It's an advancement of combat proven technology using GaN antennae. SPECTRA is literally a glossy brochure by comparison, only proven in the field of anti-camel interdiction.A Growler? It's an archaic approach to jamming, a Rafale will only make it a bite.
Very good propaganda from the US, but not misleading anyone among those who know a little about the subject. For example, Thales' Carbone Pod had better performance than what the US is trying to develop with the NGJ and yet when we had SPECTRA we thought it was useless...
Last edited:
Go fly it through Russian or Chinese airspace personally and film it then. We'll believe you when you come back and post the video on YouTube.
Rolls-Royce F130 engine for B-52 completes early testing
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/rolls-royce-f130-engine-for-b-52-completes-early-testing/
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/rolls-royce-f130-engine-for-b-52-completes-early-testing/
https://aviationweek.com/defense/b-21-program-hits-schedule-pressure-even-conventional-trajectory
"As the first B-21 enters final assembly in Palmdale, California, the Northrop Grumman-led program is on track to hit a first-flight target in two years, although the first signs of schedule pressure have appeared. Most of the details of the U.S. Air Force’s newest stealth bomber remain a tightly guarded secret, but those facts released show the program is following a conventional trajectory despite being managed by an organization with the word “rapid” in its ... "
"As the first B-21 enters final assembly in Palmdale, California, the Northrop Grumman-led program is on track to hit a first-flight target in two years, although the first signs of schedule pressure have appeared. Most of the details of the U.S. Air Force’s newest stealth bomber remain a tightly guarded secret, but those facts released show the program is following a conventional trajectory despite being managed by an organization with the word “rapid” in its ... "
Air Force Research Lab Works on Next-Gen Hypersonic Weapons for 2040
Air Force Research Lab Works on Next-Gen Hypersonic Weapons for 2040
byKris Osborn6 days-edited
The Air Force Research Laboratory is beginning early work on a new-generation of hypersonic weapons
Raytheon image
Video Above: New Army "WHAT's YOUR WARRIOR" Ad Campaign Video Story Above
By Kris Osborn - Warrior Maven
(Washington D.C.) - The Air Force Research Laboratory is immersed in early work on a new-generation of hypersonic weapons designed to come after the currently emerging arsenal, expanding hypersonic mission options in new directions and introducing new air vehicle configurations.
The Pentagon and military services have been massively fast-tracking hypersonic weapons development, given the far-reaching warfare implications associated with firing weapons able to travel at five-times the speed of sound; numerous programs have been underway, and the most current estimation is that an initial set of hypersonic weapons will be operational by the early 2020s. Earlier this year, the Air Force conducted its first prototype hypersonic missile flight test; the service launched a sensor-only prototype of the AGM-183A Air Launched Rapid Response Weapon from a B-52.
The advantages of these weapons are both self-evident and multi-faceted; they include much greater stand-off ranges for attack as well as a vastly increased ability to defeat, circumvent or even destroy enemy defenses. Hypersonic attack naturally reduces any kind of response time afforded to an enemy, possibly hitting or disabling a target before an enemy has a chance to respond.
The Pentagon and military services are already having some success with accelerated hypersonic weapons testing and development, yet there is still much work to be done when it comes to refining the technology needed for current and future hypersonic weapons flight. Engineering weapons to move at five times the speed of sound relies upon an ability to manage, and in effect minimize, the heat of the weapons. Excessive heat at that speed can not only incinerate the weapon such that it cannot fly but can also disrupt or derail its flight trajectory.
Therefore, the fundamental challenge with hypersonic flight resides in this need to manage the extreme temperatures reached at those speeds, factors which can prevent, complicate or disable successful hypersonic flight. An area of focus within this sphere of inquiry, AFRL developers tell warrior, relates to several complex aerodynamic challenges, such as managing the air flow surrounding the vehicle in flight. Referred to by scientists as a “boundary layer,” the air flow characteristics of a hypersonic weapon’s flight trajectory greatly impact the stability of the system - much of which relates to temperature.
“We are working on boundary layer phenomenology to better understand heat flux on hypersonic weapons. This will allow us to do optimization on thermal management,” Tim Sakulich, Air Force Research Lab, Director of Materials and Manufacturing and Lead on Implementing the Air Force S&T Strategy, told Warrior in an interview. “We are designing these systems to provide the speed, reach and lethality we are looking for.”
The science of air flow boundary layers is extremely complex, yet it does align with several key aerodynamic concepts related to hypersonic flight stability. Simply put, engineers are looking to create advanced hypersonic weapons which generate a “laminar” or smooth air-flow boundary layer, as opposed to a “turbulent” air-flow. The more movement, mixing or agitation in the air flow surrounding the air vehicle in flight, often consisting of movement or particle collisions in the air flow, the more turbulent it becomes, according to an essay from the University of Sydney’s School of Aerospace, Mechanical & Mechatronic Engineering. (Australia).
“A boundary layer may be laminar or turbulent. A laminar boundary is one where the flow takes place in layers...each layer slides past the adjacent layers. This is in contrast to turbulent boundary layers, where there is intense agitation,” the 2005 essay states.
Of particular significance, the essay explains that turbulent boundary layers generate very high “heat transfer rates.”
“Packets of fluid may be seen moving across.(in turbulent boundary layers) Thus there is an exchange of mass, momentum and energy on a much bigger scale compared to a laminar boundary layer,” the Univ. of Sydney essay states.
In summary, as opposed to microscopic exchanges in mass known to occur in laminar boundary layers, turbulent boundary layers involve mixing across layers on a macroscopic level, the paper explains.
All of this leads to a current area of focus for scientists, who are experimenting with more ways to ensure laminar air-flow boundaries surround hypersonic flight vehicles. Laminar boundary layers are needed to advance hypersonic flight to a new generation, according to a significant paper from NASA, the AFRL and Case Western Reserve University called “Recommendation for Hypersonic Boundary Layer Transition Flight Testing.” .
