Originally posted by ghost
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

Yes, that's true but a B-3 wouldn't be able to "hunt down" Scud launchers and the like... that's a job for Tornadoes, A-10s etc. Not a long range penetration bomber. B-2 and hypothetical B-3 bombers go after the time critical, high value targets. A cruise missile could have "man-in-the-loop," but a UCAV is better because it drops its payload and comes back. The penetration bomber will still be needed in a future war, though. The X-45 will not cut the mustard, as it's not a long-range bomber.

Dropping bombs on hospitals happens anyway. In the heat of combat, a pilot may not notice a big red cross - after all, it may be a primary school or an old age home!

What I would like to see, because of it's ability to carry substantial amounts of payloads with great efficiency, would be a bomber incorporating the Wing-In-Ground effect. Imagine a bomber based on the Pelican ULTRA that was proposed by Boeing earlier in the year, capable of carrying a recon UAV, and well over a million pounds of munitions a distance of over 10,000 knots, then climbing to over 20,000 feet to drop it's payload. Think about it, that's over 50 MOAB bombs. And this performance could even be increased by using a flying wing design giving it more lift, aerodynamic efficiency, and fuel storage.

The main advantage is that it relies on a combination of relatively old technologies. WIG planes had been buit and tested successfully by the Soviets from the 60's until the late 80's-early 90's when they lost the funds to continue testing, and flying wings date back to WW2 Germany. these concepts just have never been combined or built on this scale before.

I'm currently designing the plane and will post my concept design when it's finished.

I think there is going to be no b-3 because USA isnt having any major war or another cold war. What make technology advance faster is war.

Great post, Intelgurl. I have to admit your post was quite informative, especially with the inclusion of the U.S. Navy's RATTLRS project. Till now, I wasn't aware the U.S. Navy had such a program. Thanks for the info

I believe Intelgurl's post brings up an interesting question- what key technologies would a B-3 be designed with? Each manufacture's concept has a unique technology to contribute. Northrop Grumman's Quiet Supersonic Platform would soften sonic booms for increased acoustical stealth (besides allowing quiet over flights over populated areas), Lockheed's LRSA concept seems to offer stealthy high-end supersonic flight for long ranges, and the Boeing concept mentioned possible use of hydrogen powerplants, which would provide a great deal of thrust and power.
To be honest, if I was a general, I would want the B-3 to be the best of all worlds, without compromising its required performance- i.e., "To have my cake and eat it too." Though I can only speculate to the best of my knowledge (or imagination), I wouldn't be surprised if the B-3 would share:

• The QSP's use of long forward fuselage(*or nose) and possibly a more stealthier, body-blended variant of its dorsal inlet (or elimination of its necessity, if applicable) to quiet down sonic booms
  
• State-of-the-art, low observability technology borrowed from the Lockheed LRSA concept and current generation stealth craft (such as the Bird of Prey, for example)
  
• Possibly the Boeing concept's use of hydrogen powerplants, for both long-range, sustained supersonic flight and/or short, hypersonic dashes, or hydrogen boosters for hypersonic dashes alone
  
• Use of multi-axis thrust- vectoring, piezoelectrics, and/or MEMS for excellent flight control and maneuvering that also preserves the B-3's stealthy profile
  

Otherwise, I could only expect some traits borrowed from the B-2 to designed into the B-3, such as contrail suppression and its interesting use of ionization….

The study concluded that building a new bomber type, a B-3, could easily cost in excess of $35 billion for research and development alone

Sorry, sounds interesting but at the same times thiers 35 million children out thier who are barely living.
35 billion dollars for a weapon of war?
35 billion to help hungry children abroad and home, yes.
Thats just what I think anyways, but other than that sounds good.
I personally would never consider spending that much money on a Plane.
Deep

Actually, 35 billion dollars would in fact buy 35 million kids 3 square meals a day for one year. But the money is better spent on economic development and investment incentives. Give a man a fish...

I think the b-3 will be the Aurora. Mainly because we've heard stories about the Aurora that are 5-7 years old. This is about how long the B-2 was in its black stages. I was supprised that the Aurora(if it does exist) wasn't deployed in gulf war 2.

You can bet your bottome dollar the Aurora was used in GW-2. Do you think it was just satellites and U-2's taking snaps of the time-critical targets, like Scud launchers? More importantly, they would have been deployed in GW-1, the year after the SR-71 was retired. Possibly they flew out of England, which would have provided the nearest friendly base with the security requirements, however it's more likely that they flew out of Groom Lake. Nowhere is too far when you're clocking Mach 6!

As for the Aurora being modified to become the B-3 as you suggest, I doubt it. It would require such a redesign that you'd end up with a much worse aircraft than if you designed it from scratch. Also, the B-3 program, like the F-117 before it, would be shrouded in secrecy if it employed staggeringly new ground-breaking technologies. Unlike the B-2, we wouldn't even have a sniff as to its existence until just before they unveiled it.

It's hard to say whether or not the USAF would put its B-3 display like it did with the B-2 (you can't hide $100 billion dollars disappearing!) I guess it would depend on how expensive it would be and how many they would intend to make. Small numbers, fairly low fly-away price (ie not billions), the need to only operate from a few airfields and you can hide them quite easily. You wouldn't be able to hide the F-22, for example! Most aircraft you have to show to your public to show them where their tax dollars are going, some you don't, not until it's practically obsolete (still, some aspects of the SR-71 are classified, such as its camera systems).

[Edited on 17-11-2003 by Lampyridae]

if it were only being funded with taxpayers' money.

[Edited on 18-11-2003 by Lampyridae]

Yo im pretty new to this ATS site(at being registered) and i have always believed in there being aliens or something out there, but back to the subject i just had a pretty good idea of what the B-3 might look like, it would probably be stealth with anti-grav technology and it would be a cross between the B-1 and B-2 and have a the payload capability of a B-52(although i think highly not likly) and it would be high sub-sonic. i will have a drawing of it in the near future when i have time. P.S How do i get a signature?

Originally posted by Nans DESMICHELS

So, nobody understood my "span-wings VAC" concept ?


Hum... Anyway, the only thing I hope the B-3 will be is "never"...

B-1, B-2 and B-52 have killed too many people, dont you think ?

Yes, nice, but there are a few errors yet :

Where is the cockpit ? It's an UAV ?

The aerodynamic sheme is not reliable...

Originally posted by Nans DESMICHELS
Yes, nice, but there are a few errors yet :

Where is the cockpit ? It's an UAV ?

The aerodynamic sheme is not reliable...

i plane doesnt neccessarily need a visible cockpit for you to know its has pilot, it has a very reliable scheme considering its a space craft, in space you dont need wings to fly you could be moving on a block of metal all you need is an engine, and space ships arent light fighters the cock pit is in the ships hull not out side of it and judging by its size it will have a large crew. maybe of 10-15 people

for those first few pictures it looks like military pilots in the fucture isnt doomed

If the B-3 or Aurora is operational, it would operate out of the tonnopah Test Range like thee f-117 did before Gulf War 1 because it is impratcicle for an operatrional squadron to operate out of groom Lake because of other programs that are secret from the pilots and staff. Alos, on 9/11 after the plane crashed in Pennsylvania there were journalists reporting that there were laser designators from the sky and bombs going off in Kabul, what plane was responsible for this quick reaction strike?