B-3- what do you think/hope it might be?

I seriously doubt they are doing anything with active prototypes for a bomber that isn't going to be in production until 2030+..... It would make more sense (both financially, and logistically), to simply increase production of the B2.... Doesn't mean they aren't experimenting, but not with full size craft for that role....

With the current Air Force craze for stealthy UCAVs as being the next generation of combat aircraft, I doubt whether any tactical long-range bomber will ever get off the ground - at least, not a manned one at any rate. I think the broad range of proposals reflects the fact that not many in charge of future planning are at all sure what the next major battlefield technology will be.

For example, if someone comes up with a way to effectively detect stealth aircraft, their entire fleet will lose its advantage. If somebody develops point defence lasers, then the very idea of bombs becomes obsolete as they can be simply blown out of the air before they hit. Just like Vietnam showed, a major technology thrust can suddenly become a liability.

In my opinion, the next main thrust will be towards high-speed, stealthy, low-level attack aircraft, perhaps capable of Mach 3-4 cruise and Mach 2+ low level attack. I think one thing they will be looking at is an integrated system that can power a laser cannon mounted in the bomb bay - something that would be impractical with a high-altitude attack aircraft, such as the likes of the HyperSoar.

Very good points...

Stealths have other things going for them as well though....including advanced avionics and electronics, weapons systems, etc.

Also, both the B1 and B2 bays can be adapted for THEL use.....

Yup, that is true, but there are problems associated with laser weapons... power source is one of them. The proposed 100kW laser cannon for the F-35 needs to siphon off 1MW of power from the engines, which means a redesign... however, the C-130 might be able to take a modular laser weapon.

AC-130 Laser Package

Phasers locked on target, sir!

[Edited on 10-11-2003 by vorazechul]

Why did you edit my pic Nans?
Look closely and you'll see darklanser written at the bottom of the pic.




[Edited on 11-10-2003 by darklanser]

he was just creativ

thats it i want a go!!

im gonna design something.. im hijacking this thread more like design your own stealth bomber thread or something...

this thread is too cool not to have a go!!

and give us some pics of it too

and by the way this aint out of the topic
to say what you hope something to be is exactly as creating(designing) it in your mind

Bwahahaaa!! That is so cool! Three thumbs up!

i thought it was funny.. and they say your not suppost to laugh at your own jokes eh...

I remember back in 1989 when the B-2 was first made public (I think that was the year), there was certainly an uproar over the cost, which later increased. There was also the discussion as to why build super-expensive B-2 bombers when more inexpensive cruise missiles could be used in its place. I'm not sure there was ever a good explanation given. Shortly afterwards, once the USSR fell, the B-2's existence really came into question.

I really don't think that we are going to be getting a B-3 bomber. Other technologies will certainly take its place, as it likely should have back when the B-2 came out.

there wont be a nuclear reactor on a plane yet. there are still too heavy

The B-3 is here. Its in service. It started life as aurora
I have some friends who are employed for a private contractor (Owned by the british goverment) who are working on beam weaponary. This is one of the ways forward.

Ever heard of NERVA, Krazy Ivan?

Sorry, I couldn't resist, your drawing is nice but such a plane is not aerodynamicaly reliable.

KrazyIvan, I know that, anyway, it's not a good drawing.

but, You didn't understood the span wing VAC concept ?

[Edited on 12-11-2003 by Nans DESMICHELS]

Ya think so, huh?

www.air-attack.com...

I have to disagree with the assumption that cruse missiles could replace the B-2 or ANY bomber for that matter. Bombers provide the military with the ability to hunt for moble targets. An example is the SCUDS of the first Gulf War. If you remember there were moble missile launchers that were used to attack Israel. the only way to find any of them was to chase them down with manned aircraft.

Lets's look at a hypothetical Situations where bombers would be better then Missiles (this is a VERY possibal in the real world):

Situation 1: What if intelligence makes a mistake and issues the wrong set of coordinates for a target:

The intended target is a military command center in the capital city (you can pick the country). Intel accidently issues the wrong coordinates and the building at that spot is a hospital instead of a command center.

If we use a Crues Missile you have just Killed several Hundred innocent civilans!

If we use a manned bomber the pilot would probably be carring target photos And all medical facility are suppose to have a Red Cross on the roof during war times. The pilot look through his Infered targeting scope and realizes that he is looking at a hospital and not a command center. Sticking to the Rules of Engadgment, he abourts his bombing run saving countless lives.

Tim

We don't even have to have a hypthetical situation where our intelligence is faulty in this day and age. The invasion of Iraq proved our intelligence is severely messed up. So really it does not matter if we use cruise missiles instead of bombers or not, the effect will be the same in light of such bad intelligence.