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.

 

New LRS Bomber Fleet Given $5 Billion Down Payment

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   
The Air Force today showed that they are indeed serious about the new Long Range Strike bomber by proposing a $5 billion down payment which the service hopes will propel research and development needed to meet the Pentagon’s goal of fielding the new bomber fleet by 2018.

This "down payment" on research and development indicates a serious step toward new technologies such as hypersonics, optical stealth, morphing, etc.
Air Force leadership have stated that long range bombers have become the foundation of the US Air Force. Because of this, the new bomber planned for 2018 won't be the end of long-range strike technological investment but rather a beginning.

The background to this comes in an article entitled "Pentagon Sets Plan For New Bomber, Terminates J-UCAS Program"; Inside The Air Force January 13, 2006, the USAF is carrying through with plans for a new Long Range Strike bomber to be fielded by 2018. All of this has been covered at length in previous threads here on ATS so there is no reason to rehash that.

Source:
"Air Force Proposes $5 Billion Down Payment for New Bomber Fleet"; Inside the Air Force, Aug. 25, 2006

"J-UCAS Terminated"; Inside The Air Force January 13, 2006




posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet. Finally, the US is going ballistic on some bomber programs.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 03:07 PM
link   
It's about time! We have been long overdo for a new bomber. Bombers are key to strategic warfare, because of their heavy paylode and long range. For a while I was seriously worried that the US Air Force was going to astartegy where they would depend on other nations so we could employ air power.

I hope to see a bomber that builds on the lessons we've learned from some of our other bomber like the B-52 Stratofortress and the B-2 Spirit. I would also like to see a bomber that is more economical, without loosing the technical edge.

Tim



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Yeah baby yeah! Bring back the go go's with the most Mojo!!!



Wow so i just hope the FB-23A will be a go for the mean time to fill in a fast bomber role till those hypersonic nut slappers can come into service.

Maybe we will see some PDWE and scrams before 2020 soaring across nevada (just like we did in the early 1990's :lol



Fantastic thread IntelGurl. Again.


I know your a Moderator, but you get a way above vote from me for one reason. EVERY post you post is informative and factual, and i am learning from every one you post. my sincere thanks to you for your efforts in educating us all.



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 06:13 PM
link   
great find intelgirl, but a bit misleading...

you said that the new bomber would utilize new technologies such as "hypersonics, optical stealth, morphing" and even though Dark Knight thinks it's factual information I found no such statement made in the article at

www.globalsecurity.org...

Instead, that article talks of the need for a next gen bomber that is capable of doing 3 main things;

Three capabilities are expected to be essential for the Next Generation Long Range Strike Aircraft program: the ability to remain airborne for many, many hours; the means to fly very long distances; and the ability to carry significant numbers of bombs. The importance of these factors is expected to make the case for an unmanned system, Pentagon officials said.

- www.globalsecurity.org

great find anyways intelgirl even without said techs. I just don't see the gain for the US by investing 5 bil into what appears to be the same tech that we were going to get from the Joint Unmanned Aerial Combat Vehicle, seen here

Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems X-45C


(Mod edit: Added URL tags for insanely long link. --Majic )


[edit on 8/25/2006 by Majic]



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 07:23 PM
link   
I have little doubt that those sort of ideas will be investigated, which was all that was implied.

I would really love to see a B1-B/FB-23 hybrid
This translates as a long bomber with the sexy delta wings (Variable Geometry would be nice, but unlikely. The F-14/FB-111 era is over, sadly).



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Low Orbit
great find intelgirl, but a bit misleading...

you said that the new bomber would utilize new technologies such as "hypersonics, optical stealth, morphing" and even though Dark Knight thinks it's factual information I found no such statement made in the article at

www.globalsecurity.org...


Umm.. not misleading at all actually - What I said was, "a serious step toward new technologies such as hypersonics, optical stealth, morphing, etc. " I did not say the new bomber would necessarily incorporate those technologies. The technologies are on the USAF's wishlist and they are willing to write a check to get the R&D accelerated.

