Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 1 of 2  [ 12 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 »
Author Message
TimothyC
Post subject: NGLRS gets a Program office (sort of)Posted: May 14th, 2011, 2:45 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3765
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact: Website
Edit: NGLRS = Next Generation Long Range Strike
DoD OKs USAF Bomber Program Office
By DAVE MAJUMDAR
Published: 11 May 2011 12:57

The U.S. Air Force is creating an office for its new bomber program, a top service official said. "We've got a general mandate from the Secretary of Defense to go forward with standing up the program office, so we're just at the beginning of that work," said Air Force undersecretary Erin Conaton at a May 11 breakfast sponsored by the Air Force Association. Still to come: detailed requirements, a firmer production plan than the 80- to 100-plane estimate, and more. "We don't have a full life-cycle cost yet," Conaton said. "That's the work that'll be done now by the program office as they stand up," Conaton said. The number of aircraft to be purchased will be refined as the service gets a better idea of the capabilities offered by the under-development bomber, Conaton said. "Eighty to 100 is our current best estimate of what we think we'll need, but that estimate will be refined over time as we see the capability and what we think we can afford," she said. Most important to the Air Force is that the fleet be much larger than the force of 20 B-2 stealth bombers, whose small numbers make them more troublesome and expensive to maintain, she said.

The Air Force plans to manage the program under the auspices of the Rapid Capabilities Office because it offers more streamlined acquisitions than the regular channels, Conaton said. "The idea is to try to get capability as quickly as possible, leveraging as many existing technologies as possible," she said. Conaton acknowledged that the bomber isn't being fielded under what is usually thought of as a rapid capability, but she said the process is faster and simpler than the traditional process.
Current cost estimates are for an amortized unit price of $550 million*, which if current tech is leveraged (F119/F135 engines, AN/APG-81 Radar, AN/AQ-37 DAS [Full spherical IR], ect) might just be possible.

Current Scuttlebutt from around the net points toward a stealthy B-1A or FB-111H analog rather than a B-2 type airframe.

*Total program costs would then be in the $50 billion range over 20-30 years. When you consider the fact that these planes will take on a major roll in the deterrent, that's not a lot per year, less than the Billion Burke Swarmβ„’ if I've done my math right.

_________________
πŒπ€π“π‡ππ„π“- 𝑻𝒐 π‘ͺπ’π’ˆπ’Šπ’•π’‚π’•π’† 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Wikipedia & Universe
Post subject: Re: NGLRS gets a Program office (sort of)Posted: May 15th, 2011, 6:40 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 309
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:19 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact: Website
TimothyC wrote:
Current Scuttlebutt from around the net points toward a stealthy B-1A or FB-111H analog rather than a B-2 type airframe.
Cool. Something like this?
[ img ][ img ]

_________________
Fasismi? Ei! Natsismin? Ei! Kommunismi? Ei! Elostelu!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Hood
Post subject: Re: NGLRS gets a Program office (sort of)Posted: May 15th, 2011, 9:38 am
Offline
Posts: 7233
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am
A 30 year project is so open to politcal whims that it seems unlikley to progress very far (unless black projects over the last 20 years since the B-2 has already laid groundwork). The last I heard the USAF was anti-bomber and had done everything it could to keep the pro-bomber lobby out of the major command positions with some politcal string-pulling too.
Given the technical hassles with V-22, F-22, F-35 and 787 I can't see the American industry being strong enough to do this alone. Could Boeing or Lockheed really have the resources and money to go it alone on what is essentially a much larger and technically challenging system than the F-22 and F-35 programmes?

Also does this signify a shift away from ship-launched SLCMs as power-projection tools and cruise-missiles in general?

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Mitchell van Os
Post subject: Re: NGLRS gets a Program office (sort of)Posted: May 15th, 2011, 10:46 am
Offline
Posts: 1056
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 5:19 pm
Attachment:
4444444.jpg
Got a line drawing for the one you posted wikipedia.

