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.

 

FB-23 concept confirmed

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Realist05
Another Northrup plot to extract money from the Federal government.
They might get as far as a prototype (remember the F-16XL?) but there is no reasonable excuse for building such an aircraft.
Any Democrat on either the house or senate armed services commitee will point out:
1) We already have a variety of aircraft capable of penetrating enemy air defences and any foreseeable improvement of such for some years to come.
2) We have uninhabited vehicles for the same purpose that eliminates the risk of pilots being killed or captured.
3) We would be spending billions for development of such an aircraft.
4) We would be buying so few as to make them too expensive per copy to risk on doing a limited role, bombing high risk targets.
I could go on, but why bother? No chance you will see a squadron of these parked anywhere soon.



Realist, you make some good points, however I have a few comments:


1. We already have a variety of aircraft capable of penetrating enemy air defences and any foreseeable improvement of such for some years to come.

The point of the LRS (Long Range Strike) bomber is to have a rapid response to any theater in the world. The B-2 though stealthy is a slow bomb truck and rapid response is not in it's nature. The B-1 upgrade may make a good LRS but the airframe is at least 15 yrs older than the YF-23's original design.


2) We have uninhabited vehicles for the same purpose that eliminates the risk of pilots being killed or captured.

Once again the LRS is a rapid response system and there are no UAV's in current inventory that can perform this function. That is not to say that the LRS will not one day be a UAV as there are rumors of a black project that involves a supersonic UAV, but long range autonomous strike technology has not had the same push that long range autonomous ISR technology has.


3) We would be spending billions for development of such an aircraft.
4) We would be buying so few as to make them too expensive per copy to risk on doing a limited role, bombing high risk targets.

Actually the FB-23 would be way less expensive per copy than the 20 one-plus billion dollar B-2's we have, which is among the US's first responders to a high threat theater of operations.


No chance you will see a squadron of these parked anywhere soon

You are probably right on this point, but most of us here are enthusiasts who would love to see these aircraft in inventory and flying.
Even if it won the USAF's LRS competition and got approval by the Senate Armed Services Committee your statement would still ring true because the soonest we could see it in service would be 2015 or later.




posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   
One other thing.
I spoke to an acquaintance at Northrop who mentioned that he had heard that the design team had been batting around the notion of a scramjet powered FB-23.
He did not know how serious they were considering it but a near hypersonic FB-23 would be highly exotic!



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 11:11 AM
link   
I'm sceptical, Intelgurl. Are you sure they aren't pulling a prank on you?


It would be a lot cheaper to build a bomber version of the F/A-22, instead of the YF-23. The F/A-22 has had quite a few upgrades/ modifications already. If they want to make a bomber version of the experimental YF-23, they'd have to do a lot of extra, expensive research.

There were/are already plans to build a bomber version of the F/A-22, as you can read on my website: www.air-attack.com...




Also, the B-1, and the B-2 recently got several upgrades, and they're also investing into the B-52, again. So do you really think there is a need for an FB-22, or FB-23 ??



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Yeah but the B-52 investment is to convert it to a long range jamming platform for the new AEW plan. The FB-23 is actually a very good and needed concept. The B-1 has maintenance problems, and both it and the B-2 are overkill in certain situations were a smaller tactical bomber like the FB-23 would be perfect.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Zion the B-1s and B-2s are many years old and our possible enemies are upgrading their anti air systems with Russian made weapons that are being constantly researched and developed and the Russians seem to be willing to sell any of the sophisticated weaponry to keep their own military standing on its own feet. remember that the F-117 was shot down with a Russian made Anti air missile. constant upgrades dont mean the entire change of the bomber. just putting new systems but not new design of the bomber to become more steathier.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
and both it and the B-2 are overkill in certain situations were a smaller tactical bomber like the FB-23 would be perfect.

Yeah, I agree, but in those situations, wouldn't an F-117, or even an A-10 Thunderbolt do just fine??



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 11:27 AM
link   
The problem with both is that they're slower than dirt getting them there. Neither of them is capable of flying to an area in say, Iraq for the sake of argument, hitting a target, and flying back to an airbase if they had to launch from say the US. The FB-23 would be the perfect first strike tactical bomber. It could supercruise out of the US, be there in a matter of a few hours, hit a target, and land at a forward base, where it could be turned around and fly more missions, where an F-117 or A-10 would have to fly to the forward base, land, get serviced, change crews, etc.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The problem with both is that they're slower than dirt getting them there. Neither of them is capable of flying to an area in say, Iraq for the sake of argument, hitting a target, and flying back to an airbase if they had to launch from say the US. The FB-23 would be the perfect first strike tactical bomber. It could supercruise out of the US, be there in a matter of a few hours, hit a target, and land at a forward base, where it could be turned around and fly more missions, where an F-117 or A-10 would have to fly to the forward base, land, get serviced, change crews, etc.


I highly doubt the FB-22/23 would be able to perform such long-range strike missions like the B-2 does. The pilots can barely move in the cockpit, I hope for their sake they'll create some space to stretch their legs

Anyway, both the F-117 and A-10 can be refueled in air.

The A-10 might be slower, but its a LOT harder to shoot out of the air.
I'm sure you've seen pics of Desert Storm A-10's missing half of a wing, etc..



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   
They can be air refueled, but they take so long to get to the conflict theater that the pilots are exhausted when they get there. You're looking at 8-12 hours to cross the Atlantic for them, as compared to a Mach 2+ crossing by the FB-23. And the only long range strike it would carry out would be the initial one. Cruise over, hit the target on the way in, cruise out to your forward base. The pilots might not be able to move around much, but if it's capable of a Mach 2 supercruise, then you're talking 2-3 hours across the Atlantic. Even if they didn't hit a target on the way in, you can be in theater, swap crews, arm, and be on the way to a target before the F-117 or A-10 are even landing in the theater.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zion Mainframe
I'm sceptical, Intelgurl. Are you sure they aren't pulling a prank on you?


