if one could bet on specs of the next us bomber i’d put my money on a subsonic flying wing with empty weight just a little below b2, powered by two widely spaced engines of new uprated turbofan variant based on f119/f135 core.

That seems to be conventional wisdom on the LRS-B. There have been some hints dropped about possibly higher speed, however.

“We have spent a lot of time understanding what is in the scope of technology. The bomber reflects the need for stealth, the need for speed, the need for agility as well as the value of situational awareness and sensors. We are going to exploit the best of the technology that we can bear within an affordable price,” http://defensetech.org/2014/09/15/air-force-plans-major-step-in-long-range-strike-bomber-program/

the one tangible thing he has heard in many discussions with Air Force officials is “that it will be much faster than anything that currently flies such missions.” http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/defense-industrialist/four-questions-on-the-lrs-b-part-2

Perhaps they will throw a curveball and what emerges from this RFP is something very different from our subsonic flying wing template.

http://defense-update.com/20150116_f35_weapons_tested.html#.VLlHjTgtG1s

JPO update on weapon certification.

.
Anyway, as a final thought, I have never seen so much affection towards something that has never shown anything in regards to its skill or usefulness. If the F-35 proves to be a good plane, fair enough. Nobody loses, but if it fails to deliver, the voice of the sceptics automatically become warnings that nobody paid attention to with grave results.

There must be a reason, people don’t just decide to hate something.

I don’t know how much “love” is out there for this program. There are those who embrace the F-35 as vital to defense interests, and others who embrace the concepts represented by the program. I doubt anyone is unequivocal in their support.

As for the hate, there are really four distinct groups:

1.The Doves- Those that oppose anything painted green, media, interest groups that see the price tag on procurement programs and argue that money would be better spent on social programs. (Which is difficult to argue against as I’m sure we would all love to live in a world where hundreds of billions in defense dollars could be spent elsewhere)

2. The enthusiast- Let’s face it, the F-35 is not sexy. It does not appeal to the masculine: bigger, faster, stronger. There are some who still think that the F-14, by virtue of it’s looks was a better dogfighter than the F-18E/F. (One could argue that the F-14 was comparatively a better all around fighter for it’s time, however)
The F-35 is not going to win over the enthusiast youtuber comparing aircraft maneuverability using airshow turn rates by counting seconds to complete a turn (believe it or not, this is how some compare). The F-35 lacks those superlatives that appeal to the enthusiast – “no mach 2?, well my aircraft can sustain 20* turn rate, x aircraft sometimes pulls 11g at airshows”

3. The Luddite- those that LOVE gun kill references to Vietnam, Pk of missiles that were obsolete in 1970, the RCS stealth is dead because of…… crowd.
They ignore the fact that Vietnam was the anomaly: overly restrictive ROE, missiles designed for defense against bombers, pilots largely trained for tactical strike with BFM skills atrophied. We see Sprey still quoted and asked his opinion by even reputable media outlets. This is a man who claims that the F-16 could whip the F-22, who argued against the AMRAAM, and now his arguments are credible because some don’t “like” the F-35

4. Those with an actual argument- In truth, there are credible reasons to dislike this program: a trainwreck development until 2011-12, endangerment of local defense aerospace firms, overreliance on U.S., uncertain O&S costs.

Unfortunately, much of the opposition comes from the above three, especially #2: look at the love for the YF-23, F-14, Avro Arrow, etc. There is something to be said about good looks.

Have a look at LM+Harper’s attempts to bypass Canadian laws by trying to eliminate competition.. and another, more recent, desperate attempt of the same clique to lock Canada into a LRIP 7 swap without any authorization or decision to go with the F-35 – how is that “not forcing” in your books?

I hear what you are saying, but in the case of Canada and Australia (which there is similar opposition from the other parties) the military, the P.M. backed by the party in power are attempting to get the buy through. The military has made their choice clear, and the P.M. wants to get a deal done before an election. The choice was made, there never was supposed to be a competition in Canada, they were in the JSF program from the ground floor.

Whether that is the way major military procurements should be handled is a different debate altogether. The Swiss referendum on the Gripen deal shows how fickle the voters can be on major defense purchases. The opposition to the F-35 deal in Canada, at least in Parliament, is a political not a military issue. The military has been quite clear on their choice.

Ok, Snafu your well reasoned response has won me over. Obviously if those fools in the pentagon and other partner nations, could only see your nuanced, well reasoned argument, they too would drop the program.

Enjoy

Because none of the “positive,” as you would have it, reporting has ever been remotely sensationalist has it…

Oh wait…

The F35 is late, it does not yet work, it has cost well above it’s original budget to date and promisies to continue that trend, it is not the one size fits all solution it was and has been promised to be for many of the international participants.

All of which facts are rather contary to the majority of the messages that have come out of the manufacturers, the program and their supporters over the many years of this abonimations gestation. Have you ever read any of the paid for “opinion” pieces by Thompson and others (yes i’m looking at you sld)? These have strangely not been so omnipresent in recent times.

You reap what you sow.

Some of the above I agree with, and some of your above post is rather absurd, sorry. First off was the beast article correct on the details about the F-35’s gun?

Yes the F-35 is late, over budget, and there are many hurtles still to cross. As for a “one size fits all” solution: It is what it has been marketed and sold as, a relatively (subjective) affordable, LO, strike fighter.

Was L-M always forthcoming with budget and delays, nope. The issue here, for me, is the continuing downward trend of journalism and not only in the defense realm. Where was media when the F-35 program was truly going off the rails in the mid 2000’s? Busy killing the F-22: “Cold War Relic”, “400 million dollar fighter”, etc.

Now we have a situation where the F-35 program has stabilized and is headed toward IOC, and we see the usual suspects, Sprey, Wheeler, David Axe being quoted and pumping out the same tired junk. David Majumdar had some fine articles as part of the Flightglobal staff. It is a shame that to sell articles, journalists have to resort to sensationalism.

As far a reaping what you sow, the concern here isn’t about one program. It is about the increasing balkanization of media. You make a point to mention Loren Thompson, yet defend the above article. That is the definition of irony.

Interesting rebuttal on ETOS issue by JPO, the gun issue was a non-issue as anyone following program already knew:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-programme-office-defends-gun-and-sensor-407694/