_________________
Fryssian AU with Lt.Maverick 114
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=9802&p=193331#p193331
[ img ]
Embarked on: HNLMS Karel Doorman A833
To do list:
-Zeven Provincien class cruiser
-Joint support ship all sides
-F124 Sachsen class frigate
-F125 Baden-WΓΌrttemberg class frigate
-Clemencau class aircraft carrier
-Zeven provincien class frigate
-Poolster class AOR
-Amsterdam class AOR
-Minas Gerais aircraft carrier


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: NGLRS gets a Program office (sort of)Posted: May 15th, 2011, 11:08 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7510
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
uhm.... then wikipedia is wrong again. that is lineart of the russian PAKDA bomber XD

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Mitchell van Os
Post subject: Re: NGLRS gets a Program office (sort of)Posted: May 15th, 2011, 1:06 pm
Offline
Posts: 1056
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 5:19 pm
acelanceloet wrote:
uhm.... then wikipedia is wrong again. that is lineart of the russian PAKDA bomber XD
He probaly used it for NS:
http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c197/USCMC/nationstates/B-90ACondor-extended.png

_________________
Fryssian AU with Lt.Maverick 114
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=9802&p=193331#p193331
[ img ]
Embarked on: HNLMS Karel Doorman A833
To do list:
-Zeven Provincien class cruiser
-Joint support ship all sides
-F124 Sachsen class frigate
-F125 Baden-WΓΌrttemberg class frigate
-Clemencau class aircraft carrier
-Zeven provincien class frigate
-Poolster class AOR
-Amsterdam class AOR
-Minas Gerais aircraft carrier


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
acelanceloet
Post subject: Re: NGLRS gets a Program office (sort of)Posted: May 15th, 2011, 1:08 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 7510
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 12:25 pm
Location: the netherlands
I'm talking about the one you posted, mitch.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
TimothyC
Post subject: Re: NGLRS gets a Program office (sort of)Posted: May 15th, 2011, 6:45 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3765
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact: Website
Wikipedia & Universe wrote:
TimothyC wrote:
Current Scuttlebutt from around the net points toward a stealthy B-1A or FB-111H analog rather than a B-2 type airframe.
Cool. Something like this?
<Image Snip>
Not quite what I meant. For some reason I typed 'airframe' when I should have typed 'analog'. The B-2 was designed (on one level) to hunt down the USSR's mobile ICBMs, while the B-1A and the FB-111H were designed to blow through enemy defenses and hit their targets. It's a difference of mission sets.
Hood wrote:
A 30 year project is so open to politcal whims that it seems unlikley to progress very far (unless black projects over the last 20 years since the B-2 has already laid groundwork). The last I heard the USAF was anti-bomber and had done everything it could to keep the pro-bomber lobby out of the major command positions with some politcal string-pulling too.
The bomber side is making a bit of a come back (with formation of Global Strike Command).
Hood wrote:
Given the technical hassles with V-22, F-22, F-35 and 787 I can't see the American industry being strong enough to do this alone. Could Boeing or Lockheed really have the resources and money to go it alone on what is essentially a much larger and technically challenging system than the F-22 and F-35 programmes?

Also does this signify a shift away from ship-launched SLCMs as power-projection tools and cruise-missiles in general?
It's a sign that the Airforce is dedicated to maintaining the Triad (such as it is), and yes I honestly think that if done correctly the B-3 program could be done in short order if done correctly - because the programs that you mention are all ground breaking (as was the B-2), and with a much larger production run the amortized unit cost is going to be lower.

_________________
πŒπ€π“π‡ππ„π“- 𝑻𝒐 π‘ͺπ’π’ˆπ’Šπ’•π’‚π’•π’† 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆


Last edited by TimothyC on May 16th, 2011, 10:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Wikipedia & Universe
Post subject: Re: NGLRS gets a Program office (sort of)Posted: May 16th, 2011, 5:24 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 309
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:19 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact: Website
MitcheLL300 wrote:
acelanceloet wrote:
uhm.... then wikipedia is wrong again. that is lineart of the russian PAKDA bomber XD
He probaly used it for NS:
http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c197/USCMC/nationstates/B-90ACondor-extended.png
@ace: He meant me, not Wikipedia.

@Mitch: Yes and no. Yes I use it in NS, but I am not to credit for it. That would go to the user, who has graced our sister forums, Etoile Arcture, from whom I purchased the aircraft on NS.

I hunted it down the moment I saw "stealthy B-1A/FB-111", although he clarified that he meant more mission-wise than airframe-wise.

_________________
Fasismi? Ei! Natsismin? Ei! Kommunismi? Ei! Elostelu!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
klagldsf
Post subject: Re: NGLRS gets a Program office (sort of)Posted: May 17th, 2011, 11:33 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2765
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 4:14 pm
Wikipedia & Universe wrote:
Don't quote pictures - erik_t
[ img ]


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 1 of 2  [ 12 posts ]  Return to β€œOff Topic” | Go to page 1 2 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]