“In regards to a next-generation hypersonic vehicle, the design goal would be to maintain a laminar boundary layer for as long as possible in order to minimize heating. Small perturbations to the boundary layer can excite various instability modes ,” the essay states. (NASA Langley Research Center, Air Force Research Laboratory, Case Western Reserve University… Scott Berry, Roger Kimmel, Eli Reshotko)
Increased heat can bring challenges; it strengthens the weapon's thermal signature, making it easier for sensors to track. Heat challenges can also introduce difficulties by creating a need to engineer a weapon able to withstand the heat levels and remain intact during high speed flight. For this reason, hypersonic weapons -- and ICBMs as well -- are constructed with specially engineered heat-resistant materials. Sakulich emphasized that current AFRL work is, along these lines, focused on finding newer composite materials.
Improving hypersonic propulsion will not only improve the effectiveness and resiliency of existing weapons but also enable different form factors such as larger, longer or differently shaped attack weapons. The NASA-AFRL-Case Western essay, for instance, introduces the additional technical complexity that might be needed to advance hypersonic flight stability for “re-entry” bodies, such as those used on a nuclear-armed missile.
“Generally, the application of this knowledge (boundary layer management) has been restricted to simple shapes like plates, cones and spherical bodies. However, flight reentry vehicles are in reality never simple,” the NASA, AFRL essay states.
For example, rougher surface material or weapons vehicle’s with less linear configurations present additional complicating variables believed to impact the stability of hypersonic flight. Engineering scientific methods for increasing the laminar boundary layer properties of hypersonic vehicles, it seems apparent, could help lay a foundation for newer, next-generation hypersonic configurations, such as differently shaped drones or weapons with various warheads.
An interesting RAND essay, called “Hindering the Spread of a New Class of Weapons,” explains that heat signatures are impacted by the shape, size, velocity and trajectory of a weapon.
“The larger the nose radius, the smaller the heat transfer on the nose of the vehicle. Trajectory shaping, i.e., velocity and altitude, can also be used to manage the total heat transfer on an RV (Re-entry Vehicle) while meeting other input requirements and constraints, e.g.,range, maximum deceleration, and time of flight. Hypersonic weapons have different constraints and requirements compared with reentry bodies. HGVs(Hypersonic Glide Vehicles) and HCMs(Hypersonic Cruise Missiles) will tend to have sharp leading edges, i.e.,a small nose radius, which will increase the heat transfer,” the essay states. (RAND - Speier, Nacouzi, Lee)
Also, most hypersonic weapons need to travel for long periods of time at high speeds, when compared to a re-entry body travelling at hypersonic speed.. therefore…”two of the major parameters in the total heat equation, velocity and time, cannot generally be reduced,” the RAND paper states.
The overall hypersonic weapons evolution, you could call it, is entirely consistent with the Air Force’s long-term hypersonic strategy, which does call for a “stair-step” strategic approach to hypersonics. First, as expected, is hypersonic weapons, an effort which is now on track to emerge in just the next few years. Secondly, a former Air Force Chief Scientist(Dr. Gregory Zacharias) told Warrior in an interview several years ago, the service hopes to engineer hypersonic “drones” for ISR or attack, to be followed by “recoverable drones” over the next several decades. These developments, however, may require many more years of research and technical progress to come to fruition, providing some of the inspiration for some of the current boundary layer scientific work described by Sakulich.
Many Hypersonic weapons are engineered as “kinetic energy” strike weapons, meaning they will not use explosives but rather rely upon sheer speed and the force of impact to destroy targets, developers explain. A super high-speed drone or ISR platform would better enable air vehicles to rapidly enter and exit enemy territory and send back relevant imagery without being detected by enemy radar or shot down.
Interestingly, air flow properties of hypersonic weapons can also provide a window through which to attack or destroy an enemy hypersonic weapon; hypersonic flight is not only complex but also extremely fragile, Ret. Lt. Gen. Trey Obering, Executive Vice President and Directed Energy Lead, Booz Allen Hamilton, told Warrior in an interview. (Obering previously served as the Director of the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency)
Therefore, hypersonic weapons could also potentially be stopped by, as Obering put it, causing a “disruption in the air flow.” Changes in aerodynamics can break up forces such as lift, thrust and drag, Obering said.
“These forces are all in balance. When you are going fast there is a small margin in those forces. A disruption can cause the entire vehicle to break up,” he explained.
Essentially, the idea is not to destroy the hypersonic weapon with an explosion, but rather cause an “instantaneous” angle change in the complex, interwoven mixture of air-flow variables. This, quite significantly, can cause an entire vehicle to break apart. A number of things could cause this, such as a laser, rupture of a booster, missile explosion in the vicinity of the weapon in-flight or some other kind of disruption. -- To read Warrior's full report on Defending Hypersonic weapons - CLICK HERE --
“Hypersonics have control surfaces that can maneuver like an aircraft. You would take advantage of the vehicle’s speed and cause a change in vehicle direction,” Obering said.
Booz Allen Hamilton is among several defense industry giants now working on hypersonic weapons technology, including the exploration of emerging methods to defend them.
How can carrier strike groups project power within striking range of enemy targets? How can mechanized armored columns maneuver without being badly crippled by hypersonic attack? How can the most advanced fighter jets maneuver to avoid impact if there simply is no time? Perhaps satellites, ICBMs and defensive weapons such as Ground-Based Interceptors could also be vulnerable? The variables through which hypersonics promise to alter warfare are seemingly limitless. The danger is extremely serious.
“In many ways hypersonics represents the last frontier in aeronautics,” the NASA, AFRL, Case Western Univ. paper states.
Air Force Research Lab Works on Next-Gen Hypersonic Weapons for 2040
The Air Force Research Laboratory is beginning early work on a new-generation of hypersonic weapons
Raytheon image
Video Above: New Army "WHAT's YOUR WARRIOR" Ad Campaign Video Story Above
By Kris Osborn - Warrior Maven
(Washington D.C.) - The Air Force Research Laboratory is immersed in early work on a new-generation of hypersonic weapons designed to come after the currently emerging arsenal, expanding hypersonic mission options in new directions and introducing new air vehicle configurations.
The Pentagon and military services have been massively fast-tracking hypersonic weapons development, given the far-reaching warfare implications associated with firing weapons able to travel at five-times the speed of sound; numerous programs have been underway, and the most current estimation is that an initial set of hypersonic weapons will be operational by the early 2020s. Earlier this year, the Air Force conducted its first prototype hypersonic missile flight test; the service launched a sensor-only prototype of the AGM-183A Air Launched Rapid Response Weapon from a B-52.
