Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   

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?



While the B-52 and B-2 can loiter above a target area perfectly safe from "camel jockeys armed with AK-47s", the same can not be said about a more sophisticated enemy armed with anti-aircraft systems such as an S-125 with the tweaked P-18 radar, S-300 or 400.
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.

Also I think we are comparing apples and oranges anyway, since a hypersonic "global strike" system is not meant to be a loitering strike vehicle - that job will be for MALE (medium-altitude long-endurance) & HALE (high-altitude long-endurance) type UAV strike aircraft.
The global strike is intended to strike anywhere on the planet within 2-3 hours of a threat materializing while the loitering MALE & HALE concepts are for area denial of a known threat zone.
Just my take on it....




posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Perhaps the B-3 name will be given to the Falcon program in 15 to 20 years.

Since the FALCON by then will be much more mature, and have proven technologies, and a history. It would be a great addition to the existing USAF bomber fleet.





posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 05:17 PM
link   

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.


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.

This model and the B-3 designation at the time in 1996 when the plane was brand new was probably used as a copyright law or to distract people from the real life B-2 although it is already revealed to public eyes.

Just an other 'F-19 roumour' i guess.



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 07:37 PM
link   

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.


Correctooo!

The U.S. has one capability no other country has in the world... That is the ability to attack and deploy a great number of troops and equipment within 24 hours anywhere around the world.

And, of course, it will do it's best to mantain that advantage.

That includes building a hypersonic bomber which will, in short, decrease the amount of time to deploy an attack, any where.



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
China and Russia will be the invisioned target of the B-3.

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
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.

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.



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 09:07 AM
link   
I remember reading about how biplane pilot thought that mono would never get as good as thier trusty biplane. Times change if you dont change with them then you are left in the dust.

B3? its the aurua (sic) that has been heavily modifed aka to the FB-23 with new plasma or other such none power plant that will be designed to take out all of the damns in the 4 gorges system along with other power factilities or to hit the "secret" russian facilities.

what kind of weaponary will it have? Plasma? Ion Particle beams? Lasers?

Those to go along with deep penatrating sonic earthquake devices that could make it look like a natural desaster or accident aka act of god.

How about the worse bomb i could think of: a a weapon that burst or time reales nuclear sludge that is lite enough to travel the currents to filters which become raditated along with all the pipe infistructure. I would use it on a lake or river that have a nuclear plant, bump zone or heavy industrial plants so they are blamed and/or are also raditated by the slug bomb.

rad being part of my back ground i would not want this weapon to even be put on the drawing board as the affact would be devistating.



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 10:25 AM
link   
maybe it will be the next mutation of the B-2, that would be pretty logical too...
And if we think about the sucess of the B-2, it's pretty obvious that they will make a newer model of it someday...



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 10:32 AM
link   
What will a B-3 be like?

To first answer the question, the problem must be defined.

What do you think the USAF sees as they hypothetical threat at around 2050 or so when such a machine may be operational.

I would expect something along the lines of the following:

- Radar/computers has evolved to such a state that stealth is impossible - radar can detect disturbances in the air from aircraft generated turbulence, and can detect the airframes themselves no matter how low the radar cross section of the aircraft is - so high flying operations are out of the question.

- Defences are not composed of SAMs and Triple A, but direct energy weapons (in developed countries), rendering low level operations out of the question as well.



Since the atmosphere is effectively sealed off, the solution will have to come from space. Now whether this takes the form of a satellite (bit like the Goldeneye in James Bond
) or a space 'skimmer' like some of the hypersonic ideas proposed earlier in the thread I don't know.

I do think the only passive protection from developed ground based lasers is going to be atmospheric distortion, and that will come from ultra-high altitude flight.

As for the weapons systems on board such a machine, I have to confess, I simply don't know.


However, there is another avenue open... shields against lasers... bit like Star Trek now, but what other alternatives are there?



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   

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.