The references to "very advanced technologies" were not in the January article as you seem to assume, but rather in the latest article from "Inside the Air Force" dated today, August 25th, 2006. This was the first of my two listed sources.












[edit on 8-26-2006 by intelgurl]



posted on Aug, 25 2006 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Wow, 5 billion for some R&D definitely shows how bad they want this.

I hope one of there main goals is simply affordability....something poorly managed with the B-2.

My initial guess: Mach 5, stealth, with a PDE power plant (they have to use those damn things eventually).



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 02:44 AM
link   
Intelgirl - "Umm.. not misleading at all actually - What I said was, "a serious step toward new technologies such as hypersonics, optical stealth, morphing, etc. " I did not say the new bomber would necessarily incorporate those technologies. The technologies are on the USAF's wishlist and they are willing to write a check to get the R&D accelerated."

If true, reference it, or should we just believe you because you read it somewhere?

Intelgirl - "The references to "very advanced technologies" were not in the January article as you seem to assume, but rather in the latest article from "Inside the Air Force" dated today, August 25th, 2006. This was the first of my two listed sources."

Great why don't you try to dig up a link for that too.

So far, I have read nothing from either you on this blog or your links from this blog that makes me believe the USAF is pursuing any of the claims you have made; hypersonics, optical stealth, and morphing. I too am interested with these concepts so if you have any more links to back up your unsubstantiated claims please post them.

In the future please use the article to show where and how you deduced said tech from said statement. I just want to see how you reasoned hypersonics, and especially optical stealth and morphing from a new long ranged bomber?

In the end, thanks for the link to the story as I said before it's still a good story.



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 03:24 AM
link   
Hmm, sounds rather interesting. So you are saying that this plane will be ready by 2018 with optical stealth and morphing. I only have one question. What is morphing?



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Low Orbit
Intelgirl - "Umm.. not misleading at all actually - What I said was, "a serious step toward new technologies such as hypersonics, optical stealth, morphing, etc. " I did not say the new bomber would necessarily incorporate those technologies. The technologies are on the USAF's wishlist and they are willing to write a check to get the R&D accelerated."

If true, reference it, or should we just believe you because you read it somewhere?

Dont forget Intelgurl works in the defense industry, she knows a thing or two about this stuff.

This $5 Billion down payment was known for quite a while, I've posted an article on my website about it back in july: R euters - U.S. Air Force to earmark billions for new bomber

About the new technologies, here are a couple of articles you should read.


Aviation Week:
...

The PGS AOA - which envisions weapon delivery within 60 minutes - will review conventional versions of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), manned and unmanned bombers and various launch vehicles, all of which will feature a new common aero vehicle (CAV) that will provide more precise strike delivery of conventional warheads than ICBMs, said Dichter, deputy director in the directorate of operational capability requirements.

The "most promising" CAV is the Falcon hypersonic technology vehicle being developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Dichter told the Precision Strike Association's (PSA) annual programs review in Arlington, Va. Other launch vehicles under consideration include reusable, expendable and autonomous variants.

The Falcon hypersonic strike vehicle program they're talking about is this program.

Besides the Falcon program, the new DARPA Oblique Flying Wing program will develop and demonstrate a supersonic shape-shifting bomber. Northrop has been contracted to build a $14 million prototype by November 2007, with a first flight in 2010 or 2011.


Aviation week 11/28/2004 !

Lockheed Martin designers are taking the wraps off four concepts they're offering to the U.S. Air Force to meet its requirements for an interim long-range strike platform to fit in between the B-2 and whatever will replace the 21 stealth bombers in the 2035 period.

Buried in those presentations are options--some acknowledged by the company and some not--for employing jamming devices, intelligence-gathering sensors and directed-energy weapons, say a number of military and aerospace industry officials with insight into future strike planning. Other proposals involve mounting low-observable external weapons pods and pylons, introducing morphing wing skins for carrying addition fuel, and changing aircraft skin colors for visual daytime stealth.


