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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316

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).


I'm not sure about that! A 777 or an A380 would have to be competely redesign for the bomber mission. In the airline forum, they both lack anything resemeling a bomb bay. You couldn't open the aircraft's cargo bay in flight to drop bombs. By the time you finish the redesign and the testing, the cost will skyrocket!

Tim




posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 08:03 AM
link   
The walrus is for transport not a bomb truck. If you want to fly that thing over enemy airspace you go right ahead and I'll have a coffin ready for you when you get back, if you get back that is.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
I'm not sure about that! A 777 or an A380 would have to be competely redesign for the bomber mission. In the airline forum, they both lack anything resemeling a bomb bay. You couldn't open the aircraft's cargo bay in flight to drop bombs. By the time you finish the redesign and the testing, the cost will skyrocket!

Tim


Depends. If your happy to ditch the pressurised cabin, it wouldn't be all that difficult. As it stands you couldn't open the cargo bay to drop, true, and a redesign would cost quite a bit, but not near as much as a new machine.

Another alternative would be to drop bombs out the back of a globemaster or something similar.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH
The walrus is for transport not a bomb truck. If you want to fly that thing over enemy airspace you go right ahead and I'll have a coffin ready for you when you get back, if you get back that is.


I know...I'm talking about making one that can do those things.
You could design it to stay above all the AAA fire. But I doubt it would even be targeted...Cause the enemy will allready be very weakened from the hypersonic bombers. Not top mention that the Airship Bomber could be stealthy if you wanted it to be...but becaues of its role I wouldn't have it be stealthy...You could incorporate different things into its design to help with a smaller radar signature, but not make it "B-2 like".



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
Depends. If your happy to ditch the pressurised cabin, it wouldn't be all that difficult.


And you would do that how?
There is only one pressure cabin in a commerial airliner. Are you planning to fly it in a pressure suit like they use in the U-2 and the SR-71 Blackbird? The cockpit in an airliner is part of the same pressuer bulkhead as the passanger cabin. If one is depresurized, so is the other!

Tim



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghost

And you would do that how?
There is only one pressure cabin in a commerial airliner. Are you planning to fly it in a pressure suit like they use in the U-2 and the SR-71 Blackbird? The cockpit in an airliner is part of the same pressuer bulkhead as the passanger cabin. If one is depresurized, so is the other!

Tim


The pressure bulkhead could be moved forward to just the forward cabin you know. Bit of a redesign (sure if you used a straight bulkhead [instead of the half sphere] it will mean slightly heavier structures, but so what)



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Anyone Remember the old Northrop YB-49 Flying Wing? What do you think it would take to uupdate the design with modern avionics and develo[p it into an operational bomber. It might be practical.

Tim



posted on Feb, 9 2006 @ 10:41 PM
link   
The military has many advanced projects that will probably play a role in the prompt global strike doctrine. The X-41 CAV and the SMV as well as the hypersonic technology vehicle. I don't view scramjets as a requirement for the prompt global strike doctrine. The craft will probably be unmanned because that would make it a more flexible and feasible as well as cheaper.

www.globalsecurity.org...
www.globalsecurity.org...



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
Anyone Remember the old Northrop YB-49 Flying Wing? What do you think it would take to uupdate the design with modern avionics and develo[p it into an operational bomber. It might be practical.
Tim

done...Its called the B-2.


It would cost just as much to build a new bomber then bring back that old bird.



posted on Feb, 10 2006 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago

Originally posted by ghost
Anyone Remember the old Northrop YB-49 Flying Wing? What do you think it would take to uupdate the design with modern avionics and develo[p it into an operational bomber. It might be practical.
Tim

done...Its called the B-2.



True!


My point of bringing up the B-49 idea was to suggest a bomber similar to the B-2, but without all of the stealth materials and "Over the Top" cutting edge avionics. On the B-2 everything was design to the cutting edge of technology, even the composits the skin was made from. Maybe what I'm suggesting here is a thoughly modern flying wing bomber, but without all of the "Bells and Whistles" of the B-2.

Tim

[edit on 10-2-2006 by ghost]



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
My point of bringing up the B-49 idea was to suggest a bomber similar to the B-2, but without all of the stealth materials and "Over the Top" cutting edge avionics. On the B-2 everything was design to the cutting edge of technology, even the composits the skin was made from. Maybe what I'm suggesting here is a thoughly modern flying wing bomber, but without all of the "Bells and Whistles" of the B-2.


I see what your saying ghost but I don't think it fits the mission specs. The pentagon wants a bomber that can hit virtually anywhere in the world in a relatively short amount of time. A flying wing design really isn't suited for high speed. The flying wing is a great design for long-range due to its greater lift aerodynamics.

I think what we will be looking at is a system that is mounted on a rocket which is air-launched from under the wing of a B-52 or Boeing-747. Kind of like the way the X-1 was launched. Mounted on top of the rocket you'll have an UCAV space plane.

After it enters orbit it would take 20-30 minutes to get to were it will deorbit and then as it reenters the atmosphere at mach 10-15 once it reaches its target it could release its payload which would probably be even smaller than these new SDB munitions were deploying now. After all if your traveling at reentry speeds the kinetic energy alone would probably be enough to obliterate the target whether it be a building or a reinforced bunker.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Looks like I was right. "a stealthy long-range bomber capable of supercruise".


external source

Original news source

"The other is looking at a manned bomber with the range for 4-5 hr. of loiter, but with a heavier payload, Mach 2 speed and very low observability so it can penetrate deep and strike heavily defended targets. They also believe it must be nuclear-capable to replace the B-2, and that means a crew. They want each bomber to be capable of hitting 100 individual targets. Hypersonics and space launch are not players."