The advantages of these weapons are both self-evident and multi-faceted; they include much greater stand-off ranges for attack as well as a vastly increased ability to defeat, circumvent or even destroy enemy defenses. Hypersonic attack naturally reduces any kind of response time afforded to an enemy, possibly hitting or disabling a target before an enemy has a chance to respond.
The Pentagon and military services are already having some success with accelerated hypersonic weapons testing and development, yet there is still much work to be done when it comes to refining the technology needed for current and future hypersonic weapons flight. Engineering weapons to move at five times the speed of sound relies upon an ability to manage, and in effect minimize, the heat of the weapons. Excessive heat at that speed can not only incinerate the weapon such that it cannot fly but can also disrupt or derail its flight trajectory.
Therefore, the fundamental challenge with hypersonic flight resides in this need to manage the extreme temperatures reached at those speeds, factors which can prevent, complicate or disable successful hypersonic flight. An area of focus within this sphere of inquiry, AFRL developers tell warrior, relates to several complex aerodynamic challenges, such as managing the air flow surrounding the vehicle in flight. Referred to by scientists as a “boundary layer,” the air flow characteristics of a hypersonic weapon’s flight trajectory greatly impact the stability of the system - much of which relates to temperature.
“We are working on boundary layer phenomenology to better understand heat flux on hypersonic weapons. This will allow us to do optimization on thermal management,” Tim Sakulich, Air Force Research Lab, Director of Materials and Manufacturing and Lead on Implementing the Air Force S&T Strategy, told Warrior in an interview. “We are designing these systems to provide the speed, reach and lethality we are looking for.”
The science of air flow boundary layers is extremely complex, yet it does align with several key aerodynamic concepts related to hypersonic flight stability. Simply put, engineers are looking to create advanced hypersonic weapons which generate a “laminar” or smooth air-flow boundary layer, as opposed to a “turbulent” air-flow. The more movement, mixing or agitation in the air flow surrounding the air vehicle in flight, often consisting of movement or particle collisions in the air flow, the more turbulent it becomes, according to an essay from the University of Sydney’s School of Aerospace, Mechanical & Mechatronic Engineering. (Australia).
“A boundary layer may be laminar or turbulent. A laminar boundary is one where the flow takes place in layers...each layer slides past the adjacent layers. This is in contrast to turbulent boundary layers, where there is intense agitation,” the 2005 essay states.
Of particular significance, the essay explains that turbulent boundary layers generate very high “heat transfer rates.”
“Packets of fluid may be seen moving across.(in turbulent boundary layers) Thus there is an exchange of mass, momentum and energy on a much bigger scale compared to a laminar boundary layer,” the Univ. of Sydney essay states.
In summary, as opposed to microscopic exchanges in mass known to occur in laminar boundary layers, turbulent boundary layers involve mixing across layers on a macroscopic level, the paper explains.
All of this leads to a current area of focus for scientists, who are experimenting with more ways to ensure laminar air-flow boundaries surround hypersonic flight vehicles. Laminar boundary layers are needed to advance hypersonic flight to a new generation, according to a significant paper from NASA, the AFRL and Case Western Reserve University called “Recommendation for Hypersonic Boundary Layer Transition Flight Testing.” .
“In regards to a next-generation hypersonic vehicle, the design goal would be to maintain a laminar boundary layer for as long as possible in order to minimize heating. Small perturbations to the boundary layer can excite various instability modes ,” the essay states. (NASA Langley Research Center, Air Force Research Laboratory, Case Western Reserve University… Scott Berry, Roger Kimmel, Eli Reshotko)
Increased heat can bring challenges; it strengthens the weapon's thermal signature, making it easier for sensors to track. Heat challenges can also introduce difficulties by creating a need to engineer a weapon able to withstand the heat levels and remain intact during high speed flight. For this reason, hypersonic weapons -- and ICBMs as well -- are constructed with specially engineered heat-resistant materials. Sakulich emphasized that current AFRL work is, along these lines, focused on finding newer composite materials.
Improving hypersonic propulsion will not only improve the effectiveness and resiliency of existing weapons but also enable different form factors such as larger, longer or differently shaped attack weapons. The NASA-AFRL-Case Western essay, for instance, introduces the additional technical complexity that might be needed to advance hypersonic flight stability for “re-entry” bodies, such as those used on a nuclear-armed missile.
“Generally, the application of this knowledge (boundary layer management) has been restricted to simple shapes like plates, cones and spherical bodies. However, flight reentry vehicles are in reality never simple,” the NASA, AFRL essay states.
For example, rougher surface material or weapons vehicle’s with less linear configurations present additional complicating variables believed to impact the stability of hypersonic flight. Engineering scientific methods for increasing the laminar boundary layer properties of hypersonic vehicles, it seems apparent, could help lay a foundation for newer, next-generation hypersonic configurations, such as differently shaped drones or weapons with various warheads.
An interesting RAND essay, called “Hindering the Spread of a New Class of Weapons,” explains that heat signatures are impacted by the shape, size, velocity and trajectory of a weapon.
“The larger the nose radius, the smaller the heat transfer on the nose of the vehicle. Trajectory shaping, i.e., velocity and altitude, can also be used to manage the total heat transfer on an RV (Re-entry Vehicle) while meeting other input requirements and constraints, e.g.,range, maximum deceleration, and time of flight. Hypersonic weapons have different constraints and requirements compared with reentry bodies. HGVs(Hypersonic Glide Vehicles) and HCMs(Hypersonic Cruise Missiles) will tend to have sharp leading edges, i.e.,a small nose radius, which will increase the heat transfer,” the essay states. (RAND - Speier, Nacouzi, Lee)
Also, most hypersonic weapons need to travel for long periods of time at high speeds, when compared to a re-entry body travelling at hypersonic speed.. therefore…”two of the major parameters in the total heat equation, velocity and time, cannot generally be reduced,” the RAND paper states.