What in the world are you talking about? The B-2 was designed to attack Russia with nukes, we use that. The B-52 was designed to attack Russia with nukes, we use that. 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.



It's called deterrence and MAD.


And in order to keep deterrence up, you must constintly upgrade your capabilities.

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
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.


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. You see, just because these aircraft are a viable tip of the sword weapons platform now does not mean that they will be so in the future. The US must maintain it's edge in order to enable bomb trucks to circle over a nation.



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.


I couldn't dissagree more. A hypersonic bomber would give the USAF capabilities it can only dream of today, mostly in the form of time critical targets and highly protected ground targets. On top of that, any such bomber could be outfitted as a strategic recon aircraft, and fill the void that the SR-71 left.


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.


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.



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 11:53 AM
link   

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.


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.



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   

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.



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.



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 01:29 PM
link   

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.


My 2nd and 3rd paragraphs address what in my opinion is the likelihood of full scale war between two sophisticated and nuclear capable countries


Is the B-2 not supposed to supply the reactionary and deep strike abilities to the USAF?



I'm still personally of the opinion an atmospheric bomber irregardless of speed will be suicidal come 2050. An effective weapon will have to be space based (IMVHO).



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 07:07 PM
link   
This B-3 Bomber may just be a more sweped back triangular shaped B-2 spirit that is supersonic like the 'Broken Arrow' model. It also may be mistaken as an Aurora if it was seen flying.




[edit on 2-12-2005 by Browno]



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 08:16 AM
link   

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.

If it had only that use and that purpose, it would have been a complete waste of money as say for example when Russia has 10000 nukes and you're capable of taking out 9990, you still suffer bigtime losses. The B-52 was further designed in a time when there were no ICBMs yet.



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.

Those were to counter conventional attacks. A B3 would be perceived by Russia - and correctly - as a tool to attempt to take out Russia's missiles in their silos and hence from detection above Russia on - hypersonic planes give off huge IR signatures, you can't get around that - you'd risk fullscale nuclear war. Plus, again, considering the number of nuclear warheads in a nuclear arsenal, you'd better be damn sure you can take out 100% because 99,9% won't do.



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.

That is because the B-2 can fulfill roles no other aircraft can due to its stealth capability. For a B-3 you'd have the alternative of a B-2 or B-52 since there are currently no situations for which the hypersonic speed is absolutely needed and the only cases where it might be needed is in order to fight wars you'd better not start as with Russia or China.



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.

That I could still agree with, yet there are or will be probably cheaper and better alternatives such as cruise missiles, unmanned and stealthy planes, not necessarily hypersonic.



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.

The only reason the USSR wanted it was because the US wanted it, not because they needed it. See: Buran. That is actually a good example as the Space Shuttle could be used for orbital bombardment and is even faster than a hypersonic plane. A hypersonic plane would suffer many of the same problems: very high operating and maintenance costs due to the excessive fuel use and high thermal loads again and again, plus limited to a preset trajectory with no chance of turning around for another run, a limited time window for dropping the ordinance and so on.



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Why are some of you thinking the B-3 will become operational around 2050?

I would guess it would become operational around 2025.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 06:20 AM
link   

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.


Yup, but the USAF will be looking at threats throughout its operational life surely.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 11:40 AM
link   

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.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 12:17 PM
link   

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.

... A hypersonic plane would suffer many of the same problems: very high operating and maintenance costs due to the excessive fuel use and high thermal loads again and again, plus limited to a present trajectory with no chance of turning around for another run, a limited time window for dropping the ordinance and so on.

That is the reason that is given to the apparent downfall of the Aurora program. Rumours say that the cost of each flight far outweighs its results and that therefore the program is on the brink of being cancelled. There is speculation that the X-43A is the UCAV program designed to replace the Aurora.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 02:56 PM
link   

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.


I've never said I think the B-3 exist...because It doesn't. But I think the current FALCON program when completed and goes operational, will be given the designation of B-3.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Fair enough, but after so many 'the B-3 will.....' posts I had to kick out, hope you understand.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join