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.

 

USAF: Long-Range Strike Options Considered

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 05:46 PM
link   
b-3? what is this new project? a replacement for the b2 and b52? man i wish they would declassify some of the black project!

maybe if they could create a super high flying b52 or a super/hyper sonic b2 with long range, heavy payload, flexiblity and ability it hit targets acturatly while avoiding enemy defences.




posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Char2c35t
b-3? what is this new project? a replacement for the b2 and b52? man i wish they would declassify some of the black project!

maybe if they could create a super high flying b52 or a super/hyper sonic b2 with long range, heavy payload, flexiblity and ability it hit targets acturatly while avoiding enemy defences.

Well the B-3 Concept is just that, a concept and isn't planned to go into prodution until the 2030's, when the need for a new long range bomber comes into play.

As for making the B-2 hypersonic, eh that would require for the B-2 to be reengineered, as the current airframe was not designed for hypersonic travel, it's hard to retain stealth after mach 5. What helps is the fact that you're going really really really really fast, to the point where nothing can shoot you down.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 06:47 PM
link   
A B-2 cannot be made Hypersonic or supersonic - the shape is all wrong for lift generation at these speeds.



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 08:35 PM
link   
USAF retired 32-33 B-1Bs, to pay for the cost of upgrading the remaining 60. Eight of them went to museums. The Remaining 24-25 are in storage at Davis-Motham AFB, of which only 10 are in ready storage, the others are for spare parts. But that makes a quantity of them "like new" airframes, not an "aged" airframe. One of them named "Guardian" was re-activated in 2004.

It's original design as a hi-altitude aircraft was pretty easy to change to a low altitude design. The alterations were in the engine nacelles hanging under the wing. Mostly consisting of removing parts not needed, and adding some stealth.

Although it is not practical to re-build them, a fresh re-design on a pair of nacelles for use at high speed and altitude would be fairly easy to accomplish.

Switching over isn't too bad either. The changes and updates to the electronics suite, for the new mission, would be more involved.

Depending on how many were required, the B-1B design should meet the needs of an interim aircraft, while an advanced platform is built from the ground up.

Considering how many times B-52's were upgraded, including an entire new wing, it's possible to do the same to any or all of the B-1B's.



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 08:44 PM
link   
If the B-1s are all at the Boneyard, what were those sitting out here last month? Must have been four holograms then.



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
A B-2 cannot be made Hypersonic or supersonic - the shape is all wrong for lift generation at these speeds.


Precisely. Besides that the shape is just not very nice for the particles hitting the wings and going over the airfoils is not going to be too healthy at such high speeds. Its like taking a sheet of paper and pushing it through the air. Its gonna bend rather badly. Perhaps if you swept back the wings and gave it a tail... perhaps more powerful engines. Then you know what you would have?

The new concept B-1
!!!

Yes, I'm biased and I know it.



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
If the B-1s are all at the Boneyard, what were those sitting out here last month? Must have been four holograms then.


There should be about sixty B1-B currently active, out of the 92-93 available before the upgrade.

Note: Seven have crashed and been destroyed. 110 were originally built, and two test articles were converted from B-1A's (one of which also crashed).

Ref article:
www.globalsecurity.org...



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Theres a lot of b1-B bashing going on here, Im amazed! Maybe you just dont understand how kick ass this boy is. Have you ever walked up to one, oh my god!!!! The chills, its like your touching the most beautiful woman whos ever walked the earth, shes innocent and graceful, yet inside she's very very dangerous. Respect her, or else, she kills you!

What a bird.

Train



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Been on her, been on her with engines running, talked to tons of crew chiefs and flight crew members. I'm not bashing the B-1, just being honest about how they screwed it up, and the major problems it has.



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
The chills, its like your touching the most beautiful woman whos ever walked the earth, shes innocent and graceful, yet inside she's very very dangerous. Respect her, or else, she kills you!
Train


Sounds like what they tell B-1 pilots about Pelicans!


Seriously, the B-1B are based a Ellsworth AFB, KS. they fly with the 28th Bomb Wing. According the the latest force structure chart, the 28th Bomb Wing still flies B-1B's on active duty.

Tim



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 08:58 PM
link   
I just read somewhere that the B1-b is the only bomber aircraft in the US inventory that can launch different weapons from the same bombay. This doesnt sound right to me, but if it is, thats truely another first for this aircraft. The upgrades she has been receiving over the last 5 years has truley made her 10 times better and this bird continues to marvel my senses. The airframe is brilliant. They could re-engineer the engine pods, specifically how the are mated to the airframe and with the new f-22 engines, it would be very-very stealthy compared to the older model. Im all for the B1-R. I would love to know how I can get a ride in a B1? Anybody?