Another one: Andrews joins USAF hybrid launch vehicle effort

May 9, 2006 -- Andrews Space, Inc. (Andrews) has been awarded a contract by the United States Air Force (USAF) to define architectures for a Hybrid Launch Vehicle (HLV).
Andrews is one of four contractors selected to develop operational Hybrid Launch Vehicle approaches as part of the United States Air Force’s Operationally Responsive Spacelift program. The HLV is a responsive low-cost launch system that consists of both reusable and expendable vehicle elements which can be combined to deploy payloads between 2,000 and 60,000 lbs to various orbits.

The HLV program is part of the Falcon hypersonic strike vechile program.

So you see they have been very interested in advanced technologies such as optical stealth, morphing and hypersonics.



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Low Orbit.......



I would take IntelGurls word for what is in the pipe line over yours any day of the week.

Dude, she is like at the bleeding edge of development with the DoD -
and your rubbishing what she posted? I'm not flaming, im just trying to make sense of why your so hostile against her - She has knowledge dude, and a reason why she would not be able to say alot.

Zion's web site then holds all the references you need, EVER about aircraft and the likes, so where Intel feeds it right from the know, there is plenty to back up what she says.



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 10:48 AM
link   
Hypersonic strategic bomber = waste of money. Use ICBMs instead, they are much faster and cheaper, with almost no need for maintance.



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   
oh, not the Oblique Flying Wing thing again. The shape of the wing is of critical importance. The leading edge would have to be straight, no crook like they show in the pictures. Otherwise you'd get more wing area facing forward(and therefore more lift) on one side of the plane.

I am also concerned for the relative masses of the thing. The wing is huge, and most likely contains fuel. The bottom is smaller and contains the jet engine. When rotating, which do you think is going to turn more? The only thing I can think of is to mount some sort of thruster on the tips of the wings (Puffer jets, maybe?) so that the torque is entirely on the wing, instead of the shared torque which would cause the engine to rotate more.

Another concern on this crate- Just where are the bombs carried?



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   
I have to say that I think this is an incredible waste of money.

They should be looking at tactical UCAVs and in the mid-term airborne lasers for interdiction/strike, and land/sea launched cruise missiles for strategic strike.

Manned heavy bombers are only really relevant when fighting lower-tech/capability adverseries (as are the US' recent experiences) and so a civilian airliner adapted as a bomb truck should surffice - although with the large number of B2s and B1Bs in service there's no pressing need for a replacement.


Really, how many bombers does the US think it needs? New 'advanced' bombers in this sense are just not cost effective IMO. It goes to show that inter-service rivallry is costing the US taxpayer billions.



[edit on 26-8-2006 by planeman]



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Thanks you Zion for the links.

Low Orbit,
When an article is linkable, I link to it - to my knowledge this one is not linkable so I provided the name of publication, name of article and date.
"Inside the Air Force" is a $1080.00 annual subscription service that my office subscribes to.

Would you rather I just not post anything which is verifiable but not linkable?
That certainly eliminates an awful lot of information that could be educationally valuable.

For example, next month I will be at the Air & Space Conference 2006 and Technology Exposition in Washington, D.C. (particularly on Tuesday and Wednesday where future marketable technologies are being discussed) Since the transcripts of the seminars and speaking engagements will not be fully published on the internet and hence links won't be available should I then opt to not post the things discussed ( although it's open source information) even though they would be of interest to the people here on ATS?

At any rate, thank you for the lecture, but in the future I will do exactly as I have been doing - which is providing links when they are available and citing sources when links are not available.


I just want to see how you reasoned hypersonics, and especially optical stealth and morphing from a new long ranged bomber?

Where have you been?

