It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

new bombers

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 08:15 AM
link   
It's not perfect, but I have an idea for a new bomber:

How about building a large flying wing bomber, similar to the B-2 in size. The trick would be to make it cost efficient. To cut on cost, we could despense with most of the high-price stealth features of the B-2 and trade the cutting edge avionics for newer, off-the-shelf Avionics, simular to how The F-117 was built. If my estimations are right, this propsal might cost around $70 Million to $120 Million per copy. This is less then the cost of the B-1.

Considering where current US technology is, if you build the plane so that it's easy to upgrade and cheap to maintain, you would get a very effective heavy bombing platform that would carry the US well into the future. I think this might be the ideal answer!

Tim




posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 02:11 PM
link   
I think what you would be looking for is something that would trade off stealth for speed. The flying wing just hasn't demonstrated the ability to go fast enough to outrun defense systems. You either have to have stealth, speed, or massive amounts of jamming/counter measures. Most cold war bombers used jamming and counter measures. Obviously they've gotten away from that by using stealth. And currently it appears that they are leaning toward hyper sonic craft. Which is funny since the A-12(Blackbird, not Avenger II) and XB-70 were of the higher/faster school.



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   
By the way, I still believe there was something about the YF-23 that is allowing for further development of the concept into a larger attack aircraft. I am a huge fan of Northrop ventures. They usually end up as beautiful, functional aircraft.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by CyberianHusky
I think what you would be looking for is something that would trade off stealth for speed. The flying wing just hasn't demonstrated the ability to go fast enough to outrun defense systems. You either have to have stealth, speed, or massive amounts of jamming/counter measures.


Well, not really! See the Flying Wing is inherently a stealth design. There are different levels of stealth. For example, the SR-71 Blackbird is a stealthy design, so is the B-1B. The same is true of the new F-35. None of these planes is as stealthy on Radar as a B-2, but they all use some degree of stealth. A new flying wing bomber could be made cheeper by not using as much cutting-edge stealth as the B-2, but still having enough to survive in a hostle environment.



Originally posted by CyberianHusky
By the way, I still believe there was something about the YF-23 that is allowing for further development of the concept into a larger attack aircraft. I am a huge fan of Northrop ventures. They usually end up as beautiful, functional aircraft.


Agreed! I can't wait to see what it becomes. I think they need to try not to overuse stealth though, or we will loose the advantage in it. The spinoff of the YF-23 is the missing peice we need to complete the piticure. Let's keep looking and see what we can find.

Tim



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 11:00 PM
link   
I like the Boeing B-1R regional bomber proposal.

A stealthier B-1 with four of the F119 engines from the F/A-22, the B-1R would have a Mach 2 top speed (with a 20% reduction in range), and carry AMRAAM's for self defense.

[edit on 7/28/05 by xmotex]



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 02:28 AM
link   
I think a new bomber is a ways off. and I'm talking bomber only role, since pretty much everything else (other then transports & tankers) has the ability to hit ground targets.

So the B-3 is at least 15 years off, but realisticly probably 20 years. and Until then what we have know will suffice, well, along with the future F-35's and X-45C & X-47B.

Out of the big three, I prefer Lockheed, then Northrop, then Boeing.

Heres a lockheed martin concept & a northrop grumman concept. I love em both.






posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 06:01 PM
link   
so if the new bombers are 15-20 years away does that mean they already are testing the prototype npw?


Since they will be declassifing some of the clissified aircraft in the near future maybe a bomber project will earn its public name?


yeah the fb-23 would be nice to have, those northrop and lockheeds are nice but why didnt you post boings too, I would like to see all three.

If the bombers are really good maybe they should use 2-3 of them for different roles kinda like the b17 and b29 in ww2, one for quick strike/responce, one for long range remote bombing and the third for heavy bombardment hellfire and brimestone type mission.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
I think a new bomber is a ways off. and I'm talking bomber only role, since pretty much everything else (other then transports & tankers) has the ability to hit ground targets.

So the B-3 is at least 15 years off, but realisticly probably 20 years. and Until then what we have know will suffice, well, along with the future F-35's and X-45C & X-47B.

Out of the big three, I prefer Lockheed, then Northrop, then Boeing.

Heres a lockheed martin concept & a northrop grumman concept. I love em both.



That last plane has to be the finest looking aircraft ive ever seen, it looks amazing! I want one!



