Slashdot Mirror


Pentagon Picks Northrop Grumman For Next Gen Bomber (theatlantic.com)

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.'"

36 of 237 comments (clear)

  1. How it compares to the F-35 contract... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2, 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...

    1. Re:How it compares to the F-35 contract... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

      They padded it out with a bunch of paperwork just so everyone could save face; but I'm told that the actual bidding process was "We need a new bomber. Which one of our military aircraft oligopolies isn't responsible for the F-35? Ok, them then."

    2. Re:How it compares to the F-35 contract... by The+Real+Dr+John · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
    3. Re:How it compares to the F-35 contract... by The+Real+Dr+John · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
    4. Re:How it compares to the F-35 contract... by phil.swansborough · · Score: 2

      I mostly agree except the good for business part. It's actually terrible for business as it's highly deflationary. You sink huge amounts of money into assets that will depreciate and never provide any return. It gets money flowing through the economy to a degree but there are far more effective money pits, i.e. healthcare, education etc.

    5. Re:How it compares to the F-35 contract... by The+Real+Dr+John · · Score: 2

      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 as the public doesn't get mad about it, things are never going to change.

      --
      A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
    6. Re:How it compares to the F-35 contract... by blue9steel · · Score: 2

      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.

  2. Evade air defense? by Firethorn · · Score: 3, 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.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
    1. Re:Evade air defense? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, 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.

    2. Re:Evade air defense? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      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.

    3. Re:Evade air defense? by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    4. Re:Evade air defense? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      Just in case it proves to be unfeasible to build a bomber that can survive modern air defense systems; we always have the option(additional charges may apply) of retrofitting the bomber to deliver short or medium range air to ground missiles instead of just dropping things from above the target. Sure, that adds a factor of ten to the cost of every warhead delivered over the life of the aircraft; but it does allow you to stay away from fixed AA.

      We already do that with air-launched cruise missiles and B-52s, in situations where we aren't just hammering some poor bastard with basically no AA, in which case gravity bombs still offer more warhead per unit weight and lower cost.

    5. Re:Evade air defense? by silas_moeckel · · Score: 2

      Those high powered ground based radars will be long gone by the time a bomber gets there.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    6. Re:Evade air defense? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, 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.

    7. Re:Evade air defense? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  3. Already flying? by Pegasus · · Score: 2

    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 ...

    1. Re:Already flying? by Richard_at_work · · 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.

  4. Imagine the American reaction... by Anonymous Coward · · 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...

    1. Re:Imagine the American reaction... by DrXym · · Score: 2

      Yes I can imagine it - a rapid push to develop new early warning / detection and tracking technology that can counter such aircraft. Probably exactly what Russia and China will do in response to aircraft which can evade their existing systems.

  5. Re: How about by Anonymous Coward · · 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?

  6. Re:We've already got TWO by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, 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.

  7. Typo? by mescobal · · Score: 3, Informative

    I thik it's NorthrOp not NorthrUp.

    --
    La culpa no es del chancho...
  8. Re: How about by knightghost · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually there are. You don't have to leave the USA to find many pockets of 3rd world country living.

  9. Re:Evade the seafood platter? by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    Even if it's just scaling up a F-35

    Scale it up to a bomber? It barely scales up to a fighter!

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  10. Re:We've already got TWO by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  11. Re:I pick....canceled by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We don't need a next gen bomber, we have murdering human beings down pat. There is no need for improvement on that front anymore.

    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.

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  12. Re:Possibly a lost cause. by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 3, 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.

  13. Re: How about by t1oracle · · Score: 2

    BS. Education transforms lives and enables the poor to become producers within society. In fact, the reason for most poverty is the lack of education I. The first place. Furthermore, there should be no starvation or death by curable disease in the richest country on earth. Certain things should be provided to all when are basking in abundance.

  14. Modified F-35 by belthize · · Score: 3, Funny

    Just weld some bomb releases on that badboy and let it do it. It will be cost efficient having only one airplane model

  15. Re: How about by Vokkyt · · Score: 3, 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.

  16. Why bother by DarthVain · · Score: 2

    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...

  17. Re: How about by operagost · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We already have well-funded social programs for those issues. They date back to the 1930s. More money isn't the answer.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  18. Re: How about by operagost · · Score: 2

    So those cities have no governments? And the states in which they reside have no governments? And there are no charities like Habitat for Humanity?

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  19. Re: How about by knightghost · · Score: 3, 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.

  20. Re: How about by Coren22 · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  21. Re:Time to cut the USAF budget by $60B by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

    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.