Optical stealth has been discussed for the bomber version of the F-22 should that become a reality. USAF Weighs Four Skunk Works Designs for Interim Strike ; AW&ST, 11/28/2004

Morphing has been discussed at length for not only the Lockheed UCAV that's been so publicized of late but also for larger longer range vehicles, such as oblique winged aircraft, also considered in the morphing category.

Nearly every speech USAF CoS Gen. Mosely gives these days he's touting the virtues of hypersonics and morphing, (optical stealth) not so much however.

If you've EVER heard a speech by Lt. Col. Kevin Shorb, chief of Air Combat Command's Next Generation Long Range Strike Division, these technologies are all he ever talks about.

Suffice it to say that everything is on the table, the technologies that can mature enough to be applied stand a fair chance of being utilized. Although, like DarkPro I honestly do not see an oblique flying wing as a viable mid-term option, but who knows.

Some articles you may find intersting reading:
* Gen. Moseley: New long-range bomber on horizon for 2018 Lt. Col. Kevin Shorb discusses LRS technologies towards end of article.
* Area Dominance; Flight Vehicles Integration Branch, Eglin AFB FL Gen. John Jumper discusses hypersonic aircraft and high-speed weapons
* The New and Complicated Path for Long-Range Strike This article discusses the F-22 as a possible interim medium range bomber solution by 2018 - and hypersonic strike by 2037.

What I'm truly hoping for is a rebirth of the YF-23 as the FB-23... but I won't be holding my breath for that.


[edit on 8-26-2006 by intelgurl]



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by intelgurl
What I'm truly hoping for is a rebirth of the YF-23 as the FB-23... but I won't be holding my breath for that.


Really...?

I was thinking they would want something that could hold a LOT of bombs. And the FB-23 would likely have a supercruise speed of around mach 1.6.

I guess I just want the future bomber to have a little more cutting edge tech in it.
I like the FB-23...but I'd like it more if they would put PDE's in it instead of jet engines.......or maybe put one jet engine in it...so it can takeoff without shattering windows. A couple PD Engines and it could be a excellent hypersonic bomber.



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   
I hope this project dies before it vacuums up too much cash.

Looking at the stated requirements of this aircraft and comments on Global Security, this bomber is being built to fullfill only one roll: nuclear first strike against China.

Consider the requirements of this aircraft: long range (CONUS to china), high speed (hit them before they hit you), loitering capability (circle around to find China's mobile launchers), nuclear capable (weapon of choice), and stealthy (so no one shoots at you in the process). It's a replay of the B-2 mission over cold-war Russia: preemptive destruction of the enemy's nuclear arsenal.

It's definitly not about deterrance: SLBMs, ICBMs, ACMs... we've got that covered. And then some.

And while this jet might expand into conventional roles like the B-2 did, claiming this (likely massively expensive) project is needed/intended for conventional bombing runs when we already have literally thousands of jets capable of such roles... it's a bit of a stretch.

The technology associated with this program does sound really cool, but like Planeman said, we've already got plenty of conventional bombers. This is a massive waste of cash on "cold-war strategy" type weapons... something we don't really need.



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago

I was thinking they would want something that could hold a LOT of bombs. And the FB-23 would likely have a supercruise speed of around mach 1.6.

I guess I just want the future bomber to have a little more cutting edge tech in it.
I like the FB-23...but I'd like it more if they would put PDE's in it instead of jet engines.......or maybe put one jet engine in it...so it can takeoff without shattering windows. A couple PD Engines and it could be a excellent hypersonic bomber.

the vision for the FB-23 is a larger airframe than the F-23. More payload, two crew in side-by-side seating arrangement, etc. This is not just an F-23 with bombing avionics and software. We had a discussion a few months back here on ATS, I'll try to dig it up.



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 05:29 PM
link   
woah side by side like the old A-6 intruder? what happend to the tandem seat stuff?

I love the yf-23 airframe and its styling and was hoping to see it fly in some form or another, but after intel saying she won't hold her breath on it... well guess Ill just keep the piccies of the museum pieces i have.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join