The overall hypersonic weapons evolution, you could call it, is entirely consistent with the Air Force’s long-term hypersonic strategy, which does call for a “stair-step” strategic approach to hypersonics. First, as expected, is hypersonic weapons, an effort which is now on track to emerge in just the next few years. Secondly, a former Air Force Chief Scientist(Dr. Gregory Zacharias) told Warrior in an interview several years ago, the service hopes to engineer hypersonic “drones” for ISR or attack, to be followed by “recoverable drones” over the next several decades. These developments, however, may require many more years of research and technical progress to come to fruition, providing some of the inspiration for some of the current boundary layer scientific work described by Sakulich.
Many Hypersonic weapons are engineered as “kinetic energy” strike weapons, meaning they will not use explosives but rather rely upon sheer speed and the force of impact to destroy targets, developers explain. A super high-speed drone or ISR platform would better enable air vehicles to rapidly enter and exit enemy territory and send back relevant imagery without being detected by enemy radar or shot down.
Interestingly, air flow properties of hypersonic weapons can also provide a window through which to attack or destroy an enemy hypersonic weapon; hypersonic flight is not only complex but also extremely fragile, Ret. Lt. Gen. Trey Obering, Executive Vice President and Directed Energy Lead, Booz Allen Hamilton, told Warrior in an interview. (Obering previously served as the Director of the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency)
Therefore, hypersonic weapons could also potentially be stopped by, as Obering put it, causing a “disruption in the air flow.” Changes in aerodynamics can break up forces such as lift, thrust and drag, Obering said.
“These forces are all in balance. When you are going fast there is a small margin in those forces. A disruption can cause the entire vehicle to break up,” he explained.
Essentially, the idea is not to destroy the hypersonic weapon with an explosion, but rather cause an “instantaneous” angle change in the complex, interwoven mixture of air-flow variables. This, quite significantly, can cause an entire vehicle to break apart. A number of things could cause this, such as a laser, rupture of a booster, missile explosion in the vicinity of the weapon in-flight or some other kind of disruption. -- To read Warrior's full report on Defending Hypersonic weapons - CLICK HERE --
“Hypersonics have control surfaces that can maneuver like an aircraft. You would take advantage of the vehicle’s speed and cause a change in vehicle direction,” Obering said.
Booz Allen Hamilton is among several defense industry giants now working on hypersonic weapons technology, including the exploration of emerging methods to defend them.
How can carrier strike groups project power within striking range of enemy targets? How can mechanized armored columns maneuver without being badly crippled by hypersonic attack? How can the most advanced fighter jets maneuver to avoid impact if there simply is no time? Perhaps satellites, ICBMs and defensive weapons such as Ground-Based Interceptors could also be vulnerable? The variables through which hypersonics promise to alter warfare are seemingly limitless. The danger is extremely serious.
“In many ways hypersonics represents the last frontier in aeronautics,” the NASA, AFRL, Case Western Univ. paper states.
Air Force Reveals Details on S&T ‘Vanguard’ Programs
JUST IN: Air Force Reveals Details on S&T ‘Vanguard’ Programs
11/21/2019
By Yasmin Tadjdeh
Skyborg rendering
Photo: Air Force
Earlier this year, the Air Force released its much-anticipated science-and-technology strategy which called for the establishment of special programs targeted at gamechanging capabilities. The service is now revealing details about what those foundational programs will include.
The “Science and Technology Strategy: Strengthening USAF Science and Technology for 2030 and Beyond” document — released in April — emphasized the development of transformational technologies in the areas of: global persistent awareness; resilient information sharing; rapid, effective decision-making; complexity, unpredictability and mass; and speed and reach of disruption and lethality. The service pledged to spend 20 percent of its annual S&T budget on these efforts.
Under those focus areas are a handful of “vanguard programs” that could yield revolutionary capabilities, said Gen. Arnold Bunch Jr., commander of Air Force Materiel Command.
“We believe they can dramatically change the way that we fight and the way that we employ air power,” he said Nov. 21 during a meeting with reporters in Washington, D.C.
The Air Force has now identified three efforts that will be part of the vanguard initiative: Golden Horde, Navigation Technology Satellite 3 and Skyborg.
Golden Horde is meant to connect precision-guided munitions together to be employed in a teaming fashion. The Navigation Technology Satellite 3 is a spacecraft that will be in geosynchronous orbit and provide position, navigation and timing capabilities. Skyborg is an unmanned combat aircraft which is envisioned as a low cost and attritable platform that can be employed in large numbers in future fights. The system will take advantage of advancements in artificial intelligence.
“We've funded those for the next couple of years to make sure we've got all the efforts for the prototyping and experimentation that we want to move forward,” Bunch said. Those efforts could become programs of record in the future based on their progress, he added.
Each of the efforts were evaluated on their own merits but fit a common theme of being potentially gamechanging technologies, Bunch said.
“We're not looking for … an incremental increase” in capability, he said. “The way that we see these, if we get these to work and … function in the way we expect, then it'll be a leap ahead.”
The service is working to ensure it can afford the projects, realigning its program portfolio so that it has the flexibility to put 20 percent of its S&T budget toward the strategy's focus areas, Bunch noted.
Bunch said he is trying to create a “sense of competition” for every S&T dollar.
“If you're doing a program, if it's not performing [well] and you're not doing a really good job, then maybe we don't need to do that program and we need to … off-ramp it and we need to look at other areas" to invest in, he said.
Bunch noted that hypersonics technology is not part of the vanguard programs because the Air Force is already making significant progress in that area. The service currently is working on two efforts known as the hypersonic conventional strike weapon and the air-launched rapid response weapon, he said. The Air Force anticipates having an early operational capability for at least one of those two systems by fiscal year 2022.
With hypersonics, “I'm already there, I'm already doing it,” he said. The vanguard programs are more about “artificial intelligence, linking and pairing things together and having them operate together," he explained.
Bunch noted that investments for the vanguard programs will come from prototyping and experimentation funding from fiscal years 2019 and 2020, which will move the efforts forward until the service can make a final decision about which technologies to pursue further.
JUST IN: Air Force Reveals Details on S&T ‘Vanguard’ Programs
11/21/2019
By Yasmin Tadjdeh
Photo: Air Force
Earlier this year, the Air Force released its much-anticipated science-and-technology strategy which called for the establishment of special programs targeted at gamechanging capabilities. The service is now revealing details about what those foundational programs will include.
