Northrop Building US Military’s Future Stealth Bomber

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,003
But will it be able to transform into a giant robot?

The next-generation bomber will be designed to fight through surface-to-air missiles, as well as electronic and information attack. It will also accommodate lasers and directed-energy systems, hypersonic missiles and other new and emerging technologies.
 
Joined
Mar 16, 2006
Messages
3,733
I would go unmanned, the human is the limiting factor.
Technically you cant get rid of the pilot, just move them out of the aircraft. Unless of course you decide to make them autonomous and I don't see that happening any time soon. Of course the main benefit of not having the pilot in the aircraft is that you take away one of the main limiting factors on the aircraft, pilots not being able to survive the G-forces that the aircraft can.
 

Wildace

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 16, 2004
Messages
6,721
In the Case of the bomber, i doubt G-forces are much of a concern unless it is capable of some sort of sustained extreme maneuvering to evade missiles.
 

Spidey329

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 15, 2003
Messages
8,683
This was announced on Tuesday. I'm guessing there are prototypes out there as they beat out LM/Boeing for the contract.

Granted, they may have won by default given the clusterf that LM's other projects are.
 

DeathFromBelow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
7,316
I would go unmanned, the human is the limiting factor.

They would like to have both manned and unmanned variants flying together, depending on the mission. Humans are still better than computers at complex decision making. Plus they want pilots in aircraft that can carry nukes.
 

serpretetsky

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 24, 2008
Messages
1,792
The next-generation bomber will be designed to fight through surface-to-air missiles,
Hell ya! Split those missiles right in half! Never understood why they didn't do that before. Pesky missiles.
 

gamerk2

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 9, 2012
Messages
1,814
This was announced on Tuesday. I'm guessing there are prototypes out there as they beat out LM/Boeing for the contract.

Granted, they may have won by default given the clusterf that LM's other projects are.

Both groups pretty much had the planes pretty much designed already. Unlike the black hole called the JSF, the LRSB is relying on established technologies to keep costs down.
 

aShrubbery!

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 28, 2007
Messages
1,029
Given the current political season, how exactly do they intend to fund R&D of this thing plus cover the cost for X number of aircraft, letting alone cost overruns, without increasing taxes or cutting the gov't budget??

I have to admit, this eludes me.
Or maybe, people will fall into the propaganda and BS themselves, that A. this thing is really necessary B. there would be no shortage of money to fund such projects.
 
Joined
Nov 25, 2011
Messages
32
It is actually necessary because B-1s were so shortchanged during development that they never became the bombers they had the potential to be. B-52s are still chugging along and are basically a flying box that can have any weapons platform adapted to it (outside MOABs). B2s are awesome but there are only 20 of them or so left. Also, don't be fooled. Jets like China's J-20 are mock stealthy. J-20s aren't really stealthy at all.

As far as funding. The only departments truly provided for are supposed to be Department of Justice, Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Defense.
 

Jagger100

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
7,626
Given the current political season, how exactly do they intend to fund R&D of this thing plus cover the cost for X number of aircraft, letting alone cost overruns, without increasing taxes or cutting the gov't budget??

I have to admit, this eludes me.
Or maybe, people will fall into the propaganda and BS themselves, that A. this thing is really necessary B. there would be no shortage of money to fund such projects.
Most of the vote buying 'entitlements' are paid by going deeper into debt, so I imagine they can throw 1 o 2% of that this way for a year and pay for the program.

In less than a generation the finance charge on the debt will be the majority of the deficit. How do you escape from that death spiral and have any money for entitlements. I would be entertained at the explanation.
 

xJ321x

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 26, 2014
Messages
396
In less than a generation the finance charge on the debt will be the majority of the deficit. How do you escape from that death spiral and have any money for entitlements. I would be entertained at the explanation.

Stick up the middle finger and say sit on it? Then start a new currency?
 

McFry

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 25, 2011
Messages
1,715
I would go unmanned, the human is the limiting factor.

With the kind of technology we'll be facing in future wars, going unmanned could become a disaster. You still want someone sitting in there ready to pull the trigger. Remember when the Iranians tricked a stealth drone into landing in their country? Yeah we dont want that ever happening with a stealth bomber.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,477
You can't bomb people out of hartred and ignorance fueled by religion, but you can sure as hell bomb them into it.

