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.

 

Pentagon wants new AF Bomber!

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   
I personally envision something more like an exotic fuel system, something like those fuel-cells i've been hearing about? or something like nanotechnology type hyper-compressed fuel? that would certainly increase range.

quick random question, on long flights, what do pilots eat/drink? astronaut food?




posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
I personally envision something more like an exotic fuel system, something like those fuel-cells i've been hearing about? or something like nanotechnology type hyper-compressed fuel? that would certainly increase range.

quick random question, on long flights, what do pilots eat/drink? astronaut food?


Chances are this is a hypersonic waverider design being that it is a concept that was supposed to reach fruition in 2037. If that is the case, I seriously doubt that there would be any long flights (time-wise); the crew could possibly eat supper, take off and be back in time to catch the David Letterman show.

Global Strike Vehicle Concept



[edit on 1-14-2006 by intelgurl]



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 01:46 PM
link   
The United States already has Global strike capability within 2 hours time. Why would we need a new bomber? We already have a unmanned Hypersonic waverider that can hit any target in the world. This project,obviously in the black world, is Falcon. We have it....we don't need no stinkin bombers!!!!



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Thats not a Global Strike Vehicle Concept, Thats the cancelled X-43B.

This is the FALCON, which is the Global strike Concept.




posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
I personally envision something more like an exotic fuel system,


The USAF has recently ran a scramjet engine using jet fuel. Up till now scramjets had run on liquid hydrogen.


HyTech
Hypersonic Technology

The objective of the HyTech program is to demonstrate the operability, performance, and structural durability of a liquid hydrocarbon (jet fuel) supersonic combustion ramjet (Scramjet). The near term application of this technology is a long range hypersonic cruise missile that is logistically supportable in a combat environment and can defeat time-sensitive targets and hard and deeply buried targets. In the far term, the scramjet technology enables a Mach 8-10 strike/reconnaissance aircraft and affordable, on-demand access to space with aircraft like operations.



[edit on 15-1-2006 by NWguy83]



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 12:11 AM
link   


The U.S. Department of Defense has decided to make the next generation heavy bomber an unmanned aircraft. The Department of Defense also wants the new aircraft in service by the end of the next decade, some twenty years ahead of schedule. At the same time, the current combat UAV program (J-UCAS, run by the air force and navy) is to be changed as well. The current X45 project will be split up, with the air force and navy allowed to develop a shorter range combat aircraft to suit their particular needs. These will be bombers, with some air-to-air capabilities.

The X45 was meant mainly for those really dangerous bombing missions, early on, when enemy air defenses have to be destroyed. But the Pentagon finally got hip to the fact that the J-UCAS developers were coming up with an aircraft that could replace all current fighter-bombers. This was partly because of the success of the X45 in reaching its development goals, and the real-world success of the Predator (in finding, and attacking, targets) and Global Hawk (in finding stuff after flying half way around the world by itself.)




The one topic no one wants to touch at the moment is air-to-air. This appears to be the last job left for pilots of combat aircraft. The geeks believe they have this one licked, and are giving the pilot generals the, “bring it on” look. The generals are not keen to test their manned aircraft against a UAV, but this will change the minute another country, like China or Russia, demonstrates that they are seriously moving in that direction.


Link


Interesting to hear that smaller UCAS might still have a future . Hey maybe Boeing shouldn't have cancelled the X-45B (same as 'A' but a little bigger).



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 04:45 AM
link   
I'm not really into the big UAV thing. I would prefer a manned bomber. However, I don't get to make decidions at the Pentagon. Humans spent years trying to invent the airplane, for what? So we could sit on the ground and watch a robot fly? Why are they so eager to get rid of manned aircraft?

The Future of flight, planes with no pilots! Sheesh, the Wright brother are turning over in their graves!!


Tim



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
Humans spent years trying to invent the airplane, for what? So we could sit on the ground and watch a robot fly? Why are they so eager to get rid of manned aircraft?

In the future I think you will have a choice, for personal aircraft anyways...you can fly it if you want, or if your not in the mood or its just a long flight, you can just hit a button and it will automatically go to your destination, and even land.
I also see this happening to cars...Something I would love, I like driving and all...But its would be great for vacations, long road trips, and when ever i'm to drunk...I could just hit a button and passout...*sighs* that would be the life.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Well unmanned aircraft can cost less than manned aircraft. And a stealth supercruise manned or unmanned bomber might cost too much. That leaves unmanned hypersonic bombers. And I think Iran played an unwitting role in the USAF's decision to go with hypersonic 'reach anywhere in 2 hours or less' bomber.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by NWguy83
Well unmanned aircraft can cost less than manned aircraft. And a stealth supercruise manned or unmanned bomber might cost too much. That leaves unmanned hypersonic bombers.


I have a question about the logic in the above quote. If you are suggesting going unmanned, and non-stealth to save money, why are you going hypersonic?