It would be a lot cheaper to build a bomber version of the F/A-22, instead of the YF-23. The F/A-22 has had quite a few upgrades/ modifications already. If they want to make a bomber version of the experimental YF-23, they'd have to do a lot of extra, expensive research.


Also, the B-1, and the B-2 recently got several upgrades, and they're also investing into the B-52, again. So do you really think there is a need for an FB-22, or FB-23 ??

Whether or not I think there is a need is of no consequence here.
The fact is that the FB-23 is just a concept and has many hurdles to jump over before it could become a reality.
That does not detract from the main point of this thread, and that is the FB-23 concept is now acknowledged and in R&D.

My contact would not be pulling a prank on me, the way I understand it the designers were just batting around "what if" scenarios concerning the scramjet posibilities, so there is little or no basis for considering conjecture as a a fact or as a prank.

Also I guess I should again point out that the FB-23 concept is being considered for the Long Range Strike development program.
An upgraded B-1, a downgraded B-2 and the FB-22 are all competitive concepts to the FB-23.
What is exciting to me and other enthusiasts is that this option is even being explored to the point of putting something on the drawingboards.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zion Mainframe
I highly doubt the FB-22/23 would be able to perform such long-range strike missions like the B-2 does. The pilots can barely move in the cockpit, I hope for their sake they'll create some space to stretch their legs


The FB-23 concept is a larger airframe than the YF-23 was. I don't know if there would be room to stretch your legs but the fuselage would definitely be wider and taller.

Here's something interesting....
Janes confirmed the FB-23 concept and immediately pulled the information off their web site. Here is a link to Janes cached web page from Google that gives a synopsis of the article.

[edit on 21-9-2005 by intelgurl]



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 02:58 PM
link   
just wanted to say that u guys have probally the 3 coolest looking planes right in this thread................or at least jets .
SU-47
F-22
FB(YB)-23

only other one i can think of is a P-51 mustang...........best prop plane ever

Random trivia.......a p-51 broke the sound barrier once i believe............unfortunatly the fuel boiled from the shock wave and exploded, its hard to fly a plane that doesn't have a tail

Warthogs are cool too

[edit on 21-9-2005 by sandman666]



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by sandman666
just wanted to say that u guys have probally the 3 coolest looking planes right in this thread................or at least jets .
SU-47
F-22
FB(YB)-23

only other one i can think of is a P-51 mustang...........best prop plane ever

Random trivia.......a p-51 broke the sound barrier once i believe............unfortunatly the fuel boiled from the shock wave and exploded, its hard to fly a plane that doesn't have a tail

Warthogs are cool too

[edit on 21-9-2005 by sandman666]

The Mustange only broke the Sound barrier under the conditions of pulling down to a full nose dive from a very high altitude at full power. That was the only way Mach 1 was achievable with a prop fighter, or any prop for that matter.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by intelgurl
One other thing.
I spoke to an acquaintance at Northrop who mentioned that he had heard that the design team had been batting around the notion of a scramjet powered FB-23.
He did not know how serious they were considering it but a near hypersonic FB-23 would be highly exotic!


Please God, make it happen!



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Please don't be discouraged from posting concept aircraft, Intellgirl; it's always fun to see active imaginations at work.
It's just more fun for us trolls to shoot 'em down.
Seriously, though, I'd think the transformations taking place regarding automated flight control, solid state laser projectors and nanotech are changing the nature of air dominance. The most dangerous new weapon is the one no one is contemplating.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 08:37 PM
link   
well the fb-23 will be used to fulfill and interim strike capability. They want it for rapid theatre strike. This aircraft will fill the gap until FALCON gets going.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorance is a plenty
well the fb-23 will be used to fulfill and interim strike capability. They want it for rapid theatre strike. This aircraft will fill the gap until FALCON gets going.

Nice to see you back - I haven't seen you in a long time.
Welcome to this discussion which you actually may be personally intimate with.
BTW, I understand Fire Scout is firing rockets now.... love to hear more about that.


[edit on 21-9-2005 by intelgurl]



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by intelgurl
Here's something interesting....
Janes confirmed the FB-23 concept and immediately pulled the information off their web site. Here is a link to Janes cached web page from Google that gives a synopsis of the article.


There is a couple of paragrafs and the pic you have above in this weeks AWST. I wonder if the DOD asked janes to pull it?



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zion Mainframe

Originally posted by Zaphod58
and both it and the B-2 are overkill in certain situations were a smaller tactical bomber like the FB-23 would be perfect.

Yeah, I agree, but in those situations, wouldn't an F-117, or even an A-10 Thunderbolt do just fine??


Not even close! These planes lack the survivability to fly through modern, high-threat envirnments. Remember, the F-117's are about 25 years old. Both Stealth Technology, and the threat are evolving. Why do you think the B-2 is taking over the high-risk strikes the F-117 used to fly? Remember, the F-117 is Low Observable, but it is NOT Invisible. I think the F-117 might be reaching the twilight years of it's carrer. Remember the F-117 that was lost in Kosavo?

An FB-23 could replace the F-117 in the long run and keep our foce viable well into the 21st Century.

Tim



posted on Sep, 22 2005 @ 07:29 AM
link   
SO what about refrubing some of the F111`s in the boneyeard? theat can be done (relatively) quickly and they could be some in service next year




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join