The only way forward is by education. Breaking the chain, not allowing the current generation to make the next generation into their own mirror image. And you can only achieve that by proper education. Without pride, prejudice, nationalism, and such bs.
 

Taco

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 2, 2001
Messages
1,465
You can't bomb people out of hartred and ignorance fueled by religion, but you can sure as hell bomb them into it.

The only way forward is by education. Breaking the chain, not allowing the current generation to make the next generation into their own mirror image. And you can only achieve that by proper education. Without pride, prejudice, nationalism, and such bs.

Right....

You can educate a million people just like you say. Everything's peaceful. 5% of them take advantage of the situation to profit off others and gaian power(which they will), which sparks division, uprising, splits and war. No way around this.

It's not a generational issue. It's a human nature issue. It's why everything just repeats itself and there is historical precedence for pretty much any imaginable scenario.

Closest thing you'd get to utopia is a benevolent dictator that is somehow able to remain ion power. Some people would still rebel simply because they don't like being told what to do.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
Given the current political season, how exactly do they intend to fund R&D of this thing plus cover the cost for X number of aircraft, letting alone cost overruns, without increasing taxes or cutting the gov't budget??

I have to admit, this eludes me.
Or maybe, people will fall into the propaganda and BS themselves, that A. this thing is really necessary B. there would be no shortage of money to fund such projects.

Um, by mothballing 87 A-10 Warthogs and 42 B-52 Bombers and cancelling their support contracts for service, warranty, licensing, and depot level maintenance/upgrades.

And by selling all our personal information to the highest bidder, or is it the lowest bidder. I always get that part confused :D

Oh, and 18 pilots are cheaper to maintain then more then 50 soooo.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
You can't bomb people out of hartred and ignorance fueled by religion, but you can sure as hell bomb them into it.

The only way forward is by education. Breaking the chain, not allowing the current generation to make the next generation into their own mirror image. And you can only achieve that by proper education. Without pride, prejudice, nationalism, and such bs.

B3, just like B2, isn't meant for bombing peasants.

But this might get their interest;
(look close at the flags on these ships)
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
You can't bomb people out of hartred and ignorance fueled by religion, but you can sure as hell bomb them into it.

The only way forward is by education. Breaking the chain, not allowing the current generation to make the next generation into their own mirror image. And you can only achieve that by proper education. Without pride, prejudice, nationalism, and such bs.

And M79, ignorance has nothing to do with it. The 9/11 bombers were not ignorant. Intolerant perhaps, but not ignorant.
 

xJ321x

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 26, 2014
Messages
396
Ignorance has nothing to do with it. The 9/11 bombers were not ignorant. Intolerant perhaps, but not ignorant.

I wasn't aware of the fact that Saudi's are intolerant of the US alone. I wonder why the US GOV does so much business with them then.
 

sliverjazz

Gawd
Joined
Jun 9, 2004
Messages
747
I can't say I'm surprised in the least by all of this. I've stopped wondering what the federal government will do next, and I've started wondering what they won't do.
 

Dangman

Ninja Editor SuperMod
Joined
Dec 15, 2005
Messages
46,062
Do you guys work for Boeing or a competitor? What are the reasons someone who is not in that industry would care which of the contractors gets the contract?

Because we're talking about taxpayer money here. In theory, the company with the most recent experience with stealth bombers should have an easier time developing a new stealth bomber. Easier time means that the project will be delivered on time and not over-budget as a result. That company is Northrup-Grumman on account of its B-2 stealth bomber.

Whereas Boeing hasn't really made a bomber for close to 40 to 50 years now let alone a stealth bomber. As such, they would have a had higher learning curve and therefore would have been more than likely over-budget and slip way way past the expected service date. Lockheed, on the other hand, considering how they screwed up the F-35 and LCS program, I wouldn't be willing to trust them at all.

There's also the fact that this bomber is really the last major combat aircraft program for the next 15 years minimum. More than likely 20. As such, whoever lost would need to have other major programs to keep them alive until then. Unfortunately, Northrop doesn't really have a major aircraft program compared to Lockheed (F-35, LCS, C-130J+, F-16) or Boeing (C-5, F/A-18E, F-15E, SLAM-ER missiles, etc). So this bomber program is basically a jobs program for Northrup.
 