Train


NR

posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 09:13 PM
link   
For some reason I think the B-1 is very similiar to Su-24mk which both can be a bomber including which they are capable of carrying cruise missles ( not sure about B-1) and it can easily be deployed as a fighter....



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by NR
For some reason I think the B-1 is very similiar to Su-24mk which both can be a bomber including which they are capable of carrying cruise missles ( not sure about B-1) and it can easily be deployed as a fighter....


how can the B-1 be a fighter? its bad comparison with the B-1 to the Su 24. the blackjack or backfire bomber are better comparisons to the B-1.


NR

posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by NR
For some reason I think the B-1 is very similiar to Su-24mk which both can be a bomber including which they are capable of carrying cruise missles ( not sure about B-1) and it can easily be deployed as a fighter....


how can the B-1 be a fighter? its bad comparison with the B-1 to the Su 24. the blackjack or backfire bomber are better comparisons to the B-1.


I was just comparing because they both kind of look-a-like but Su-24 also can be both fighter and bomber.



posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 11:38 PM
link   
In the day and age of satellite guided weapons, we only need bombers for weapon delivery, not target aquisition. Therefore, either the UCAV, arsenal type, or B1-R make the most sense. Cost should be the most important factor since this determines the amount of weapon delivery capability for the amount spent.

B1-R: Good range with aerial refueling, large capacity and good speed.
FB-22/23: Very expensive, inferior range, inferior capacity, but stealthy below below mach 1 and good getaway speed.
B-2: Good capacity but slow and too expensive, of limited use against a powerful enemy.
Arsenal: A lot of eggs in one basket and cost of developing a new aircraft will limit number of baskets (like B-2) but interesting idea.\
CA130: No stealth, too slow to escape.
UCAV: Should be cheapest, stealthiest and provides the most flexibility and if range is good, this may be the best overall option.

To keep things in perspective some notable foreign competition and their costs, a new Mach 2 (Mach 1 at sea-level) Tu-160 long range bomber will cost a bit more than $100M and can carry up to 88,000 lbs of bombs and cruise missiles.

The Su-34 is a mach 1.8 fighter/bomber with a load capacity of 17,600lbs and a price of about $35-40M.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
I just read somewhere that the B1-b is the only bomber aircraft in the US inventory that can launch different weapons from the same bombay. This doesnt sound right to me, but if it is, thats truely another first for this aircraft.

Train


It doesn't sound right, because it is Not right. The B-2 can do the same thing.

Tim



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Well, this is from Edwards Air Force base News talking about a new upgrade to the B-1.

"The B-1B is loaded with software that allows aircrews to use "smart" weapons like the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile, Joint Standoff Weapon and JDAM.

The mixed load capability is unique to the B-1 - it is the only aircraft that can employ these weapons from the same bomb bay on the same bomb run, said Major Miller.

During the software sustainment block test program, testers perform flight tests to demonstrate new weapon employment capabilities and perform regression testing to verify previous weapon employment capabilities have not been affected by the new software.

It was a matter of efficiency to integrate certifying the B-1B to carry the GBU-38 while testing its other weapons, said Major Miller."

Train



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 11:48 PM
link   
After Fred T's post:
The USAF's Next-Generation Long-Range Strike A/C is a B-58?
I thought I would bump this thread as the initial article has relevance to his post.

Intelgurl



[edit on 6-11-2006 by intelgurl]



posted on Oct, 22 2007 @ 03:19 PM
link   
I think it will be a BWB, and be designed with test data from the X-48B.

An aircraft that can be a commercial / military freighter and a bomber wolud lower units cost.

Boeing - Working with Two Customers

Boeing already has some type of BWB in the works. It might be something in consideration for this aircraft. If it is ready by 2015, that is several years before 2018.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   
A recent History Channel Episode of Dogfights dealt with future aircraft. For those not familiar with the show it combines historical air to air combat and recreates it using CGI etc. then plays out the dogfight while discussing the tactics and often has live interviews with the very pilots who were involved.

In the fictional future episide they talked about the B-1R variant that Boeing proposed several years ago. Since this thread has information about it and other long range strike options being considered by the USAF It seems very relevant



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join