[edit on 13-2-2006 by NWguy83]



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 12:29 AM
link   
good link NwGuy.




Senior aerospace industry officials say their best guess is for the addition of about 50 new unmanned, stealthy strike aircraft that can carry precision weapons. A parallel program will involve a small number of ICBMs with conventional warheads developed for the Precision Global Strike program. The policy issues involved with using ICBMs for conventional strike are still not resolved. There also would be a shrinking core of manned bombers including 56 B-52s, 67 B-1s and 21 B-2s

Conventional ICBM has to be a ify item...Why not let the Navy handle that one with tomahawks? Sure there not quiet as quick, but they can loiter, and stealthy, and i'm sure are much much cheaper.




Critics of the LRS program say it will dominate the budget for the next 20 years. Meanwhile, companies are already considering revamping their internal operations to snag the potentially lucrative contracts.

This should put an end to the people who think the Fighter Mafia thing exists.





Northrop Grumman also has shown a portfolio of concepts that includes unmanned strike aircraft, and has been on contract for classified work in this realm.

I think they just tell us this to wet are appetite...those bastards.




Extra F-22s are not in the Air Force's budget plans; however, Faykes says that if the JSF doesn't arrive on time, the Air Force may "revisit" the F-22 program for additional production.

excellant! Everyone knows which aircraft is better.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 03:46 AM
link   


Senior aerospace industry officials say their best guess is for the addition of about 50 new unmanned, stealthy strike aircraft that can carry precision weapons. A parallel program will involve a small number of ICBMs with conventional warheads developed for the Precision Global Strike program. The policy issues involved with using ICBMs for conventional strike are still not resolved. There also would be a shrinking core of manned bombers including 56 B-52s, 67 B-1s and 21 B-2s



Uhh, the bit about the ICBMs is very stupid in my opinion. How does the adversery (or even a neutral 3rd party) know if the ICBM in question is conventional or nuclear? Do they respond with a nuclear response (if they have it) or chemical etc?



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Do you guys remember the Boeing Sonic Cruiser. It was supposed to be a all composite plane that would fly at Mach .95 or maybe Mach 1 (if the airlines wanted). It flew 20% faster than today's commercial planes. After 9/11 Boeing redesigned the project and it became the 787 Dreamliner that Burns 20% less fuel at Mach .85. The Sonic Cruiser Project is on standby ready for the next gen boeing plane...

Anyway take a look at the Sonic Cruiser, cause I think it might work as a bomber...








posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 11:04 AM
link   
I don't think they'll ever build a sonic cruiser, it was a pretty bad concept to start with and I'm kind of surprised it ever was developed to be honest.


They are taking most of the hit with the transonic drag rise while avoiding the benefits of going supersonic (they are that close to it they might as well just do concorde 2)... The only benefit of it is the lack of sonic boom propagation.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 11:15 AM
link   
The Sonic Cruiser was not developed into the 787, this was a different project. There is a school of thought that says the Sonic Cruiser was really only ever a diversion from the A380 until the 'real' new Boeing (7E7/787) was ready for launch.

I can't see this being true because the work at Rolls Royce into the powerplants for it was real alright.

Here is my model of the Sonic Cruiser which came from Rolls Royce at Derby but was no longer wanted when the project died.




posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Nice sheets waynos


Anyway, I DO think that the research into the Sonic Cruiser was honest - maybe not to develop an actual prototype, but to expand the tech bas and knowledge. After all the speed of commercial aircraft hasnt increased much in the past 40+ years, and a commercially reasonable supersonic aircraft could revolutionize certain aspects of commercial aeronautics - shorter flight times, more cycles, easier connections.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lonestar24
After all the speed of commercial aircraft hasnt increased much in the past 40+ years, and a commercially reasonable supersonic aircraft could revolutionize certain aspects of commercial aeronautics - shorter flight times, more cycles, easier connections.

You do relize the one BIG reason supersonic flight hasn't "taken off" (damn pun) is because of the sonic boom...right?

Sure there louder, and more inefficient, and more maintanence extensive...you combine all those together...and then have a airliner that restricted to not fly supersonically over land and you have a failed aircraft.

There are several on going projects to eliminate...or at least decrease the "boom", I dont see s supersonic airliner doing very well (economically) until then.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 03:07 PM
link   

NWguy83's link
The other is looking at a manned bomber with the range for 4-5 hr. of loiter, but with a heavier payload, Mach 2 speed and very low observability so it can penetrate deep and strike heavily defended targets. They also believe it must be nuclear-capable to replace the B-2, and that means a crew. They want each bomber to be capable of hitting 100 individual targets.

Will this put the FB-22 & FB-23 back on the table?
I think everyone would love it if Northrops BlackWiddow Fighter, goes bomber.
The B-2 can bomb 80 targets with one load, using the MK-82 JDAMS, which is a 500 pound bomb. But this article doesn't say a bomb size...SO I would assume that the "100" number is refering to the newer Small Diameter Bombs (SDB), which is 250 pounds. Which would mean the Aircraft would need a payload of 25,000 lbs.....for comparison, the B-2's is 40,000 lbs.

I hope this means that the F/B-23 will be chosen.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join