Hypersonics is still a very new feild of flight. Currently, only X-Planes have ever flowen that fast. Speed in excess of Mach 4 create a host of new problems: Thermal, Control, propulson (SCRAM jets are still Experimental according to NASA), Fuel, Airfame stress, ect. Surely, the cost of ANY hypersonic weapon system (manned, or unmanned) would be in the Tens, or even Hundreds of Billions for R&D alone!

If we can't afford a stealth supercruise aircraft, How do you expect to begin to pay for a hypersonic platform of any kind? Sorry, but the logic doesn't work!

Tim

[edit on 19-1-2006 by ghost]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 01:00 PM
link   


Hypersonics is still a very new feild of flight. Currently, only X-Planes have ever flowen that fast. Speed in excess of Mach 4 create a host of new problems: Thermal, Control, propulson (SCRAM jets are still Experimental according to NASA), Fuel, Airfame stress, ect. Surely, the cost of ANY hypersonic weapon system (manned, or unmanned) would be in the Tens, or even Hundreds of Billions for R&D alone!

If we can't afford a stealth supercruise aircraft, How do you expect to begin to pay for a hypersonic platform of any kind? Sorry, but the logic doesn't work!


Not really, they have flown the X-43 (cheap for an X plane) twice. And have been doing wind tunnel and engine tests for a couple of years now. So R&D is fairly established. And the bomber wouldn't enter service till later next decade. Just look at how much money they are spending on the F-35. Like I already said unmanned can cost less than manned if you don't pack it full of expensive sensors etc. X-45C was to cost 1/4-1/2 of a manned aircraft with the same capabilities. Plus the main reason for hypersonic bombers is "prompt global strike".



[edit on 19-1-2006 by NWguy83]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWguy83

Not really, they have flown the X-43 (cheap for an X plane) twice. And have been doing wind tunnel and engine tests for a couple of years now. So R&D is fairly established.



And the bomber wouldn't enter service till later next decade. Just look at how much money they are spending on the F-35. Like I already said unmanned can cost less than manned if you don't pack it full of expensive sensors etc. X-45C was to cost 1/4-1/2 of a manned aircraft with the same capabilities. Plus the main reason for hypersonic bombers is "prompt global strike".




Sorry, I really have to disagree here.

2 flights and engine ground tests are not a mature R&D program, or nothing like it. No consideration has been given to any of the following (as far as I'm aware) in the current R&D program:

- Sensors working at such high mach numbers where ionisation of the airflow may become an issue.

- How to release a bomb safely without destroying itself and the aircraft (this will not be easy.


- How to incorporate propulsion that can get the vehicle up to Mach 3 or so for the (SC)RAMJET to take over (again, this will not be at all easy). [Unless you plan to have a mother launch aircraft for every mission?]. NASA are working on a 'revolutionary turbine accelerator' (RTA), which is supposed to enable flight up to mach 5 or so, but thats the lower end of hypersonics, and first flight is pencilled for 2010 or so.



- Next decade, like between 2010 and 2020? A hypersonic bomber? Sorry, not a chance, take a look here. NASA's mid term goals go up to around 20 years, long term 25+ (just to give you an idea of timeframes).



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
- How to release a bomb safely without destroying itself and the aircraft (this will not be easy.

The F-22 has release a bomb going supersonic...and its doors open downwards...With hypersonic bomber, why not make the doors side open.



kilcoo316
(RTA), which is supposed to enable flight up to mach 5 or so, but thats the lower end of hypersonics, and first flight is pencilled for 2010 or so.

What i've read is mach 4. and that pdf you linked was 2002...anything more current?



kilcoo316
- Next decade, like between 2010 and 2020? A hypersonic bomber? Sorry, not a chance, take a look.
NASA's mid term goals go up to around 20 years, long term 25+ (just to give you an idea of timeframes).

Thats just a guess.
I wouldn't doubt it if a hypersonic bomber emerges in 2010-2015 timeframe.

Hell, a few years ago the USAF said they planned on keeping the B-52 operational until like 2037...and now they just cut nearly half the fleet. They only put those figures up so it looks better for current programs...like the Raptor. It looks better to congress if after they see the Raptors price tag they see it can also do bombing, and then they look at the AF's plans for no new bombers in the near of aways off future, there more inclined to give them the F-22A now.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316

Sorry, I really have to disagree here.

2 flights and engine ground tests are not a mature R&D program, or nothing like it. No consideration has been given to any of the following (as far as I'm aware) in the current R&D program:

- Sensors working at such high mach numbers where ionisation of the airflow may become an issue.

- How to release a bomb safely without destroying itself and the aircraft (this will not be easy.


- How to incorporate propulsion that can get the vehicle up to Mach 3 or so for the (SC)RAMJET to take over (again, this will not be at all easy). [Unless you plan to have a mother launch aircraft for every mission?]. NASA are working on a 'revolutionary turbine accelerator' (RTA), which is supposed to enable flight up to mach 5 or so, but thats the lower end of hypersonics, and first flight is pencilled for 2010 or so.



- Next decade, like between 2010 and 2020? A hypersonic bomber? Sorry, not a chance, take a look here. NASA's mid term goals go up to around 20 years, long term 25+ (just to give you an idea of timeframes).


