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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 08:41 AM
link   

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.


Yeah, plasma will reduce the strength of the shocks to quite a large degree - I posted on that here before somewhere.

But, (and its still a big but), will it reduce the pressure jumps to a large enough degree that future radar sets (remember, we are talking 20 years time) will not be able to pick it up?




posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 05:14 AM
link   
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]



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 03:48 PM
link   

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]


Sure, it maybe be more economical...But this bomber needs to have the Global Strike capability...and quick, not take over half a day to reach its bombing location.

A subconic "B-3" would be very dissappointing, and I dont think its what the AF wants.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
A subconic "B-3" would be very dissappointing, 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 fesible, unless the USAF is hoping to talk congress in to forking over a couple Hundred Billion for R&D before the first airframe is ready. Practicallity can cost will play a HUGE role in weather the B-3 ever flies. Cost has killed many R&D programs!

Tim



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 07:50 AM
link   
Cost is the one element of this that will restrict these ideas.

Consider, since WW2 when has a 'bomber program' resulted in a plane cheaper than what went before?

The B2 is already so expensive that only a relative handful have been made, what on earth makes anyone imagine a successor B3 or whatever would be cheaper?

......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?
(beyond pure paranoiac imaginings?)

[edit on 24-1-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 09:45 AM
link   

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]


Attrition! If you haven't noticed, our bomber fleet is getting quite old! Once you get to a certine point, you need to replace air frames, because they get too old to maintain. For the Record, the B-1 has a long history of technical problems. A few years back, cracks were found in the pins that hold the wing on fallowing a crash. Also, technology outdates over time and things need to be replaced. The bombers are also MUCH older then Any fighter in service.

We still fly B-52's, which were in Viet Nam. Name 1 Fighter from Viet Nam that is still in front line service with the US Air Force!

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



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 10:11 AM
link   

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


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.
As for the Bomber stituation I agree though Ghost. You made the point clear the front line fighters from the past wars have more or less been replaced or in the prosess of being replaced and the same bombers are still flying. The US needs a bomber and the need it badly along with and electronic warfare platfrom a new tanker.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Cancellation of the J-UCAS program is particularly unfortunate.

The (much) lesser known UCAV being developed for the US military is the Aurora (* a company not the famous mystery aircraft) AU-009/Excalibur program which is VTOL and stealth but more of a replacement for the weaponized Predator.

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.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   

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.


You made a good point as well! I forgot that the F-35 is international. The US isn't the only country counting on the F-35. Canada, England, and other countries also have a stake in the game.

Tim



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   

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

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 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.

dont go thinking the USAF is lagging in terms of Unmanned Aircraft...there farther along then all the competition.
BTW, while the J-UCAS is cancelled, the X-47 is very likely going to keep on going.


As for the F-35, I think it is needed for the US...Is it not still meant to replace a whole heap of planes.
And carriers are being designed with them in mind. They are going to replace like all the F-16...and thats a lot.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   
I see a slight variation on the thread here.

One is a new AF bomber.

The other is a new hypersonic AF bomber.




Consider the USAF's dilemma - replace B-1b and B-52... 2 bomb trucks if ever there was one. They need:

- A large payload capacity
- A sufficient number of bombers
- Cheap operating costs
- Future proofed as much as possible



Looking at what they have, and what they need, I can see the next USAF bomber being....

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.



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.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   

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.

I think thats one in the same.




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.

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.



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.

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.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 06:50 AM
link   

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.


The F/B-23 is one option, but there might be others that would work. It was an idea. Maybe we can look into different ideas and see what we can find.

Tim



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 07:38 AM
link   

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.

The concept of using a passenger or cargo aircraft as an "Arsenal Aircraft" loaded with stand-off munitions such as cruise missiles is certainly under consideration, but not as THE Global Strike concept.
However, the original article for this thread, (if I'm not mistakened, and I could be because I'm in the process of moving) was pointing to a global strike system that was to be ready by 2037...
The only "Global Strike" concept with that particular timeline is a hypersonic delivery system that can reach any target on the globe within 2 hours. Apparently there have been some technological strides made that have "them" thinking it can be accelerated to somewhere around 2015 - interesting.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 08:31 AM
link   

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.


