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

Originally posted by waynos
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.

While I see your point Waynos, there is a bit of difference.

Firstly, there are public plans for a B-3.

Secondly, we are talking about the objectives this bomber will most likely meet. These are based on publically known, stated, and proven technologies.

Thirdly, people are beaten on the head when talking about the Pak-fa only when they feel the need to compare it to actual flying US aircraft. There is a bit of a difference there. Never mind the fact that the US actually has the technology and money publically known to design a B-3, while Russia has no operational stealth aircraft and serious budetary concerns.

It is a hell of a lot easier for me to believe that in 20 years the US would have a stealth hypersonic strategic bomber then it is for me to believe that the Pak-fa will be the equal of the Raptor.

Originally posted by American Mad Man


Firstly, there are public plans for a B-3.

I have seen several different schemes for various future attack platforms but never anything relating specifically to a 'B-3'. Although I can well understand using the term purely as a means of identifying an 'after the B-2' aircraft.

Thirdly, people are beaten on the head when talking about the Pak-fa only when they feel the need to compare it to actual flying US aircraft.

Yes, that is true, well said

There is a bit of a difference there. Never mind the fact that the US actually has the technology and money publically known to design a B-3, while Russia has no operational stealth aircraft and serious budetary concerns.

It is a hell of a lot easier for me to believe that in 20 years the US would have a stealth hypersonic strategic bomber then it is for me to believe that the Pak-fa will be the equal of the Raptor.

Not unreasonable there, but it is still a bit of a leap to assume there WILL be a B-3 (and reading the thread, some clearly have)



[edit on 5-12-2005 by waynos]

Originally posted by waynos
I have seen several different schemes for various future attack platforms but never anything relating specifically to a 'B-3'. Although I can well understand using the term purely as a means of identifying an 'after the B-2' aircraft.

I have read that the next strategic "heavy" bomber will be designated the B-3. In any case, yes, it is a genaric term used for the next in line strategic bomber for the USAF.

Not unreasonable there, but it is still a bit of a leap to assume there WILL be a B-3 (and reading the thread, some clearly have)

Well, I must dissagree here. I think it is infinitely more of a leap to think there may not be a B-3. I mean, since when has the US military gone static, especially concerning high end aeronautics, deep strike, fast reaction, and nuclear forces?

I think it is fairly certain that there will be a B-3, and that it will be in operation around the 2025 time frame.

The bigger questions IMVHO is if it is going to be maned or not, what sort of propulsion it will use, new materials/manufacturing techniques needed, etc...

Well, I must dissagree here. I think it is infinitely more of a leap to think there may not be a B-3. I mean, since when has the US military gone static, especially concerning high end aeronautics, deep strike, fast reaction, and nuclear forces?

Well, how long did it take to produce an operational replacement for the B-52? Correction, how long will it take?


I don't doubt that the industry is planning for a 'B-3', but expecting that programme to result in operational hardware is where the leap occurs, remember the XB-70 and B-1A. Anything could happen in the meantime, which is my point


[edit on 5-12-2005 by waynos]

Originally posted by waynos

Well, I must dissagree here. I think it is infinitely more of a leap to think there may not be a B-3. I mean, since when has the US military gone static, especially concerning high end aeronautics, deep strike, fast reaction, and nuclear forces?

Well, how long did it take to produce an operational replacement for the B-52? Correction, how long will it take?

I don't doubt that the industry is planning for a 'B-3', but expecting that programme to result in operational hardware is where the leap occurs, remember the XB-70 and B-1A. Anything could happen in the meantime, which is my point


[edit on 5-12-2005 by waynos]

You don't consider the B-1 and B-2 bomber operational strategic bombers
?

True, the US hasn't procured them in the same numbers it has the B-52, but that has more to do with the USSRs collapse (and thus no need for the 100+ B-2s the US was originally going to get) then it does from lack of effort.

In any case, I think it is a very safe assumption that the US will do everything in it's power to produce a stealthy high supersonic/hypersonic strategic bomber within the next two and a half decades, and to deploy said aircraft into it's nuclear triad as well as have it available for time sensative air strikes.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
You don't consider the B-1 and B-2 bomber operational strategic bombers
?

I never said that at all did I, AMM, as you well know

The B-52 IS still in service, as a strategic bomber, is it not?

The B-1A was cancelled was it not?

The B-1B was relainched as a result of a change in policy, true?

Another change in policy caused the number of B-2's to be cut from 132 to 21, yes?

Therefore how can anyone assume that the US will develop and deploy a fleet of hypersonic bombers that will, of necessity, make the B-2 look bargain basement by comparison?

It doesn't follow, Of course it might happen, and the Industry will no doubt pray every night to god that it does. But I wouldn't expect it

Originally posted by waynos
I never said that at all did I, AMM, as you well know

The B-52 IS still in service, as a strategic bomber, is it not?

The B-1A was cancelled was it not?

The B-1B was relainched as a result of a change in policy, true?

Another change in policy caused the number of B-2's to be cut from 132 to 21, yes?

All true.

Therefore how can anyone assume that the US will develop and deploy a fleet of hypersonic bombers that will, of necessity, make the B-2 look bargain basement by comparison?

For one thing the B-52's will be aproaching 100 years old by the time a B-3 would be ready for procurement.

Another would be that of these aircraft, only the B-2 will likely be a viable weapons platform by the time 2030 rolls around, and as such I very much doubt that the USAF and DoD would be willing to lose one wing of their nuclear triad.

Further more, while there are no real threats now, by 2020 China should have emerged as a rival, and the US will be in cold war II mode again.

