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: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Count me as a skeptic, the obsolecence of manned aircraft has been seen by pundits as "imminent" since the mid-1950's, and hasn't happened yet.

The new generation of UAV's will certainly find their uses, but there is still no effective replacement for a well-trained human being in the cockpit. When "things begin to think" maybe we'll see it, but we're not there yet.




posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
Count me as a skeptic, the obsolecence of manned aircraft has been seen by pundits as "imminent" since the mid-1950's, and hasn't happened yet.

The new generation of UAV's will certainly find their uses, but there is still no effective replacement for a well-trained human being in the cockpit. When "things begin to think" maybe we'll see it, but we're not there yet.


Well said! The manned bomber is a critical peice in the defense puzzle. Anything with a person in it, is inherently more reliable then a UAV. Computers can't problem solve in an emergency. Case in point: on one of the Early test flight of the XB-70, one of the landing gear didn't come down because of a broken fuse! The Copilot saved the plane by crawling into the electronics bay, through an interal service hatch and using a paper clip that had been on used as a book mark on one of the manuals as an emergency fuse. No computer could have come up with that. People can think and solve problems they weren't specifically trained for.

Tim



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 05:20 AM
link   
I agree. Human force is still the best solution for strategic bombing. The other thing is tactical bomber or close air support. This is the place, where UAVs and UCAVs can be usefull.

BTW: could computer land with this ? (also XB-70)





posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
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.

I think Northrop has proposed another run of B-2's that don't have as many "bells and whistles" onboard - still very stealthy though... They quoted a price of 850,000 per unit.
That's probably a good deal.
Having said that, I hope to see a regional bomber version of the YF-23.



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 10:11 AM
link   
That's interesting, I didn't know there was appossibility of more B-2's being produced.

I like the YF-23 RTA proposal - I was always a YF-23 partisan


But the B-1R would have more payload and range, plus it's a variant of an existing airframe and may be a less expensive option than a purely new a/c, it may be the better bet.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 12:46 AM
link   
The B-1R will rock the casbah, my friend. That's right, the casbah. The whole damn thing.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by intelgurl
I think Northrop has proposed another run of B-2's that don't have as many "bells and whistles" onboard - still very stealthy though... They quoted a price of 850,000 per unit.
That's probably a good deal.


Come to think of it, I saw something about this in a magazine not too long ago. I think the proposed version is being tentivly called the B-2C (The C standing for Conventional, if I remember correctly). The biggest change in this new version of the B-2 is that Northrop wants to build them without the Nuclear capability of the A model of the B-2. this would not only make the planes a lot less expensive, but it would also address the issues that deal with SALT and SALT II. $850,000 a copy is a great deal for the B-2.

I think the B-2C proposal is the oppertunity of a lifetime, the Pentagon would be foolish not to jump at this oppertunity. Maybe the orgional plan for a fleet of 132 B-2's might be possible after all.

Tim



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Information about B-2C is correct. If I am right, Northrop proposed in late 2002 to build another 20 aircrafts. But, simply to said, USAF do not have enough money to buy them. This proposal was made in time, when due to a lack of funding 30 B-1Bs from 90 in operational status were grounded.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by matej
This proposal was made in time, when due to a lack of funding 30 B-1Bs from 90 in operational status were grounded.


It wasn't funding that grounded the B-1B. They were grounded because of a Major safety problem. According to an artical I have at home, the Wing pins (that hold the wings on and allow them to move) of the B-1 were begining to crack along the stress line. That's what I heard!

Tim



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 11:47 AM
link   
OK, but why they were not simply repaired. I know, that there were 30 % reduction because the lack of funding and saved money will be spend to modernization programs for B-1Bs in service.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by intelgurl

Originally posted by xmotex
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.

I think Northrop has proposed another run of B-2's that don't have as many "bells and whistles" onboard - still very stealthy though... They quoted a price of 850,000 per unit.
That's probably a good deal.
Having said that, I hope to see a regional bomber version of the YF-23.


$850,000? That seems a little too small.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by matej
OK, but why they were not simply repaired. I know, that there were 30 % reduction because the lack of funding and saved money will be spend to modernization programs for B-1Bs in service.


I don't have information! All I was trying to say is, the initial reason for the grounding was a safety issue, not money!

Tim



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by LemonAide
$850,000? That seems a little too small.


Maybe $850,000,000? I've never heard of a military aircraft with a unit price of less then $10,000,000. $850,000,000 is still an amazing deal for a B-2. The Air Force would be stupid not to go for that kind of deal!

Tim



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join