- 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.



- Ok, it doesn't have to be the 777, but any commerical design would do. As you said the point is to drop bombs, as many as possible in as short a time as possible. Will 1 hypersonic aircraft be able to deliver more bombs from the US than 20 B-52 replacements in theatre? (a conservative cost ratio of hypersonic supermachine to subsonic truck) I seriously doubt it.



- I have to admit, I don't know a helluva lot about PDEs, so cannot comment on the suitability (and technology maturity levels) for a hypersonic machine.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 05:55 AM
link   

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.


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



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 06:23 AM
link   

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


Good point - wasn't there mention of a cut price B-2 on here somewhere? (maybe even earlier in this thread!). But even then, I still think a B777/A380 type freighter would be cheaper = more cost effective (a horrible phrase when dealing with military requirements, but unfortunately thats the way it is).



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 08:56 AM
link   
this whole thing about cost cuts to the expense of a B-2 reopening of a production line. I'm really intreseted in the whole idea. Im going to do some research and I'll let you know what conclusion I come to. If anyone has any information let me know as ill probably make a larger post.

(edit)
Ok this will date me but I just found this out for my first time. The fact that the B-2 was release to the public just 12 days after the first F-117 was released to the public. So in the space fo 12 days the publics idea of the airforces capablity was completely replaced with these 2 new stealth planes. If we where in the dark and then the light in the space of 12 days I'd say its a fair bet there is a bunch we dont know about and i can only hope that something is released soon so we have something more to talk about then the top 5 planes in shuch and shuch catigory.

[edit on 1-2-2006 by Canada_EH]



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 10:16 AM
link   
got some info from global security.

"In the early 1990s the Northrop workforce peaked at 13,000, though by early 2001 only 1,200 employees worked on the B-2 in Palmdale, doing maintenance and upgrades. Northrop has estimated that it would cost between $2 billion and $4 billion to reopen the production line, including nonrecurring costs. Each new aircraft would cost about $500-700 million for a production run of 40 aircraft. In the late 1990s both Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney were among those publicly supporting production of more B-2s. During the 2000 presidential campaign some Bush advisors suggested considering resumption of B-2 production.

In 2001 Northrop Grumman Corporation offered to build 40 more aircraft at a cost of $735 million apiece, a reduction from the $2.2-billion unit cost of the existing fleet."

So main points that the artical cliams:
2 to 4 billion reopen the line and 735 million to produce the 40 planes.

The question I pose to the people on the forum is the costs that I just listed would give use 4 times the bombers we have now and a much more capable bombing force. More planes for more targets at one time. the only problem I see with the B-2 is speed.
Here is my idea. Reopen the line and produce 40 more planes this will allow older bombers like the B-52 to be replaced with a more "capable" plane. So you lose the older planes that cost more to operate and put in its place a more cost effective plane like the B-2.
Now for the supersonic/hypersonic platform. This would become the new B-2. The role that the B-2 plays in critical strikes and this new plane would allow the much much faster dilivery of the payload to where its need while still being stealth or just so damd fast i can't be shot down.

Does any of this make sence as to a possible solution that the USAF may take.



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   
yeah...There will likely always be the need for a "bomb truck".

So I would use the WALRUS project to overcome that hurdle. Eventually the WALRUS will be able to lift 1000 tons. You could build an unmanned Airship that would be stocked by of a variety of different munitions, suited for different targets, have around 3 of them over a country the size of Iraq, I wouldn't have them be just "bomb trucks", I would also let them be a communication platform, as well as every one of them have some sort of optics and infared capability...This would relieve many satellites, If you have something suspicious developing, you can watch it from safely on the ground, by using your airship as a never blinking eye in the sky, and if something is going on you can eliminate it with the same airship. Much like the current predator UAS, but on a much larger scale.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join