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Interesting that in the picture above, Northrope seems to favor an unmanned craft over a manned aircraft.

It seems to me that the US would want human pilots onboard what will likely be a several hundred million (and maybe billion) dollar strategic nuclear bomber.



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Interesting Northrop design, but something wrong with it. Originaly it was QSP [Quiet Supersonic Platform] study. Because that, it had thin fuselage, high swept wing and sonic boom forming bottom part. In your version it would be probably more stealthy but very noisy. Here is original design:





posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 12:57 PM
link   
They look like two different designs to me, its not just that the engines look different but the planform is also completely different. The only thing that is the same is the colour.



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
I like the Boeing B-1R regional bomber proposal.

A stealthier B-1 with four of the F119 engines from the F/A-22, the B-1R would have a Mach 2 top speed (with a 20% reduction in range), and carry AMRAAM's for self defense.

[edit on 7/28/05 by xmotex]


But can the current airframe handle that speed over time? I know it's a fairly well built bomber, but I am a little skeptical. Killer idea though.

EDIT: Nevermind, I just read an article on the Boeing site and they mentioned that the modifications would bring the Bone closer to the original B-1A program goals. So I guess it was built into the airframe all along. Here's the article: www.boeing.com...

[edit on 7/30/2005 by CyberianHusky]



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Thanks for the link


I like the pic in the article, shows what appears to be a payload bay with four AMRAAM's, along with the AESA radar I wouldn't want to be the guy trying to shoot it down. I've heard that there is no aircraft that can catch the B-1 at extremely low altitudes, with the enhancements Boeing suggests it would be a very formidable package.

[edit on 7/30/05 by xmotex]



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by matej
Interesting Northrop design, but something wrong with it. Originaly it was QSP [Quiet Supersonic Platform] study. Because that, it had thin fuselage, high swept wing and sonic boom forming bottom part. In your version it would be probably more stealthy but very noisy. Here is original design:



Yeah that picture is the older one.

and when you say noisier, i'm assuming you not talking about the engines, but the sonic boom...right?

however you dont know that it will have a louder boom then the original design. One key feature on a future low-boom aircraft will have inverted V-tail or something similar, like the two tails will lean inwards, which helps disrupt the boom.



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 10:43 PM
link   
One of our F-15s out here got a "kill" on a B-1 at low altitude. The guy was lucky to get it, but he did. They went head to head, the B-1 supersonic, the -15 pulled an 8G turn and dropped in right on his tail and popped him with a pair of simulated AMRAAMs.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Well, I think that the B-1 and the B-2 are doing a good job as it is... so for the moment we can only wait that newer models of these aircrafts arrive...







posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
Well, I think that the B-1 and the B-2 are doing a good job as it is... so for the moment we can only wait that newer models of these aircrafts arrive...



Agreed! The one, two punch of the B-2 and B-1 should last us for quite a while. The B-2 in paticular is a very effective Strategic Penetrator! The Bombers we have work very well. However, I think we'd be better off if we had more of them. Paticularly, I feel there should be a least 100 B-2's. If SALT is the Issue with building more, why Can't we build some strictly for the conventional role and mark them differently. Strategic doesn't have to be Nuclear!

Tim



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 09:46 AM
link   
The problem with the B-2 is cost: $2 billion per, or more than twice the value of t's weight in gold! A lot of that is R&D, which is already done, so the price would go down if more were produced, but still, they're not cheap to manufacture either.



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Agreed! The one, two punch of the B-2 and B-1 should last us for quite a while. The B-2 in paticular is a very effective Strategic Penetrator! The Bombers we have work very well. However, I think we'd be better off if we had more of them. Paticularly, I feel there should be a least 100 B-2's. If SALT is the Issue with building more, why Can't we build some strictly for the conventional role and mark them differently. Strategic doesn't have to be Nuclear!

Tim

yeah, only 21 B2, that ain't much... And truea bout being an extrodinary bomber, totally agree...



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 10:09 AM
link   
It seems that we are entering a new age of warfare-one in which the supersized bombers are used less and less.

Whay is that you say-becouse they are large and slow and make great radar targets (save for a few like B2 which are too expensive for most countries)

Most countries would like to use fighter/bombers to deliver persion payloads.

I think soon with cruise missles,lazers and such-large bombers will be a thing of the past.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join