Boeing 2018 Bomber

[Eyat]

The Boeing Company and Lockheed Martin have teamed to perform studies and system development efforts including collaborative research and development in pursuit of the anticipated U.S. Air Force 2018 Bomber program

This collaborative effort for a long-range strike program will include work in advanced sensors and future electronic warfare solutions including advancements in network enabled battle management, command and control, and virtual warfare simulation and experimentation.

Boeing and Lockheed Martin are working closely at all levels to capture the best of industry to develop and provide an effective and affordable solution for the warfighter. The work performed by the Boeing/Lockheed Martin team is designed to help the Air Force establish capability-based roadmaps for technology maturation and date certain timelines for the 2018 Bomber program.
Официальный источник (http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/2018bomber/index.html)
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/2018bomber/images/NextGenBomberHighAlt2.jpg

Перевод, в двух словах:
Боинг и Локхид Мартин объединились, для проведения исследований по концепции нового поколения бомбардировщика. Цель этих исследований: разработка новых радиоэлектронных систем, изыскания в аэродинамике, подготовка авиасимуляторов. В результате этих работ, ВВС США смогут выставить тактико-техническое задание на создание нового поколения бомбардировщика.
За перевод не ругать, я с института с English не в ладах.

[Marcus_Lind]

Eyat,
Спасибо, интересно.

[VolkVoland]

Б-2 виртуально зализать решили. В путь дорогу.

[RB]

Б-2 виртуально зализать решили. В путь дорогу.

Ну да на большее они не способны :D Полный стопор развития

[VolkVoland]

Не в способностях дело - зачем что либо делать когда и без этого в итоге "вычислят" что стратегические БПЛА дешевле.

[flateric]

эта новость от 25 января 2008 года
с тех пор уже сто раз концепция поменялась

A Longer Wait for Long Range Strike: Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn warns not to expect a full-blown plan for a new bomber in next year’s defense budget. Speaking Thursday at an Aerospace Industries Association event in the US Capitol, Lynn said the Pentagon is assessing now which companies and which technologies will need sustainment to preserve options in developing a "portfolio" of long range strike capabilities. “There are three main companies that have capabilities, so you’re maintaining those companies with the prospect that you would then compete them,” Lynn said. “We’re in the midst now of a series of studies that are trying to identify programmatically which—and on what schedule—to fund that approach.” There will be "more definition" of LRS technologies in the 2012 budget, but that probably won't be “the final step." He emphasized, "We’ll get more definitive as we move on.
From Insidedefense.com

Pentagon: Long-Range Strike Study To Relook Power Projection Concept
_______________________________________________
Date: May 6, 2010

The Defense Department’s ongoing long-range strike study will re-examine the “whole concept of power projection,” according to a Pentagon official.

The study is in the early stages, but the goal is to produce insights by early fall, in time to influence the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s review of the services’ fiscal year 2012 program objective memorandum (POM-12) submissions, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Development David Ochmanek told Inside the Pentagon.

“We’re looking at the portfolio of long-range strike capabilities,” Ochmanek said, including “supporting elements of that, whether it’s penetrating [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance]; survivable command and control communications; weapons and munitions; base infrastructure -- really the whole concept of power projection is being relooked at.” There are no early takeaways from the study yet, Ochmanek said in an April 21 interview.

“No, we’re still at the point of refining the specific scenarios to be looked at, the target sets, the modalities of the analysis,” he said. The analysis is mulling the appropriate mix of long-range strike capabilities, including heavy bombers and non-nuclear Prompt Global Strike. The Quadrennial Defense Review called for the study to determine the best mix of joint persistent surveillance, electronic warfare, and precision-attack capabilities -- including both penetrating platforms and stand-off weapons -- for U.S. power projection over the next 20 to 30 years.

“We have been examining the potential as well for some sort of nontraditional long-range strike assets,” Ochmanek said. “You’ve heard about the Prompt Global Strike set of concepts. Where do they fit into an overall concept of operations? So that’s been going on sort of in parallel with an analysis of more traditional things like bombers and cruise missiles.”

To meet the potential threats to the American military’s ability to project power, deter aggression, and come to the aid of allies and partners, the QDR directs more focus and investment in a new air-sea battle concept, long-range strike, space and cyberspace, among other conventional and strategic modernization programs.

The QDR notes the Air Force is eying ways to field survivable, long-range surveillance and strike aircraft as part of a plan to modernize the bomber force and working with the Navy on options for a new joint cruise missile.

The Navy, meanwhile, is mulling ways to expand the capacity of future Virginia-class attack submarines for long-range strike while also planning experiments with prototypes of a Naval Unmanned Combat Aerial System, a drone that might one day greatly boost the range of carrier-based ISR and strike operations. In a speech Monday at the Navy League’s annual conference, Defense Secretary Robert Gates touted such efforts.

Gates called for extending the range at which U.S. naval forces can fight, refuel and strike with more resources devoted to long-range unmanned aircraft and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities; developing new sea-based missile defenses; giving the submarine force “expanded roles,” including conducting more missions deep inside an enemy’s battle network; increasing sub strike capability and using smaller and unmanned underwater platforms.