Skripka

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 5, 2012
Messages
10,792
Because we're talking about taxpayer money here. In theory, the company with the most recent experience with stealth bombers should have an easier time developing a new stealth bomber. Easier time means that the project will be delivered on time and not over-budget as a result. That company is Northrup-Grumman on account of its B-2 stealth bomber.


LMAO.

You're so adorable...maybe you should read up on the design and manufacturing history of the stealth bomber project. Northrup only got that contract out of pity to keep them from going out of business.
 

Dangman

Ninja Editor SuperMod
Joined
Dec 15, 2005
Messages
46,062
LMAO.

You're so adorable...maybe you should read up on the design and manufacturing history of the stealth bomber project. Northrup only got that contract out of pity to keep them from going out of business.

I did mention exactly that in my last paragraph. As for your first bit there, I did say "in theory". If Northrup had so much trouble the first time around, imagine the sheer problems Lockheed or Boeing would have run into. As such, Northrup technically has the higher chance of success. With that said, I really do expect the bomber program to go over budget and be delayed anyway under Northrup but at least it wouldn't be near as bad compared to Lockheed or Boeing being at the helm.
 

Skripka

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 5, 2012
Messages
10,792
I did mention exactly that in my last paragraph. As for your first bit there, I did say "in theory". If Northrup had so much trouble the first time around, imagine the sheer problems Lockheed or Boeing would have run into. As such, Northrup technically has the higher chance of success. With that said, I really do expect the bomber program to go over budget and be delayed anyway under Northrup but at least it wouldn't be near as bad compared to Lockheed or Boeing being at the helm.

...Well look at it this way. The B-2 ended up costing 1-f*cking-billion USD EACH. And from design request to first operational delivered aircraft was 15 years.

As opposed to F-35C which is "only" $120 million USD each, and has taken 20 years from original request for proposals to first operational aircraft.



I'd say the B-2 was even more of a monstrous taxpayer joke than the F-35. Northrup can do better than Boeing/Lockheed, yea right. In any case, it is all a farce committed in the name of "national security". This bomber project is nothing more than the military-industrial-complex version of the bank bailouts or the GM bailout....pissing fucking money away to make fat cats more rich.
 

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
5,705
A man less bomber fully loaded that can escape the most advance missile defense system would be one heck of a plane to hack and hijack. To fly a plane without pilots leaves it open for failures which a human can handle (like a fire, loose items in the plane or ones that break free etc.) I can see smaller unmanned bombers but not something as expensive as this.
 

Dangman

Ninja Editor SuperMod
Joined
Dec 15, 2005
Messages
46,062
...Well look at it this way. The B-2 ended up costing 1-f*cking-billion USD EACH. And from design request to first operational delivered aircraft was 15 years.

As opposed to F-35C which is "only" $120 million USD each, and has taken 20 years from original request for proposals to first operational aircraft.
To be fair, it was expected that 132 B-2s would be bought thereby lowering the cost per unit. In addition, compare the stealth technologies of the B-2 to the F-35. The B-2 was effectively the first of its kind and therefore would have had a high cost no matter what. The F-35's lineage includes the F-117 and F-22 as well as new advances in stealth and computer tech since the 1990s. As such, its stealth tech requires far less maintenance and upfront development costs than the B-2. Then there's the fact that there have been 115 F-35s built and counting compared to the 21 B-2s.

In addition, only the less-capable F-35B has reached IOC in 2015. It's going to be a few more years until the other F-35 variants reach IOC let alone full operational capability. The B-2 was effectively combat ready after its 1997 IOC considering that it was deployed two years later during the Kosovo War. The F-35 is not going to be majorly combat ready in the next two years. Finally, the total program cost for the 21 B-2 bombers is roughly $56.37 billion, the continuing program cost for the 115 F-35s is $1.3 trillion and counting.

Just to be clear here: I still support the F-35 program and will not call for its cancellation. But that does not mean that I can't acknowledge the fact that Lockheed and US DOD mismanaged the shit out of the F-35 program.
I'd say the B-2 was even more of a monstrous taxpayer joke than the F-35. Northrup can do better than Boeing/Lockheed, yea right. In any case, it is all a farce committed in the name of "national security". This bomber project is nothing more than the military-industrial-complex version of the bank bailouts or the GM bailout....pissing fucking money away to make fat cats more rich.
Yeah I'm not touching any of that.
 
Top