Well they very well could have other X-43 like aircraft that have been flying for awhile under 'black' projects. And this is the 21st century, I'm sure they've solved many of the possible problems using supercomputers.

My best guess is that a PDE (Pulse Detonation Engine) would probably be used to get the bomber from 0 mph up to Mach 4-6, then the Scramjet would take over. PDE's are being ground tested now. And I have read that the USAF wants to trim down the number of years an aircraft spends in development phase (or whatever it's called). We are seeing that with the F-35. From first flight of the first production F-35 sometime this year, till IOC in 2010 is only 4 years. First flight of Raptor 01 in 1997 till IOC in 2005 was 8 years.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 02:49 AM
link   
i think it might be a Blended Wing Body Concorde, supercruise, stealthy and fairly long range. It will have a stealthy V tail with the exaust from the 4 engines coming out , running along the fusulage between the Vtails. (so you can't see engine exhast from below)
The airinlets will be on the top above the wings.

Oh, it will be powered by F35 engines

The cockpit, will be totally enclosed, no windows, just a retractible Camera, thats very redundant so the pilots can see were they're going at low speeds.
It supercruises at Mach 2.2 and can go to mach 3 and VERY high if need be

This with RAM and careful design, would make a perfect bomber IMHO


[edit on 20/1/06 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]

[edit on 20/1/06 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago


The F-22 has release a bomb going supersonic...and its doors open downwards...With hypersonic bomber, why not make the doors side open.


What i've read is mach 4. and that pdf you linked was 2002...anything more current?


Thats just a guess.
I wouldn't doubt it if a hypersonic bomber emerges in 2010-2015 timeframe.




The supersonic and hypersonic flow fields are very different, I see problems both in opening bomb bay doors/heating and in getting the bomb/missile to clear the aircraft.


Yeah, your right about Mach 4 seemingly being towards the top end of the engine's performance - see the abstract of this paper [url=http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.cgi?method=display&redirect=http://hdl.handle.net/2060/20050215564&oaiID=oai:casi.ntrs.nasa.gov:20050215564]here.[/url ]


I would be very shocked if one emerged prior to 2020.


[quote=NWguyWell they very well could have other X-43 like aircraft that have been flying for awhile under 'black' projects. And this is the 21st century, I'm sure they've solved many of the possible problems using supercomputers.

They could, but then again they might not... I'll just stick to whats confirmed at this point.


Regarding the cfd - I think its the Boltzmann principle that causes problems - the molecular interaction starts doing strange things which needs to be taken account of. But your probably right, NASA would have access to enough CPU power and smart people to sort this out.

[edit on 20-1-2006 by kilcoo316]



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 01:45 AM
link   
How in the world did I miss this thread!?!?!


IMHO, a new HYPERSONIC bomber should be the primary goal of USAF R&D.

It should be nuclear capable, and be able to deliver a heavy payload any where in the world in a few hours. It should fly at extreme altitudes as well, and hopefully be stealthy enough to use as a first strike platform against any nation.

The US needs the ability to operate from it's CONUS and hit any where in the world on a time sensative basis.



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsSmarter
i think it might be a Blended Wing Body Concorde, supercruise, stealthy and fairly long range. It will have a stealthy V tail with the exaust from the 4 engines coming out , running along the fusulage between the Vtails. (so you can't see engine exhast from below)
The airinlets will be on the top above the wings.

Oh, it will be powered by F35 engines

The cockpit, will be totally enclosed, no windows, just a retractible Camera, thats very redundant so the pilots can see were they're going at low speeds.
It supercruises at Mach 2.2 and can go to mach 3 and VERY high if need be

This with RAM and careful design, would make a perfect bomber IMHO


You want a BWB that resembles the concord...with mach 3 speeds.
You did a pretty good job on describing the XB-70...except it had no stealth...I think we need something much faster then mach 3, if you want it to have it be Global strike capabable.



[edit on 21-1-2006 by Murcielago]



posted on Jan, 21 2006 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Something I just thought of that I should have realised earlier.

Uhm, when an aircraft turns on its afterburners, the diamond shocks within the jet plume are visible on radar, and rise the radar signature of the aircraft significantly. I haven't looked, but I would imagine the shock strengths (pressure ratios) to be of similar magnitude to those in hypersonic flows.


It could be that hypersonic flight and low radar signature are mutually exclusive - i.e. its just not possible to have both at the same time.



posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Something I just thought of that I should have realised earlier.

Uhm, when an aircraft turns on its afterburners, the diamond shocks within the jet plume are visible on radar, and rise the radar signature of the aircraft significantly. I haven't looked, but I would imagine the shock strengths (pressure ratios) to be of similar magnitude to those in hypersonic flows.


It could be that hypersonic flight and low radar signature are mutually exclusive - i.e. its just not possible to have both at the same time.


One possible way to cover it would be with a plasma cloud...

Funny enough, it seems the US is looking into this technology.



new topics




 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join