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

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 4 2004 @ 10:42 AM
link   
From Milan

I think it might be a Hyperzonic Bomber with a plasma engine.and with this engine it might fly eight times the speed of sound .so i think it will be the most Advance super bomber in the warld




posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 08:12 PM
link   
I think Aurora's gonna stay frustratingly hidden for some time yet!

The 'B-3' as it'll be sold to the public will probably be a B-767 or B-777-based 'War on Terror' bomb-truck to replace the B-52. JDAM, JSOW, WCMD, and SDB strapped-on en-masse, with the onboard sensors to drop wherever, whenever, over target or stand-off. It'll need total air superiority to survive, but I think 300+ F/A-22's will manage that fine. I think Aurora and it's hypersonic heavy-mass kinetic darts are intended for much different war...



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 04:09 AM
link   
They already have something like that... the B-52. And it'll be flying until 2040. Good old BUFF!

www.fas.org...



Look at that! What a beauty.

[Edited on 14-4-2004 by Lampyridae]

[Edited on 14-4-2004 by Lampyridae]



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 07:05 PM
link   
I would prefer to see this in the skys instead




(hey I know it's only fiction but it still looks good!)



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 07:26 PM
link   
maybe a sleeker version. u know. more thin. those huge wings create drag so making it thin will probably reduce some of it. so it'll be faster with probably state-of-art propulsion and computer inside for missile guiding.



posted on May, 9 2004 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by intelgurl
The US Navy:
In an unclassified document dealing with the Long Range Strike Aircraft R&D ongoing at the China Lake facility, a program dubbed the “RATTLRS” or “Rattler” is mentioned. Among other things the “RATTLRS” will be “a turbine propulsion only, air vehicle system” … with the “ability to accelerate at 0.25 g or greater through the transonic flight region”… and with the “ability to cruise at a minimum of Mach 3.0”.
(USN Document title: Revolutionary Approach To Time-critical Long Range Strike (RATTLRS) Flight Demonstration Project (FDP) 05/15/2003)


Where in the world did you stumble across that document? And here's more RATTLRS info:

www.globalsecurity.org...

Frankly, I'm a bit surprised to see so much on-line about it. The project has only been around for a relatively short period of time. Anyway, the acronym stands for "Revolutionary Approach To Time Critical Long Range Strike." The purpose of the project is to demonstrate that it's possible to fly a turbojet engine faster than Mach 3, which has traditioanlly been the highest such engines can go. Above that speed, the temperatures get so high that key components of the engine (like the turbine) fail. It's hoped that new technology will allow the engine to break that limit and perhaps reach as high as Mach 5.

The Navy is involved because they're looking for a high speed engine that could be used in a cruise missile. NASA is interested because such an engine could be used in the first stage of a reusable launch vehicle and power the craft from takeoff until traveling fast enough that a scramjet could be started. I suppose the Air Force could be looking for a potential powerplant for a supersonic bomber, but they seem to be more interested in missile applications.

In any event, RATTLRS is essentially in competition for money with a program called HyFly. The goal of HyFly is to develop a dual combustion ramjet engine that can go up to Mach 6 or so. I'm not sure which project will survive, if any.



posted on May, 10 2004 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Why worry about a new bomber, when you could just buy more B-2 bombers? With an altitude hight just lower that that of a U-2, the stealthiest plane in the world, the bomb capacity of a b-52, and avionics second only to the e-3 and Joint STAARS, it is even a decade later the most futuristic bomber in the world and we should buy allot more than 20. With new stealth techniques developed by Northrop Grumman maintenance cost should plummit, while the production line tools are still in use so the cost to make one should drop considerably as the production line has already been built and paid for.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   
I envission the B3 having electro-chromatic panels so it will be invisible to the human eye in addition to it being invisible to radar. Also I would hope it would be fitted with a scramjet engine they can make planes go up to mach 10 if I'm not mistaken. Also I would want it to have to best precsion guided weapons ever created and really good avonics.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by roniii259
Why worry about a new bomber, when you could just buy more B-2 bombers? With an altitude hight just lower that that of a U-2, the stealthiest plane in the world, the bomb capacity of a b-52, and avionics second only to the e-3 and Joint STAARS, it is even a decade later the most futuristic bomber in the world and we should buy allot more than 20. With new stealth techniques developed by Northrop Grumman maintenance cost should plummit, while the production line tools are still in use so the cost to make one should drop considerably as the production line has already been built and paid for.


