The next bomber - and an interesting aside about counter stealth

**citanon** · 12 Apr 11,, 20:24

I found the following article quite intriguing.

USAF Bomber Gets Tight Numbers

By Bill Sweetman

Secret and slow could be watchwords for the U.S. Air Force’s new bomber program. Although major spending is getting under way, the service does not expect to see the aircraft in service before the mid-2020s—a longer timescale than the “2018 bomber” discussed in 2008. In addition, Maj. Gen. Dave Scott, USAF director of operations capability requirements, confirmed in February that the aircraft will be “highly classified—we are not going to talk about any of its attributes.” Beyond stating that the aircraft will be optionally piloted and nuclear-capable, the Pentagon has said little.

The magic numbers for the bomber are a fleet size of 80-100 and a flyaway cost of $500 million, both numbers set by Defense Secretary Robert Gates. “The secretary doesn’t want another B-2,” one Air Force leader remarked recently.

The extended schedule reduces risk and avoids overlap in funding with the delayed Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). Reports suggest that funding will average under $1 billion a year through fiscal 2016, when JSF funding should tail off.

One key capability is almost certainly under development: the combination of extreme low-observable (ELO) technology and unprecedented aerodynamic efficiency. This will not only appear on the bomber but on one of two critical “enablers” for the long-range-strike family of systems: unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) designed for stand-in airborne electronic attack (AEA), and for penetrating, persistent intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR). Both were identified by Scott in a briefing last October.

Stand-in AEA, with jamming effects delivered by an ELO platform, is an important adjunct to stealth. Although networked radar systems are improving their ability to detect stealthy targets in the Lockheed Martin F-22/F-35 class, moderate-power jamming is likely to degrade that capability. It is also expected to defeat efforts to detect ELO targets in the foreseeable future. Lockheed Martin’s RQ-170 Sentinel UAV could be the interim solution to this requirement.

Penetrating ISR demands a combination of endurance and ELO, and such a system is probably the goal of the large special access program (SAP) awarded in 2007-08 to Northrop Grumman. One key technology, the subject of a good deal of open-source work, is the ability to sustain laminar airflow on a swept wing: this technology alone could deliver 32 hr. of time-on-station in an all-wing UAV, according to a Northrop Grumman technical report.

If such a SAP produces results, in terms of the vehicle and its primary sensors (synthetic aperture radar with ground-moving target indication), it would explain why USAF has been willing to curtail the Global Hawk Block 40 program.

Penetrating, persistent ISR is vital for the long-range strike family of systems because it provides targeting for other weapons: a Conventional Prompt Global Strike missile, new subsonic cruise missile launched from aircraft or submarines, or a hypersonic missile. In turn, that capability allows USAF to focus the new bomber requirement more narrowly and avoid mission and cost creep that apparently affected the earlier Next Generation Bomber (NGB).

For example, the new bomber could be smaller than the NGB was envisioned to be, because it could also provide targeting for offboard weapons, with less need for a “deep magazine” of onboard weapons. Offboard sensors would also reduce demand for simultaneous long range and high resolution for onboard sensors, reducing aperture size. Overall, the new bomber may emerge smaller than medium bombers of the past, and well under half the size of the B-2.

The Air Force is also leaning toward the adoption of features developed in Advent (Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology) and Heete (Highly Efficient Embedded Turbofan Engine) in the new bomber. Heete is aimed at cruise efficiency and delivering electrical power, necessary to support directed-energy weapons, and is expected to yield a fuel-burn improvement of 35% over current low observable-compatible subsonic engines.

One factor will drive up the cost of the bomber’s R&D: its status as a SAP. SAP status—whether the program is an acknowledged SAP, as the bomber is likely to be, or completely black—incurs large costs. All personnel have to be vetted before they are read into the program. Information within the program is compartmentalized, reducing efficiency. SAP status has been estimated to add 20% to a program’s cost.

The most likely reason for this measure is the sensitivity of ELO technology, combined with the fact that the U.S. is the target of what may be the most extensive and successful espionage program in history—China’s Advanced

**Phoenix10** · 13 Apr 11,, 03:26

Very interesting article. I remember reading that the new bomber would leverage "proven technology" and tech that is "available now" so I was a little surprised to hear mention of ADVENT, HEETE, and directed energy weapons. Maybe this means these programs are further along than I realized. Then again, maybe it's wishful thinking. I hope it's the former.

This is the first time I've heard mention of "ELO" beyond just "VLO". If the F-22's frontal RCS is around -37 dBsm, I wonder where the line of ELO is drawn. Apparently it's a big enough difference to merit a new acronym. Scary stuff.

