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.
Originally posted by American Mad Man
One possible way to cover it would be with a plasma cloud...
Funny enough, it seems the US is looking into this technology.
Originally posted by ghost
I still think a subsonic, or low supersonic stealth bomber with capabilities simular to the B-2 but a larger payload would be the best bet. It seems the most practical. Surely, if we build on the lesson learned from the B-2, F-22, and F-35 programs, a new stealth bomber should be less expensive and more maintainable than the B-2.
Tim
[edit on 23-1-2006 by ghost]
Originally posted by Murcielago
A subconic "B-3" would be very dissappointing, and I dont think its what the AF wants.
Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
......and just what is it meant to all be 'for' anyway? Where is the actual 'need', that the B2 - or, in large part if not totally, the poor old B1 for that matter - can't meet, that justifies such a stunningly vast amount of resources to be squandered on yet another US bomber project?
[edit on 24-1-2006 by sminkeypinkey]
Originally posted by ghost
What immenent Threat to world Peace is justifying the JSF/F-35, that existing fighters (F-15E, F-16, F/A-18E/F, ect.) can't handle?
When you can give me a Good, Logical, and Sound Reason why we need the F-35, we'll continue this discussion.
Tim
Originally posted by Canada_EH
Ok you have a point on one front but not another. The US doesn't need a new fighter, but canada and a number of ther smaller countries that fly one plane alot do need it. The 35 is in turmoil no doubt about it but its not just the mighty US thats in the program. We need it others need it.
Originally posted by ghost
Originally posted by Murcielago
A subsonic "B-3" would be very disappointing, and I dont think its what the AF wants.
Which is why I suggested a low supersonic bomber. the aircraft could use the supercruise technology developed in the ATF/F-22 program. I just feel that given our current technology and national budget, the hypersonic concepts are not fesibleTim
Originally posted by planeman
Cancellation of the J-UCAS program is particularly unfortunate.
Since Britain and Europe (the Neuron program) are now actively developing UCAV systems more akin to the J-UCAV, the US is at risk of being left behind in this field and missing out on the export potential of this type of technology. Not being an American, that doesn't bother me much.
Originally posted by kilcoo316
I see a slight variation on the thread here.
One is a new AF bomber.
The other is a new hypersonic AF bomber.
kilcoo316
Something based on the Boeing 777 - I kid you not. It fits the mission profile perfectly - and may allow (easier) integration of laser based weapons when they become serviceable.
kilcoo316
After the F-22 and F-35 funding dramas, the USAF simply cannot afford a hypersonic all singing, all dancing super bomber that can level a couple of buildings in china 22 and a half minutes after taking off. Neither does it need it - does anyone see an open war with china that can/will not escalate into WWIII and MAD?
A hypersonic bomber won't help in Iraq or provide a new capability for the military for their current problems. I don't want to stray into politics, but with the upcoming Iranian oil bourse, the USA might have enough monetary problems to put any thoughts of funding hypersonic bombers out the window.
Originally posted by Murcielago
oops, I miss-read.
But I dont know if I’d like that idea either. It sounds like what you want is the F/B-23...right? Its not built so if a bigger weapons payload is what the AF wants...then it (the design) can simply be modified.
I also think that having a scramjet bomber by 2015 is indeed early...but sure would send a powerful message to China.
Personally I just wish that PDE's wern't so gray, People know about them, but I believe a lot of there tech & secrets are kept hidden. But I think its time has come (in a decade i mean) for a hypersonic bomber powered by PDE's, I think those can go in excess of mach 6.
Originally posted by Murcielago
yeah, Unstealthy, sub-sonic, and by the time is enters service the design will be decades old...wow, great idea.
The point of this will be to drop bombs...not fire lasers Mr. SciFi.
Originally posted by Murcielago
I think thats one in the same.
yeah, Unstealthy, sub-sonic, and by the time is enters service the design will be decades old...wow, great idea.
The point of this will be to drop bombs...not fire lasers Mr. SciFi.
I dont think it needs a scramjet one yet...since that will just be uber expensive. But a PDE mach 6 bomber would be great, not only for China, It would still be a great platform for Iran...and any other rogue nation.
Originally posted by kilcoo316
- I don't, as you see from the F-22:F-15 procurement ratio, I think the USAF will simply not be able to afford to replace the B-52 and B-1 fleet with a hypersonic aircraft in the numbers needed to maintain capability - hence the cheap simple subsonic, non stealthy bomb truck.
Originally posted by ghost
What about another flying wing design similar to the B-2? If you don't build it with all of the cutting edge stealth technology and Composite RAM coading, surley the plane would cost much less then a B-2. Most of the B-2's cost came from the R&D of all the special high tech equipment the plane carries. The B-2 has proven the advantages of the design. If you simplify the aircraft a bit, and focus on using current technology instead of pushing the cutting edge like they did with the ATB program that lead to the B-2 costs will come down quite a bit.
Tim