“Looking forward, we are focused on the challenge of anti-access adversaries and how we do power projection in a world where our adversaries have more capabilities to threaten our forces and bases in theaters of operation than has been the case in the past,” Ochmanek said.

The QDR discusses that, makes some “down payments on capabilities” and moves in that direction, “but there is more to be done,” Ochmanek added.

“We know other nations are working on asymmetric ways to thwart the reach and striking power of the U.S. battle fleet,” Gates said Monday. “At the low end, Hezbollah, a nonstate actor, used anti-ship missiles against the Israeli navy in 2006. And Iran is combining ballistic and cruise missiles, anti-ship missiles, mines and swarming speedboats in order to challenge our naval power in that region.”

At the higher end of the access-denial spectrum, he said, U.S. forces now face long-range, accurate anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles with the capability to strike from over the horizon.

“This is a particular concern with aircraft carriers and other large, multibillion-dollar blue-water surface combatants, where, for example, a Ford-class carrier plus its full complement of the latest aircraft would represent potentially a $15 [billion] to $20 billion set of hardware at risk,” Gates said.

Gates said the agreement by the Navy and the Air Force to collaborate on an air-sea battle concept is “an encouraging development, which has the potential to do for America’s military deterrent power at the beginning of the 21st century what air-land battle did near the end of the 20th.” Work on the concept is progressing, Ochmanek said.

“That’s going on as well between the Air Force and the Navy and we’re very hopeful that’s going to come up with some new ways to skin this cat,” he told ITP. “There’s still in the study and analysis phase but we’re kind of following that pretty closely.” -- Christopher J. Castelli
From the Air Force Association

B-1B to be 1st-Gen ISR/Strike Platform: The Air Force intends to put its concept for a future long-range intelligence-reconnaissance-surveillance/strike platform to the test with modifications to the B-1B bomber. "That is what is envisioned for the future arsenal of the Air Force: an aircraft that includes ISR, directed energy, and network attack," explained Col. Charles Sherwin, 427th Aircraft Sustainment Group commander at Tinker AFB, Okla. He added that "all" of these capabilities "are being integrated or demonstrated” on the B-1B in the immediate future. Under the electric laser on a large aircraft initiative, the service plans to install a directed energy weapon on the B-1. "In effect," said Sherwin, "uniting this capability" with the Sniper targeting pod already on the bomber will make the B-1 "a first- generation" long-range ISR/strike aircraft. (Tinker report by Brandice J. Armstrong)

[BARS_2]

я правильно понимаю, что будущие подрядчики проводят исследования, на основе которых буду выставлены требования, которые эти подрядчики будут воплощать в жизнь?

[Eyat]

я правильно понимаю, что будущие подрядчики проводят исследования, на основе которых буду выставлены требования, которые эти подрядчики будут воплощать в жизнь?
Цивилизация однако. Вот и поэтому у них самолёты более продвинутые.

[VolkVoland]

Цивилизация однако. Вот и поэтому у них самолёты более продвинутые.

Так и не разобрался...

Цивилизация?

Кто такие "они", во что и чем они "продвинуты"?

---------- Добавлено в 01:48 ---------- Предыдущее сообщение было написано в 01:46 ----------


я правильно понимаю, что будущие подрядчики проводят исследования, на основе которых буду выставлены требования, которые эти подрядчики будут воплощать в жизнь?

Вот этот кусочек первести надо;

"The work performed by the Boeing/Lockheed Martin team is designed to help the Air Force establish capability-based roadmaps for technology maturation and date certain timelines for the 2018 Bomber program."

[flateric]

я правильно понимаю, что будущие подрядчики проводят исследования, на основе которых буду выставлены требования, которые эти подрядчики будут воплощать в жизнь?

обычный Request for Information, что в этом такого? "генерируйте идеи, скажите, что вы можете дать нам, каким вы это видите"

[BARS_2]

Вот этот кусочек первести надо;

"The work performed by the Boeing/Lockheed Martin team is designed to help the Air Force establish capability-based roadmaps for technology maturation and date certain timelines for the 2018 Bomber program."

Вот по нему ж и написал. просят будущих исполнитлей рассказать что они могут и уровень технологий, для того чтобы прикинуть как развиваться.
Я просто удивлен что этим занимаются они, а не какие-то внутригосударственные структуры. Хотя там наверное и так все давно повязаны. просто это помоему похоже на вопрос - "а ну ка расскажите на что мы пустим следующие -нцать миллиардов, и начинайте готовиться к получению заказов."

[flateric]

кажется, топик был про бомбардировщик, или мне показалось?

[RomanSR]

Я разгребу ветку позже. Только приехал с дачи, устал. Придерживаемся темы. Всем спасибо.

[flateric]

внешний облик локхидобоинговского концепта NGB имеет корни в до сих пор секретном локхидовском проекте гигантского БПЛА QUARTZ (aka Tier III), проекта, начатого еще в 80-х (размах крыла ~70 м, цена: 500 MUSD в ценах 80-х)
именно Quartz'ы, а не спутники, должны были обеспечивать ЦУ для В-2х

[RomanSR]

Сделал. Думаю, что так будет несколько лучше. Оффтоп ищите в Политике и Общих вопросах.

[flateric]

кстати, http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/showthread.php?t=53345