I was very intrigued by the mention of the RQ-170 as a stand in for electronic attack and jamming. So little is known about this aircraft and its capabilities. I wonder if it would be considered "ELO" and not just "VLO". This makes me wonder what has been packed inside already and what might be planned for the future. I'd love to get more info on this bird.

ELO bombers flying around with Directed Energy weapons and hypersonic cruise missiles, integrating with UAVs like the RQ-170 and its successors, aircraft cueing missiles for other aircraft -- makes the F-35, F-22, and B-2 seem a little less impressive. But I guess thats the point.

**HKDan** · 13 Apr 11,, 04:36

Have you guys seen this earlier article, also by Bill Sweetman, that suggests that there may already be a Northrop Grumman prototype of the NGB flying?

Ultra Stealth | AVIATION WEEK

I also remember a a flurry of articles a couple of months ago after a F-117 was spotted being flown post retirement. There was some suggestion at the time that it was being used for testing a new black project. I wonder if there is some connection. Either way, I think that the NGB is probably the most intriguing think going on in the USAF right now. A really, really interesting program that we are apparently not going to get a lot of info about.

**USSWisconsin** · 13 Apr 11,, 05:43

Originally Posted by HKDan

Have you guys seen this earlier article, also by Bill Sweetman, that suggests that there may already be a Northrop Grumman prototype of the NGB flying?

Ultra Stealth | AVIATION WEEK

I also remember a a flurry of articles a couple of months ago after a F-117 was spotted being flown post retirement. There was some suggestion at the time that it was being used for testing a new black project. I wonder if there is some connection. Either way, I think that the NGB is probably the most intriguing think going on in the USAF right now. A really, really interesting program that we are apparently not going to get a lot of info about.

wow

How low can LO go? One paper, co-authored by a principal in DenMar Inc., the company founded by Stealth pioneer Denys Overholser, refers to the development of fasteners for a body with an RCS of -70 dB./sq. meter -- one-thousandth of the -40 dB. associated with the JSF, and one-tenth that of a mosquito. DTI queried RCS engineers who don't believe such numbers are possible; but then, when mention of a -30 dB. signature leaked out in a 1981 Northrop paper, nobody believed that either.

**citanon** · 13 Apr 11,, 05:45

Originally Posted by HKDan

Have you guys seen this earlier article, also by Bill Sweetman, that suggests that there may already be a Northrop Grumman prototype of the NGB flying?

Ultra Stealth | AVIATION WEEK

I also remember a a flurry of articles a couple of months ago after a F-117 was spotted being flown post retirement. There was some suggestion at the time that it was being used for testing a new black project. I wonder if there is some connection. Either way, I think that the NGB is probably the most intriguing think going on in the USAF right now. A really, really interesting program that we are apparently not going to get a lot of info about.

Yep I remember reading this. Also this quote was interesting w.r.t. Phoenix's question:

How low can LO go? One paper, co-authored by a principal in DenMar Inc., the company founded by Stealth pioneer Denys Overholser, refers to the development of fasteners for a body with an RCS of -70 dB./sq. meter -- one-thousandth of the -40 dB. associated with the JSF, and one-tenth that of a mosquito. DTI queried RCS engineers who don't believe such numbers are possible; but then, when mention of a -30 dB. signature leaked out in a 1981 Northrop paper, nobody believed that either.

My guess is there has probably been a succession of efforts on ELO and aerodynamics efficiency that has happened in the black world, and these technologies are now ready for transition into an application like the NGB.

**HKDan** · 13 Apr 11,, 07:47

The CSBA report, "Sustaining America's Advantage in Long Range Strike" also contained some really interesting reading on what the NGB might end up being. Sustaining America Its a long read, but I really enjoyed it. In addition to NGB, it also touches on UCLASS which is another program I can't get enough info on.

**Chogy** · 13 Apr 11,, 12:24

This stuff reads like science fiction. I remember when "look down, shoot down" was a big deal.

Now, we are potentially creating aircraft with the RCS of airborne dust mote clusters, plant seeds, etc. Once this stage is reached, once the aircraft cannot be distinguished from natural atmospheric phenomenon, the job is finished.

**citanon** · 13 Apr 11,, 15:27

Originally Posted by Chogy

This stuff reads like science fiction. I remember when "look down, shoot down" was a big deal.

Now, we are potentially creating aircraft with the RCS of airborne dust mote clusters, plant seeds, etc. Once this stage is reached, once the aircraft cannot be distinguished from natural atmospheric phenomenon, the job is finished.