The “Science and Technology Strategy: Strengthening USAF Science and Technology for 2030 and Beyond” document — released in April — emphasized the development of transformational technologies in the areas of: global persistent awareness; resilient information sharing; rapid, effective decision-making; complexity, unpredictability and mass; and speed and reach of disruption and lethality. The service pledged to spend 20 percent of its annual S&T budget on these efforts.
Under those focus areas are a handful of “vanguard programs” that could yield revolutionary capabilities, said Gen. Arnold Bunch Jr., commander of Air Force Materiel Command.
“We believe they can dramatically change the way that we fight and the way that we employ air power,” he said Nov. 21 during a meeting with reporters in Washington, D.C.
The Air Force has now identified three efforts that will be part of the vanguard initiative: Golden Horde, Navigation Technology Satellite 3 and Skyborg.
Golden Horde is meant to connect precision-guided munitions together to be employed in a teaming fashion. The Navigation Technology Satellite 3 is a spacecraft that will be in geosynchronous orbit and provide position, navigation and timing capabilities. Skyborg is an unmanned combat aircraft which is envisioned as a low cost and attritable platform that can be employed in large numbers in future fights. The system will take advantage of advancements in artificial intelligence.
“We've funded those for the next couple of years to make sure we've got all the efforts for the prototyping and experimentation that we want to move forward,” Bunch said. Those efforts could become programs of record in the future based on their progress, he added.
Each of the efforts were evaluated on their own merits but fit a common theme of being potentially gamechanging technologies, Bunch said.
“We're not looking for … an incremental increase” in capability, he said. “The way that we see these, if we get these to work and … function in the way we expect, then it'll be a leap ahead.”
The service is working to ensure it can afford the projects, realigning its program portfolio so that it has the flexibility to put 20 percent of its S&T budget toward the strategy's focus areas, Bunch noted.
Bunch said he is trying to create a “sense of competition” for every S&T dollar.
“If you're doing a program, if it's not performing [well] and you're not doing a really good job, then maybe we don't need to do that program and we need to … off-ramp it and we need to look at other areas" to invest in, he said.
Bunch noted that hypersonics technology is not part of the vanguard programs because the Air Force is already making significant progress in that area. The service currently is working on two efforts known as the hypersonic conventional strike weapon and the air-launched rapid response weapon, he said. The Air Force anticipates having an early operational capability for at least one of those two systems by fiscal year 2022.
With hypersonics, “I'm already there, I'm already doing it,” he said. The vanguard programs are more about “artificial intelligence, linking and pairing things together and having them operate together," he explained.
Bunch noted that investments for the vanguard programs will come from prototyping and experimentation funding from fiscal years 2019 and 2020, which will move the efforts forward until the service can make a final decision about which technologies to pursue further.
The Raider Takes Shape - Air Force Magazine
The Raider Takes Shape
Top Air Force leaders are beginning to speak more openly about the B-21. Randall G. Walden, head of the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office, which runs the bomber development effort, said in October, “We’re ready to start actually building parts.”
Construction has begun at Northrop Grumman’s Palmdale plant. “We do have an airplane in there,” Walden said. “That would be our test ship No. 1. We’re working the production line, literally, today.” Major structures, like the wings, are being brought into the assembly line.
The Air Force won’t try to simply “sneak it out,” Walden asserted, promising a public rollout at Palmdale, just as with the B-2 in 1988. But while it took nine months for the B-2 to go from rollout to inaugural sortie, Air Force officials anticipate a much shorter preflight evaluation period before that first flight from Palmdale to nearby Edwards AFB, Calif. After that, Walden said, USAF will “start to open up” about B-21 capabilities.
A B-1 Lancer aircrew steps to their aircraft at Eglin AFB, Fla. USAF plans to retire 62 B-1s as the B-21 Raider comes on line. Photo: Samuel King Jr./USAFExpand Photo
At a Palmdale event in August celebrating the 30th anniversary of the B-2, Northrop Grumman said it had grown from 24,000 to about 28,000 employees at its California locations. Aerospace Systems sector President Janis G. Pamiljans said, “We’ve been on a tremendous hiring spree” while simultaneously refurbishing and expanding the Palmdale facilities, which included relocating production operations for the RQ-4 Global Hawk and MQ-4 Triton.
Northrop’s contract for engineering and manufacturing development (including the first five aircraft) represents a $23.5 billion investment. The production contract could be worth $55 billion for 100 airplanes, Walden said in 2016, not including additional, unidentified programs in the “family of systems” that will make the B-21 effective.
The Air Force’s original plan for the B-21 contract called for “80 to 100” aircraft, but USAF leaders over the past two years have been touting “at least 100” airplanes. At AFA’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference in September, USAF Chief of Staff Gen. David L. Goldfein said he’s “100 percent in lockstep” with the views expressed in multiple third-party reports that 100 is too few. While he acknowledged the B-21’s development cycle can’t be sped up, he said he’d like to buy more than 100 of the jets, and buy them faster than currently planned.
Matthew P. Donovan, service undersecretary, in an October interview with Air Force Magazine, laid out the math behind the “Air Force We Need” analysis, which called for seven more bomber squadrons, growth required for long-range power projection in the Pacific Theater and elsewhere. “A bomber squadron’s got about eight airplanes in it,” Donovan noted, so the Air Force’s analysis indicates a requirement for about 56 more bombers. “I think … you’ll see us put some real numbers to the total numbers of bombers” in the 2020 budget request, Donovan said. But he also cited an analysis by the Air Force Association’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, which concluded the Air Force has a demand for at least 174 B-21s, noting Goldfein “agrees with that.”
The Air Force has not announced any deviation from original cost targets and cost ceilings on the B-21. In base year 2010 dollars, the service said at contract award that it expected the jets to come in at $511 million apiece, with a not-to-exceed price of $550 million. In 2019 dollars, that would be $553 million and $651.7 million, respectively. Both numbers were calculated against a buy of 100 airplanes, though; a larger volume of production could drive unit costs lower.
Air Force leaders have said numerous times that the B-21 program is among the best-run programs in the Air Force, hitting its cost and schedule marks. Walden said the only thing that could dramatically raise the price of the airplane is a significant change in performance requirements.
