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.
Originally posted by Simon666
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.
Originally posted by Simon666
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?
Although i like the B-2 Spirit, i think it should have more sweped back wings and should be supersonic. Just if you could go back and show this model to the B-2 design team to boost up thier ideas. Should look more like this one.
Originally posted by deltaboy
Want a B-3 bomber? We got one right here.
Its the new super duper upgraded bomber from the B-2.
Originally posted by intelgurl
The fact that no B-2's have ever been shot down and no B-52's have been shot down in recent years should have no bearing on R&D and acquisition of new weapon delivery systems.
Originally posted by American Mad Man
China and Russia will be the invisioned target of the B-3.
Originally posted by American Mad Man
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.
Originally posted by Simon666
It's absolutely useless considering they're nuclear powers, so you're designing a bilion dollar weapons system to never use it when you already have nuclear missiles in order to never use them.
It's called deterrence and MAD.
Originally posted by American Mad Man
Once air defenses of a country like Iraq or Iran are taken out, B-2/B-52/Global Hawks etcetera can hang around and be almost constantly above target, actually being capable of hitting targets faster and with more mission flexibility than a hypersonic bomber would.
Any such hypersonic bomber would be pretty neat and a huge technological achievement like the Concorde, but it's actual practical use would be limited and costs not justified.
It's basically just a tool to give defense companies more government money for R&D etcetera. Airbus may get subsidies more directly, but companies like Boeing profit hugely indirectly through military contracts.
Originally posted by American Mad Man
Well, I dissagree with you, and so does the USAF. They have been trying to get a high supersonic-hypersonic bomber for decades now. In fact, it isn't limited to the USAF either, the USSR wnted the sme thing.
Originally posted by kilcoo316
I think Simon's point is that things have moved on since the cold war, and is such a scenario likely?
Of course its possible - but then so is an invasion of little green men (indeed, with the MAD doctrine, its probably more likely there will be an invasion from ETs than full open conflict between rival nuclear powers), and very little heed is paid to invasion from ETs.
Originally posted by American Mad Man
And my point is that just because something is improbable does not make it impossable.
In addition, a hypersonic bomber would be able to do more then simply drop nukes, just like the B-1, B-2, and B-52.
A hypersonic bombers abilities would add a great deal of capability to the US militaries reactionary forces, deep strike forces, etc etc etc.
Originally posted by American Mad Man
What in the world are you talking about? The B-2 was designed to attack Russia with nukes, we use that.
Originally posted by American Mad Man
Hell, every single piece of military hardware in the US arsenal was designed to attack Russia, but I guess we never use M-1 MBTs, Apache helo's, F-117's, F-15's, F-16's, M-16's, M-4's, Hellfire missles, etc etc etc.
Originally posted by American Mad Man
Also, simply because a strategic bomber is designed to be nuclear weapons platform does not mean it can't be used in a different way. Again, look at the B-2.
Originally posted by American Mad Man
You are exactly right, BUT, in the future it would be the B-3 that would take out these air defences, just as the B-2 and F-117 have done recently.
Originally posted by American Mad Man
Well, I dissagree with you, and so does the USAF. They have been trying to get a high supersonic-hypersonic bomber for decades now. In fact, it isn't limited to the USAF either, the USSR wnted the sme thing.
Originally posted by Murcielago
Why are some of you thinking the B-3 will become operational around 2050?
I would guess it would become operational around 2025.
Originally posted by Murcielago
Why are some of you thinking the B-3 will become operational around 2050?
I would guess it would become operational around 2025.
Originally posted by American Mad Man
Well, I disagree with you, and so does the USAF. They have been trying to get a high supersonic-hypersonic bomber for decades now. In fact, it isn't limited to the USAF either, the USSR wanted the same thing.
Originally posted by waynos
Originally posted by Murcielago
Why are some of you thinking the B-3 will become operational around 2050?
I would guess it would become operational around 2025.
Why are so many more of you so sure there even is a B-3? This seems an almighty leap of faith to talk about 'the B-3' as if it is a real aeroplane rather than a fairly vague set of future objectives, as I understand it to be.
After all, anyone trying to talk in this way about such as the Pak Fa is soon beaten round the head with the fact that it is not a real aeroplane.