How many plant seeds move at 600 miles an hour? :P

**Chogy** · 13 Apr 11,, 16:16

If the reflected RF energy is on par with a dandelion seed, it'll be magnitudes below any detection threshhold, regardless of doppler return!

Plus, if such a signal went into the beam, he'd vanish. Any weapon relying on the signal will go dumb.

The big question - What technology will eventually counter stealth? And when will it happen? Obviously, engineers and commanders have great confidence that reduced RCS is here to stay for a long time, given the $$ involved.

Perhaps acoustics will make a comeback... or IR, or laser, or a combination of the three.

**USSWisconsin** · 13 Apr 11,, 16:34

I was thinking about that, defeating stealth, and then I said "what if I'm right" -- oh never mind I'm probably wrong...

**zraver** · 13 Apr 11,, 20:59

You can track the air being disturbed by a LO aircraft with the right radars. it might not provide targeting data, but can provide early warning where other systems like IR, laser and more powerful differing wave radars can lock in. This of course means the best aid to penetration remains an extreme closeness to mother earth at leas tuntil the radar chain/curtain is penetrated. of course this limits range......

**cr9527** · 14 Apr 11,, 01:20

Originally Posted by zraver

You can track the air being disturbed by a LO aircraft with the right radars. it might not provide targeting data, but can provide early warning where other systems like IR, laser and more powerful differing wave radars can lock in. This of course means the best aid to penetration remains an extreme closeness to mother earth at leas tuntil the radar chain/curtain is penetrated. of course this limits range......

Wouldn't the countermeasure of tracking the turbulence simply be cheap drones that disturb the air a lot? *decoys*

Stealth to me, will never be truly countered. Any technique that can be used to detect a stealth aircraft only diminishes your capability in general.
This is because none of the techniques actually eliminate the stealth advantage, but only diminish it, at great costs to other aspects.
e.g. Bigger radar, making you a bigger target.
More advanced SAM, only makes your SAMs more expensive, and thus less can be bought, while decoy drones during SEAD become far more effective relatively.
more sensitive radars, making it more vulnerable to EW
etc.

**Phoenix10** · 14 Apr 11,, 02:37

I would agree that stealth will never be fully countered, nor will it ever make anything invulnerable. With each counter there will be a counter-counter. Right now stealth is primarily RF with increasing emphasis on IR and LPI emmission-reductions focused on long range detection. How long before stealth moves into visual light and further reduced IR for reduced close range detection? How long before it means acoustics as well? Engineers have been adding features to reduce wakes, turbulence, shocks, etc for years- stealth could mean reducing these things further as well. Stealth vs counter measures is a continual chess match. Creating sensors that can track "any vehicle" will only drive else to build a Romulan cloaking device.

**NUS** · 14 Apr 11,, 17:34

Originally Posted by cr9527

Wouldn't the countermeasure of tracking the turbulence simply be cheap drones that disturb the air a lot? *decoys*

Stealth to me, will never be truly countered.

You guys discuss this not-very-science fiction article as if total stealth is already developed. Current state of technology is very far from this.

Any technique that can be used to detect a stealth aircraft only diminishes your capability in general.
This is because none of the techniques actually eliminate the stealth advantage, but only diminish it, at great costs to other aspects.
e.g. Bigger radar, making you a bigger target.
More advanced SAM, only makes your SAMs more expensive, and thus less can be bought, while decoy drones during SEAD become far more effective relatively.
more sensitive radars, making it more vulnerable to EW
etc.

Any technique that can be used to detect a stealth aircraft is at least order of magnitude cheaper then stealth aircraft.

**cr9527** · 14 Apr 11,, 18:38

Originally Posted by NUS

You guys discuss this not-very-science fiction article as if total stealth is already developed. Current state of technology is very far from this.

But stealth doesn't require total stealth to gain unprecedented advantage.
I.e. If your bomber cuts down detection range by one half.
Your opponent is forced to do the following in order to counter:
1. Regroup their AA assets to make a tighter cluster around key assets.
- This reduces the coverage of less important targets, as well as allows a far more effective HAARM barrage, as they being clustered together
2. Purchase more advanced AA assets with longer detection range.
- This would imply they will be able to afford far less number of assets available than they would had they purchased legacy batteries. Decoy drones would become more effective simply due to less number of missiles able to shoot them down.

So you may be able to see that for every counter one brings to counter stealth, the very attempt at countering it gives you large disadvantages ready to be exploited.

While an individual weapon counter would cost less than the stealth aircraft itself, the need to equip in a wide spread manner drives the costs up, and the capability against non-stealth aircraft down.