USAF’s Global Strike Command plans to retire the 62 B-1 and 20 B-2 bombers by around 2031. Producing 15 B-21s per year would enable the Air Force to have 100 of the new bombers on hand by that point. The Air Force has reactivated the 420th Flight Test Squadron at Edwards—the unit that tested the B-2—to put the B-21 through its paces.
Satellite images of Edwards reveal a number of new structures in the South Base area, including one building that is about 220 feet square—about the size needed to shelter a B-2-sized aircraft. The Air Force has also relocated B-1 and B-52 test activities away from South Base.
Walden told Air Force Magazine that the B-21 program had not made use of a subscale demonstrator to prove out the aircraft’s aerodynamics, although he had previously described wind tunnel testing on the bomber. “You always look for opportunities to do things lower-risk,” he said, but a subscale aircraft was not part of that effort, he said. He declined to offer further details.
Walden’s comment was curious because a number of Air Force officials and members of Congress have made comments suggesting they were satisfied there was a “fly before buy” approach taken with the B-21. In selecting Northrop Grumman as the B-21 contractor, the Air Force cited the company’s competence to do the project based on its “other programs.” Those could include a high-altitude intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft said to be called the RQ-180, which may resemble the B-21’s cranked-kite planform. Northrop’s balance sheet indicates a hefty amount of classified work.
The B-21’s shape, identical to the original planform of the B-2, suggests the aircraft is optimized for stealth at high altitude. The B-2’s requirements were changed early in the program, to give that airplane more rigidity and ease of handling in low-level penetration flight. The B-2’s shape was altered to the now-familiar “sawtooth” tail; a design revision that cost billions of dollars and years of time.
The sole artist’s concept of the B-21 released by the Air Force shows the cranked-kite shape without modification, indicating USAF won’t be taking the B-21 down to fly nap-of-the-earth.
Comparing Stealth Bombers. Graphic: Dash Parham/staff; Illustration: Mike Tsukamoto/staff
View or download this infographic
B-21 development has not come without challenges. Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Va.), then head of the House Armed Services Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, cited a dispute between “ducting contractors” and engine maker Pratt & Whitney in March 2018.
Pratt engineers sought to “change some of the cowling,” Wittman suggested, which could affect low-observable characteristics.
The artist’s concept shows the B-21 with very straight and narrow, angled air intakes on the upper fuselage. To maintain stealth, engine fan blades must be hidden inside the fuselage, and the ducting lined with radar-absorbent materials to reduce the radar cross section of the aircraft.
Wittman said the B-21 uses a “very, very different design as far as airflow,” suggesting trade-offs between stealth and thrust were being debated. Meanwhile, other contractors were worried about the exhaust, he said. Without elaborating, Wittman also cited “snags” affecting the B-21’s wings.
Months later, however, Walden said those issues had been resolved.
“Complex weapon systems, especially engine integrations” are challenging, he said. “You’ve got to get [engine] throat sizes done right, prior to anything being built.” The Rapid Capabilities Office got “insight from actual lab testing,” settled on a solution, and component testing was moving ahead at an “appropriate speed.”
Wittman also noted that the B-21 program had created a nonflying “iron bird” shape to test the fit of components. The use of mockups in this fashion is a common step in an aircraft’s development.
Air Force officials, meanwhile, describe B-21 as an “extremely low-observable” design, as opposed to the “very low-observable” F-22 and F-35.
The Air Force has not said if the B-21 will be powered by two or four engines, but the consensus among aerospace analysts is that the jet likely uses Pratt’s F135 engine, which also equips the F-35 fighter. Two F135s could generate 56,000 pounds of dry (non-afterburning) thrust, but would require a larger aperture to do so than the four General Electric F118 engines in the B-2, which combine to produce about 68,000 pounds of thrust.
The B-21 is believed to be somewhat smaller than the B-2, with a payload of around 30,000-pounds, just large enough to carry one GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator precision-guided conventional bomb, the largest in the Air Force inventory.
Only seven B-21 subcontractors have been named, and one of them—Orbital ATK—was acquired by Northrop Grumman in 2018. The other contractors are: BAE Systems in Nashua, N.H.; GKN Aerospace, St. Louis; Janicki Industries in Sedro-Woolley, Wash.; Rockwell Collins in Cedar Rapids, Iowa; and Spirit Aerosystems in Wichita, Kans. Rockwell Collins will become part of Raytheon Technologies under a “merger of equals” between parent company United Technologies and Raytheon as announced in June.
A photo illustration of what the B-21 may look like flying over the desert near Edwards AFB, Calif. From the outset, the B-21 has been labeled as an “optionally manned” aircraft, meaning it can fly with or without a crew. Illustration: Mike Tsukamoto/staff; Photo: Courtesy, USAFExpand Photo
The B-21 predates the advanced digital engineering methods that Air Force acquisition chief Will Roper sees as the enabling technology behind a new “Digital Century Series” of fighters, which calls for aircraft to be developed very rapidly.
“We started with the manufacturing [technology] that we had at the time,” Walden told Air Force Magazine. “I think that’s what [Roper] is focused on… When can we get to that better manufacturing? But today, we’re using the same techniques where and when it makes sense to bring it into production.”
Walden anticipates “sharing” technology between B-21 and the Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program, an outcome made more likely since Roper chose former B-21 program manager Col. Dale R. White to head up NGAD.
The Air Force announced earlier this year that the “preferred location” for the first B-21 squadron will be Ellsworth AFB in Rapid City, S.D. Now a B-1B base, service officials said Ellsworth will likely “transition” from the B-1 to the B-21, rather than operate both bombers concurrently. Next up would be Whiteman AFB, Mo., the sole B-2 operating base, and Dyess AFB, Texas, which operates B-1s. Former Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson said earlier this year that “if you’re a bomber base now, you’ll be a bomber base in the future.” Tinker AFB, Okla., will be the B-21’s depot, aided by Robins AFB, Ga., and Hill AFB, Utah. The secondary depots will be responsible for rebuilding subassemblies and parts, and for component and parts testing.
