Forum: General F-35 Forum

I'm actually agree with arkdyrenko on the speed point.

"Speed" is a bit worrying in that there are three key contributers to the cost of a program. Number Produced, Empty Weight and Top Speed. It's a gerenal ball park cost prediction equation, but it gets you in the ball park (+/- 15%) on most programs.

Additionally to get speed and range you are looking at either a changing wing (be it morphing, swing, or extending) or a high empty wieght to accomidate an very high fuel fraction, both of which are very expensive.

Sufa Viper

F-16.net Sponsor

arkadyrenko wrote:

Has anyone else seen the Northrop design for a 'kite' stealth bomber? That's probably the way the LRS-B is going to go, as many people here have already mentioned.

I think the most worrying statement from the story is "speed" included as one of the bombers characteristics. I don't know how they're going to get 'ultra-stealth' and speed at the same time.

If they do go for speed, then its going to have to be a 'low-ish' altitude penatrator, just because it won't have the broadband stealth of the LRS-B. Why low altitude? Because this plane, theoretically, is going to have to do deep strike into China and as such won't have the ability to run and hide like the F-22.

I think you need to reconsider the idea of "low altitude penetration." The AF abandoned that idea in the 1980s because the predicted survival rates of aircraft on low altitude mission was extremely low. That was validated by the experience of Tornado pilots in the Gulf War. If anything the odds are now far far worse against aircraft as MANPADS and low altitude SAMs are ubiquitous. Low altitude also takes more power and increases friction on an aircraft, making them easier targets to hit.

Supersonic dash at medium to high altitude is much more preferable.

maus92 wrote:

err, popcorn - you seem to be multiple posting of late...

No kidding.. Embarassed

Doing wonders for my post count though.

maus92 wrote:

err, popcorn - you seem to be multiple posting of late...

No kidding.. Embarassed

Doing wonders for my post count though.

hb_pencil wrote:

arkadyrenko wrote:

Has anyone else seen the Northrop design for a 'kite' stealth bomber? That's probably the way the LRS-B is going to go, as many people here have already mentioned.

I think the most worrying statement from the story is "speed" included as one of the bombers characteristics. I don't know how they're going to get 'ultra-stealth' and speed at the same time.

If they do go for speed, then its going to have to be a 'low-ish' altitude penatrator, just because it won't have the broadband stealth of the LRS-B. Why low altitude? Because this plane, theoretically, is going to have to do deep strike into China and as such won't have the ability to run and hide like the F-22.

I think you need to reconsider the idea of "low altitude penetration." The AF abandoned that idea in the 1980s because the predicted survival rates of aircraft on low altitude mission was extremely low. That was validated by the experience of Tornado pilots in the Gulf War. If anything the odds are now far far worse against aircraft as MANPADS and low altitude SAMs are ubiquitous. Low altitude also takes more power and increases friction on an aircraft, making them easier targets to hit.

Supersonic dash at medium to high altitude is much more preferable.

In counter point, the USAF abondoned the idea of high altitude bombers in the 1960s/70s. Our Buffs suffered huge losses to Vietnam of all countries. Tornados aren't stealthy in the last iota (spell?).

I don't think supersonic is any good at all at altitude. Only, only if you're guarantied of being truly undectable, otherwise no airplane can go fast enough to outrun a missile.

Low altitude Tornado sorties in GWI are an exception to the rule, at least as I see it. In the desert, you've got nothing at all to hide behind... no trees, hills, mountains... nothing. From what I've read, the LSRB is part of the effort to better tailor the military to Pacific ops.

Medium and high altitude bombing runs are only good so long as you're not seen. Considering the time and huge amount of money it takes to develope a heavy bomber, designing it around one mission profile is simple ridiculous. Again, its impossible to design a truly undectable aircraft, and at altitude, you're sitting duck once spotted. I don't know, maybe it'll be equipped with anti-missile-missiles, laser spoofers, and other directed energy countermeasures to defeat anyone lucky enough to target it. Along with stand off long range cruise missiles... I don't know, but it'd be better to have a plane that can fly more than one medium/high altitude mission profile.

LRSB is subsonic. They're pondering supersonic/supercruise for the next new bomber after it, but that will be decades later.

megasun wrote:

Guys, it's being built by Northrop....

Where does that confident statement come from?
Any links or statements to support that or just feelings...?

delvo wrote:

LRSB is subsonic. They're pondering supersonic/supercruise for the next new bomber after it, but that will be decades later.

What good is a subsonic bomber espically when the escort fighters are crusing at transonic/supersonic speeds to beat the ground radar? A subsonic bomber makes little to no sense as it is the B-29/Lancaster problem all over again.

Sarcasm much?

alloycowboy - That's a fairly ridiculous issue, especially as the bombers will have significantly more range than their escorts. And, how does speed in any way help the fighters against radar? It only helps them against enemy missiles. Which leads to the next point, if the fighters have to go to high speed to avoid enemy defenses, then that will draw enemy fighters to the bomber stream.

Currently, it seems that USAF bomber strategy is to use stealth to sneak around enemy defenses, relying on less stealthy escorts as part of that process is highly questionable.

hb_pencil - My statement about having to go to low altitude was based on this premise: currently, high speed bomber designs will have less all aspect and all bandwidth stealth than a subsonic flying wing bomber. If the USAF wants to do deep penetration attacks, relying on a high speed, and we're only talking Mach 1 - 2 here, will make it far more vulnerable to hostile detection than a flying wing. Hence my comment about low altitude penetration. If you go high speed and low, with a stealth shape optimized against AWACs, you can get the high speed body without making the radar return too bad.

In the future, once bombers with a reasonable payload can be built with a speed of Mach 2 - 4, then we can go that route. As it stands right now, that would be too expensive for the stated goals of the LRS-B program.

Archeman - Northrup has been documented working on an improved stealth and laminar flow bomber body,, it has conducted these studies over the past decade. While someone else, theoretically, could have done the same work, given the public knowledge it is safe to assume that Northrup has the best chance of winning the contract.

I've seen statements that speed helps with stealth by increasing the physical distance between detected radar returns, which makes it less likely that the signal will be recognized as a target by search radar.
That said, the trade off in radar and IR stealth for double speed is probably not worth it.

I wonder if they would consider incorporating some AIM-120s, just in case?

It seems to me that with the advent of better SAM systems and such, it might be wise to use AIM-120Ds & NGMs in the self defense role to counter long-range SAMS, anti-AWACS, etc.

count_to_10 wrote:

I've seen statements that speed helps with stealth by increasing the physical distance between detected radar returns, which makes it less likely that the signal will be recognized as a target by search radar.
That said, the trade off in radar and IR stealth for double speed is probably not worth it.

Yes, exactly! Fly too fast, and the airframe heats up. You can reduce that effect with active cooling, but that adds cost, weight, complexisty. What would be nifty is to have them operate in pairs; one for the "bombing" mission, and one for SEAD and to counter aerial threats. Speed makes sense when you're making your way out and you know you have a clear path ahead. Low altitude, like the Bone, and ultra-LO makes so much sense for deep strikes, unless you're flying ops deep in the deserts of the Middle East. But even then, you'd better have very low IR emissions.
It's no easy task they're facing with the designing the new bomber.... Ultimately, it'll be designed around the massive computer simulations. So its not likely that us arm chair quarterbacks can outthink those somulations...

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.

Forum: General F-35 Forum

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