
could be produced relatively cheaply.

The engines are amazing and very costly, but quite possibly not a great fit for long range penetration?

Would anybody start a new airframe project today with
* F-22 computer systems
* F-22 production methods
* F-22 materials

That list makes for a good view of items that greatly hampered production ease of the F-22 itself.

Low level penetration needs to stay dead. I've mentioned this before but flying at high speeds at low altitudes is bad for the airframe what with having to deal with large amounts of aerodynamic buffeting. There's a reason special vibration dampening canards were added on the Bone. Not only that but then there's point defense systems like Stingers and AAA that could likely pose a serious threat to any low altitude aircraft regardless of how low observable they are since the bomber will be quite close by the time it can spot the area defended by said AAA site. A High altitude subsonic flying wing type aircraft leads to a highly VLO platform that will experience little drag and aerodynamic heating that might diminish stealth, sensor effectiveness and efficiency/range as well as the aforementioned structural elastodynamic issues.

tacf-x wrote:

Low level penetration needs to stay dead. I've mentioned this before but flying at high speeds at low altitudes is bad for the airframe what with having to deal with large amounts of aerodynamic buffeting. There's a reason special vibration dampening canards were added on the Bone. Not only that but then there's point defense systems like Stingers and AAA that could likely pose a serious threat to any low altitude aircraft regardless of how low observable they are since the bomber will be quite close by the time it can spot the area defended by said AAA site. A High altitude subsonic flying wing type aircraft leads to a highly VLO platform that will experience little drag and aerodynamic heating that might diminish stealth, sensor effectiveness and efficiency/range as well as the aforementioned structural elastodynamic issues.

I say poppy-cock! I don't know about Russia/China the US has the ability to track bombers from space. A while ago there was an effort, akin to GPS, to place radar equipped satellites in space around the globe - but was cancelled by politics. What nation wants somone in "Florida" to know in real time what flying over occupied Tibet? Higher flying objects are easier to detect, plain and simple, I used to work with CCD imagining hardware back in the 1990s, and it was amazing even then.. Now CCDs are better, electronics have lower noise levels, and SOFTWARE algorithms (along with OOP and better multithreading and multicore) For forward 20 years, and unless the bomber;s skin temperature is that of the surround atmosphere (+ a few degrees), it CAN be seen. Stealthy aircraft like the Raptor and Lightining II make use of the fog of war in batter.... A lone bomber with a few decoys /and over 50k feet is en entirely different matter.

Those sholder fired missiles are golden bb's. Fly a straight in and stright out mission is nutso (per Fonzie). This aircraft is going to fly in at night, and there those types of shourlde fired weapons are 1/100000 likely of taking down a poperly planned mission. We're not going to fly straight over Hinh Koing at 600 ft weaving through the skyline. Most of the world is sparsely poplulated and there ain't going to be someone with a should fired missile spead out over over every 4 square miles of terrain. That's nutso. And the bomber will have countermeasures (not just flares) to deal with those exceedingly rare and very brief glimpses of the aircraft. Ordinary night field vision goggles are useless to a guy with a shoulder fired SAM...... One last point, our ALCMS are all low flying... ie flying low mission profiles, which some seem the think is the riskiest mission profile of them all for a fast move LO aircraft. Damn, our cruise missles are all going to get taken down by AAA, ak-47s, and shoulder fired missiles.... Damn, all of the low flying anti-ship missiles are missing the point as well. Ok, let's go back to 1959. Smile

The bone was designed to be a high flier from inception.... hence when turned into a low level penetrator, canards had to be added. Somewhat similar to how ever sexy bend and twist on the Phantom is meant to overcome an initially flawed design.

Until we have a "bomber" that has something like low orbital flight abilities, high altitude flight is like walking into Giants stadium butt naked. Again, fighters are a different story because its a battlefield environment, and not a lone bomber flying deep into bad guy airspace.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

LRS-Bomber to look at proven technologies from the F-22/ 35