The B-21 has from the outset been described as an “optionally manned” aircraft, meaning it could fly with or without a crew, but service leaders have not discussed this aspect of the program for over a year. The aircraft will be capable of flying nuclear missions and will be certified with both the B61 nuclear gravity bomb and the Long-Range Standoff (LRSO) missile now in development. That weapon will also be fitted to the B-52. A conventional version of the LRSO may also be in development.
Donovan told Air Force Magazine in October the Air Force may again try to get the Defense Department to fund the B-21, as well as the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent program—which replaces the Minuteman ICBM—and the LRSO in a separate line outside the Air Force base budget. The Navy won similar status for the Columbia-class sea-launched ballistic missile submarine on the argument that the arrangement preserves the submarine industrial base; by contrast, the Air Force’s two legs of the nuclear Triad have no such special status.
The Air Force may find high-priority programs squeezed out by the expense of modernizing its part of the Triad. Revamping the nuclear enterprise, along with all the other modernization challenges the Air Force faces—from fighters to tankers to space and cyber—is beyond the limits of expected budgets. “We … are not able to do that within the Air Force’s … topline,” Donovan said.
The Raider Takes Shape
Four years into development, the Air Force is starting to reveal more about the B-21 bomber.
The first B-21 Raider bomber is coming together at Northrop Grumman’s Palmdale, Calif., facility and will likely be rolled out for public view in 20 months, making its first flight a few months later. The Air Force is also planning, in its next budget proposal, to increase the buy to 150 or more aircraft, up from 100. The B-21 picture, highly secret for the last four years, is starting to come into focus.Top Air Force leaders are beginning to speak more openly about the B-21. Randall G. Walden, head of the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office, which runs the bomber development effort, said in October, “We’re ready to start actually building parts.”
Construction has begun at Northrop Grumman’s Palmdale plant. “We do have an airplane in there,” Walden said. “That would be our test ship No. 1. We’re working the production line, literally, today.” Major structures, like the wings, are being brought into the assembly line.
When it comes to the B-21 Raider, USAF won’t try to ‘sneak it out.’ There will be a public rollout of the new bomber.
Randall G. Walden, head of the Air Force Capabilities Office
Timelines at this stage are still slippery. Gen. Stephen W. Wilson, Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force, said he was counting down the days to the B-21’s first flight, which he projected would come in December 2021.Walden is not so sure. Though that’s still the target, “I would not bet on that date,” he said, emphasizing how “complex” the B-21 is. Integration issues, ground testing, and even weather could affect first flight, he said.Randall G. Walden, head of the Air Force Capabilities Office
The Air Force won’t try to simply “sneak it out,” Walden asserted, promising a public rollout at Palmdale, just as with the B-2 in 1988. But while it took nine months for the B-2 to go from rollout to inaugural sortie, Air Force officials anticipate a much shorter preflight evaluation period before that first flight from Palmdale to nearby Edwards AFB, Calif. After that, Walden said, USAF will “start to open up” about B-21 capabilities.
A B-1 Lancer aircrew steps to their aircraft at Eglin AFB, Fla. USAF plans to retire 62 B-1s as the B-21 Raider comes on line. Photo: Samuel King Jr./USAFExpand Photo
At a Palmdale event in August celebrating the 30th anniversary of the B-2, Northrop Grumman said it had grown from 24,000 to about 28,000 employees at its California locations. Aerospace Systems sector President Janis G. Pamiljans said, “We’ve been on a tremendous hiring spree” while simultaneously refurbishing and expanding the Palmdale facilities, which included relocating production operations for the RQ-4 Global Hawk and MQ-4 Triton.
Northrop’s contract for engineering and manufacturing development (including the first five aircraft) represents a $23.5 billion investment. The production contract could be worth $55 billion for 100 airplanes, Walden said in 2016, not including additional, unidentified programs in the “family of systems” that will make the B-21 effective.
The Air Force’s original plan for the B-21 contract called for “80 to 100” aircraft, but USAF leaders over the past two years have been touting “at least 100” airplanes. At AFA’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference in September, USAF Chief of Staff Gen. David L. Goldfein said he’s “100 percent in lockstep” with the views expressed in multiple third-party reports that 100 is too few. While he acknowledged the B-21’s development cycle can’t be sped up, he said he’d like to buy more than 100 of the jets, and buy them faster than currently planned.
Matthew P. Donovan, service undersecretary, in an October interview with Air Force Magazine, laid out the math behind the “Air Force We Need” analysis, which called for seven more bomber squadrons, growth required for long-range power projection in the Pacific Theater and elsewhere. “A bomber squadron’s got about eight airplanes in it,” Donovan noted, so the Air Force’s analysis indicates a requirement for about 56 more bombers. “I think … you’ll see us put some real numbers to the total numbers of bombers” in the 2020 budget request, Donovan said. But he also cited an analysis by the Air Force Association’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, which concluded the Air Force has a demand for at least 174 B-21s, noting Goldfein “agrees with that.”
The Air Force has not announced any deviation from original cost targets and cost ceilings on the B-21. In base year 2010 dollars, the service said at contract award that it expected the jets to come in at $511 million apiece, with a not-to-exceed price of $550 million. In 2019 dollars, that would be $553 million and $651.7 million, respectively. Both numbers were calculated against a buy of 100 airplanes, though; a larger volume of production could drive unit costs lower.
Air Force leaders have said numerous times that the B-21 program is among the best-run programs in the Air Force, hitting its cost and schedule marks. Walden said the only thing that could dramatically raise the price of the airplane is a significant change in performance requirements.
USAF’s Global Strike Command plans to retire the 62 B-1 and 20 B-2 bombers by around 2031. Producing 15 B-21s per year would enable the Air Force to have 100 of the new bombers on hand by that point. The Air Force has reactivated the 420th Flight Test Squadron at Edwards—the unit that tested the B-2—to put the B-21 through its paces.
Satellite images of Edwards reveal a number of new structures in the South Base area, including one building that is about 220 feet square—about the size needed to shelter a B-2-sized aircraft. The Air Force has also relocated B-1 and B-52 test activities away from South Base.
Walden told Air Force Magazine that the B-21 program had not made use of a subscale demonstrator to prove out the aircraft’s aerodynamics, although he had previously described wind tunnel testing on the bomber. “You always look for opportunities to do things lower-risk,” he said, but a subscale aircraft was not part of that effort, he said. He declined to offer further details.