The reason for a B-3 would be to decrease the amount of time between takeoff and weapons delivery. Right now, the B-2 takes about 20 hours to go anywhere in the world. That time could be cut to just a few hourse in a hypersonic platform.

In addition, it would make the bomber almost invulnerable to enemy air defenses. The B-2 is very stealthy, but it is a sitting duck if it is detected and intercepted. A hypersonic platform would be virtually impossible to intercept.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   
It's amazing what this thread has turned into! I have a new concept for a B-3! what if they developed a long-range(10'000nm+), supersonic (Mach 2+), flying wing stealth bomber that is bigger then a B-52. It could have the newest avionics, composits, and stealth technology!

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Well, I can only speculate, but the B3 will be invisable to radar, have virtually no heat signature, and will be incredibly fast. Maybe some visual stealth as well? But I think that isnt as important if its fast enough.

It will definitaly be a manned craft.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Well, this is a thouroughly interesting thread (my reason for resurecting it.).

I think that the B-3, if there is one/was one, might look something like this:






I think some of the features it could/might include are:

ThermOptic (Thermal and Optical) camoflage
PDWEs (Pulse Detonation Wave Engines)
Radio jammers
Radar absorbing material and/or paint

And could/will probably be designed with stealth in mind.



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
The reason for a B-3 would be to decrease the amount of time between takeoff and weapons delivery. Right now, the B-2 takes about 20 hours to go anywhere in the world. That time could be cut to just a few hourse in a hypersonic platform.

Actually, the B-52 and B-2 can loiter above target without much threat to it from camel jockeys armed with AK-47s, while a B-3 would by the very definition of a hypersonic aircraft not be able to loiter, INCREASE weapon delivery time, DECREASE weapons load and INCREASE fuel consumption, maintenance and other costs.



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 08:39 AM
link   
This B-3 Bomber should just be an Aurora with bombing capability. It would be too fast to get shot down.



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Browno
This B-3 Bomber should just be an Aurora with bombing capability. It would be too fast to get shot down.

Sweet, but:

a. Who says a hypersonic spyplane called Aurora exists?
b. How many B-2s or as a matter of fact B-52s have been shot down in recent years?



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Want a B-3 bomber? We got one right here.




Its the new super duper upgraded bomber from the B-2.



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Thanks for the picture, deltaboy. As I'm sure you know, that particular "B-3" is a prop from the motion picture "Broken Arrow." It was built by Vision Crew Unlimited (VCU).

VCU was founded in 1994 with the goal of providing high quality visual effects for feature films, commercials, and television. The company offers a full range of services including:

* Miniature Fabrication & Stock Miniature Rentals
* Mechanical Effects Rigging & Design
* Pyrotechnics
* Motion Control Rigging
* High Speed and Motion Control Photography
* Digital Compositing
* Computer Generated Imagery
* Visual Effects Consultation and Supervision



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666
Actually, the B-52 and B-2 can loiter above target without much threat to it from camel jockeys armed with AK-47s, while a B-3 would by the very definition of a hypersonic aircraft not be able to loiter, INCREASE weapon delivery time, DECREASE weapons load and INCREASE fuel consumption, maintenance and other costs.


You are assuming that the B-3 would be designed with the ME east in mind as it's main target.

China and Russia will be the invisioned target of the B-3. The B-3 would be a first strike precision strategic bomber, with a heavy influence of new military doctrine/thinking which dictates that the US needs to rely LESS on foriegn bases. Thus, a hypersonic precision bomber which could strike anywhere in the world in a matter of hours from the US mainland would be preferable to the B-2/B-52/B-1 all of which would take nearly 24 hours to hit anywhere in the world.

The B-3 will not be a bomb truck - we have 3 of those in service today. It will be designed as tip of the sword strategic attack asset.



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 12:55 PM
link   
ok , nice speculation about the B3, its seems that the"hipersonic" word sales good tales...

[edit on 1-12-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simon666
while a B-3 would by the very definition of a hypersonic aircraft not be able to loiter

why not?

If your assuming it will be powered by a scramjet then your right...but maybe it will be powered by PDE...which have a wide range of speeds...from take off and sub-sonic, to hypersonic, to around mach 10.






top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join