Walden’s comment was curious because a number of Air Force officials and members of Congress have made comments suggesting they were satisfied there was a “fly before buy” approach taken with the B-21. In selecting Northrop Grumman as the B-21 contractor, the Air Force cited the company’s competence to do the project based on its “other programs.” Those could include a high-altitude intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft said to be called the RQ-180, which may resemble the B-21’s cranked-kite planform. Northrop’s balance sheet indicates a hefty amount of classified work.
The B-21’s shape, identical to the original planform of the B-2, suggests the aircraft is optimized for stealth at high altitude. The B-2’s requirements were changed early in the program, to give that airplane more rigidity and ease of handling in low-level penetration flight. The B-2’s shape was altered to the now-familiar “sawtooth” tail; a design revision that cost billions of dollars and years of time.
The sole artist’s concept of the B-21 released by the Air Force shows the cranked-kite shape without modification, indicating USAF won’t be taking the B-21 down to fly nap-of-the-earth.
View or download this infographic
B-21 development has not come without challenges. Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Va.), then head of the House Armed Services Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, cited a dispute between “ducting contractors” and engine maker Pratt & Whitney in March 2018.
Pratt engineers sought to “change some of the cowling,” Wittman suggested, which could affect low-observable characteristics.
The artist’s concept shows the B-21 with very straight and narrow, angled air intakes on the upper fuselage. To maintain stealth, engine fan blades must be hidden inside the fuselage, and the ducting lined with radar-absorbent materials to reduce the radar cross section of the aircraft.
Wittman said the B-21 uses a “very, very different design as far as airflow,” suggesting trade-offs between stealth and thrust were being debated. Meanwhile, other contractors were worried about the exhaust, he said. Without elaborating, Wittman also cited “snags” affecting the B-21’s wings.
Months later, however, Walden said those issues had been resolved.
“Complex weapon systems, especially engine integrations” are challenging, he said. “You’ve got to get [engine] throat sizes done right, prior to anything being built.” The Rapid Capabilities Office got “insight from actual lab testing,” settled on a solution, and component testing was moving ahead at an “appropriate speed.”
Wittman also noted that the B-21 program had created a nonflying “iron bird” shape to test the fit of components. The use of mockups in this fashion is a common step in an aircraft’s development.
Air Force officials, meanwhile, describe B-21 as an “extremely low-observable” design, as opposed to the “very low-observable” F-22 and F-35.
The Air Force has not said if the B-21 will be powered by two or four engines, but the consensus among aerospace analysts is that the jet likely uses Pratt’s F135 engine, which also equips the F-35 fighter. Two F135s could generate 56,000 pounds of dry (non-afterburning) thrust, but would require a larger aperture to do so than the four General Electric F118 engines in the B-2, which combine to produce about 68,000 pounds of thrust.
The B-21 is believed to be somewhat smaller than the B-2, with a payload of around 30,000-pounds, just large enough to carry one GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator precision-guided conventional bomb, the largest in the Air Force inventory.
Only seven B-21 subcontractors have been named, and one of them—Orbital ATK—was acquired by Northrop Grumman in 2018. The other contractors are: BAE Systems in Nashua, N.H.; GKN Aerospace, St. Louis; Janicki Industries in Sedro-Woolley, Wash.; Rockwell Collins in Cedar Rapids, Iowa; and Spirit Aerosystems in Wichita, Kans. Rockwell Collins will become part of Raytheon Technologies under a “merger of equals” between parent company United Technologies and Raytheon as announced in June.
A photo illustration of what the B-21 may look like flying over the desert near Edwards AFB, Calif. From the outset, the B-21 has been labeled as an “optionally manned” aircraft, meaning it can fly with or without a crew. Illustration: Mike Tsukamoto/staff; Photo: Courtesy, USAFExpand Photo
The B-21 predates the advanced digital engineering methods that Air Force acquisition chief Will Roper sees as the enabling technology behind a new “Digital Century Series” of fighters, which calls for aircraft to be developed very rapidly.
“We started with the manufacturing [technology] that we had at the time,” Walden told Air Force Magazine. “I think that’s what [Roper] is focused on… When can we get to that better manufacturing? But today, we’re using the same techniques where and when it makes sense to bring it into production.”
Walden anticipates “sharing” technology between B-21 and the Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program, an outcome made more likely since Roper chose former B-21 program manager Col. Dale R. White to head up NGAD.
The Air Force announced earlier this year that the “preferred location” for the first B-21 squadron will be Ellsworth AFB in Rapid City, S.D. Now a B-1B base, service officials said Ellsworth will likely “transition” from the B-1 to the B-21, rather than operate both bombers concurrently. Next up would be Whiteman AFB, Mo., the sole B-2 operating base, and Dyess AFB, Texas, which operates B-1s. Former Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson said earlier this year that “if you’re a bomber base now, you’ll be a bomber base in the future.” Tinker AFB, Okla., will be the B-21’s depot, aided by Robins AFB, Ga., and Hill AFB, Utah. The secondary depots will be responsible for rebuilding subassemblies and parts, and for component and parts testing.
The B-21 has from the outset been described as an “optionally manned” aircraft, meaning it could fly with or without a crew, but service leaders have not discussed this aspect of the program for over a year. The aircraft will be capable of flying nuclear missions and will be certified with both the B61 nuclear gravity bomb and the Long-Range Standoff (LRSO) missile now in development. That weapon will also be fitted to the B-52. A conventional version of the LRSO may also be in development.
Donovan told Air Force Magazine in October the Air Force may again try to get the Defense Department to fund the B-21, as well as the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent program—which replaces the Minuteman ICBM—and the LRSO in a separate line outside the Air Force base budget. The Navy won similar status for the Columbia-class sea-launched ballistic missile submarine on the argument that the arrangement preserves the submarine industrial base; by contrast, the Air Force’s two legs of the nuclear Triad have no such special status.
The Air Force may find high-priority programs squeezed out by the expense of modernizing its part of the Triad. Revamping the nuclear enterprise, along with all the other modernization challenges the Air Force faces—from fighters to tankers to space and cyber—is beyond the limits of expected budgets. “We … are not able to do that within the Air Force’s … topline,” Donovan said.