It doesn't follow, Of course it might happen, and the Industry will no doubt pray every night to god that it does. But I wouldn't expect it

Well, I guess thats where we differ. I fully expect a B-3 by the 2030 time frame, and in greater numbers then the B-2.

I hope three things about this aircraft:

1: It better be fast. Supersonic. Something around the area.
2. It better carry the goods. Bigger payload=Bigger boom
3: It better be hot. The B-1 Bomber was downright sexy! The B-2 Spirit was effective. This thing is gonna be effectively hot!

Originally posted by Darkpr0
1: It better be fast. Supersonic. Something around the area.
2. It better carry the goods. Bigger payload=Bigger boom

It will have to be fast...otherwise...what seperates it from what we allready have.

We allready have a couple different aircraft that can go supersonic and bomb targets.

I doubt its payload will be real big, deffiniatly not as big the the B-1's, but probably around half to 2/3's of the B-2's payload.
Since this bomber will be designed with carpet bombing not in the playbook, but rather smaller 250 and 500 pound smart bombs with dead on accuracy.
It would have to be multi-role...Like: Incase we went to war with an advanced military we could use it to take out there silos and radars, among other things. But it should also be designed with terrorism in mind, meaning allways have one one a moments standby, in case a satellite or UAV spots a head terrorist, in which they could keep an eye one until the B-3 arrives in under 2 hours.

You may have gathered from my posts that I don't doubt the technological ability or industrial and military desire for such an aircraft.

My thoughts are based on what a hypersonic deep penetration bomber would cost to develop and produce, like I said, it will make the B-2 seem bargain basement by comparison. Thats the only area I think the B-3 idea falls down. China might well emerge as a threat in thext couple of decades, but will that be due to genuine Chinese intentions, or merely down to the US demonizing them in order to justify the expense of such a project? I guess thats another discussion in itself.

I completely agree that the B-52 airframes will be, if they aren't already, well overdue for replacement, but where has it been decided that this replacement MUST be a hypersonic bomber? Although you guys wont like it at all it might just be the case that, given the performance, technology and usefulness of the B-52 it is decided that it can be replaced by a cruise missile launching version of the 777?

I would guess that such an option is at least under discussion, if only to maintain current capabilities beyond the life of the B-52 at minimal cost. It may well be that the USAF tries to push for an enlarged fleet of B-2's (possibly even a B-2B) as the benefits of this stealth bomber are now well known and appreciated and, providing the cost can be made manageable, the USAF would surely prefer this to the ' B-777A'

I really don't see the US pursuing a hypersonic bomber to service status. Ultimately, the bean counters decide, not the Air Force.

umm.. In light of the PAK-FA pessimism, here's another vague reference to a 5th-gen fighter (Recent: 6 Dec 05)

The premier also said that India and Russia were considering bilateral plans to build a multi-purpose transport plane and a fifth-generation fighter.

en.rian.ru...

In response to an earlier thread regarding this
aircraft: Quiet Supersonic Platform

wcbstv.com...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

and to address the possibilities of a "B-3" bomber,
I just wanted to give out some other information
which I found and made some discreet inquiries into...

The quiet supersonic platform is a year 2000 program
to create a long range recon AND bomber test aircraft to
explore BOTH passive and active audio & visual stealth technologies.
A contract awarded to Northrop Grumman, McDonnell Douglas
and Lockheed Martin Corp. on November 9, 2000 outlined
a research program for white world acoustic and visual stealth
technologies not only for publically-displayed military
craft but also as a technology demonstrator for commercial
aviation noise reduction in addition to exploring generic
methods to reduce infra-red and visual signatures.

The shape of the aircraft is errily reminsicent of a widened
and flattened B1-Lancer bomber with some added shaping for acoustic
reduction of airflow noise, engine noise and sonic boom reduction
so that long range supersonic cruise in a fuel efficient manner could be realized.

en.wikipedia.org...

The Quiet Supersonic Platform particular craft is an exercise
in passive audio stealth by custom-shaping engine inlets and
outlets and special reformation of the plane's nose superstructure
so that the shockwave created by supersonic flight can be moved and
then shaped within a flight plane so as to reduce it's acoustic signature.

The inward facing tail fins also shape trailing vortices
so that shockwave formation can be broken up as air pressure
mounts upon the aircraft hull when it approaches the sound barrier.

Again this is a White-World technology demonstrator more geared
for general recon, tactical bombers and commercial aircraft.

The more that 40 Billion Dollar Black Budget for 2008
has a few disbursements for more Active Audio & Visual Stealth
under SAP (Special Access Program) projects that
use DSP (Digital Signal Processing) to emit a 180 degrees out-of-phase
version of a plane's acoustic signature to essentially
cancel out (er...reduce) noise much like what Noise Cancelling Headphones do.

Other acoustic signature reduction technologies include
using high electromagnetic energies to push the atmosphere
away from the hull of the craft so as to create an elongated
virtual airfoil which can also used for aircraft performance
enhancement in addition to audio stealth purposes.

Large super-capacitors that are charged and discharged in a
pulsed manner can create a large electromagnetic field at the leading edges,
wing tips, canards, or any other part of a hull to form a virtual aircraft shape
that can be dynamically changed by pulsing the capacitors at specific
energies and timings. The atmosphere is literally deflected into user-specified
airflow modalities that fit either specific mission profiles or desired
levels of acoustic signature refinement.


If you can shape the airflow into a defined hull shape or engine thrust
outflow shape, it also means you can mimic the acoustic signatures of
common commercial or enemy aircraft.

By also defining specific airflow shapes, you can also define
lift profiles such as extra wide virtual wings for extra lift
or a long slender needle-like shape for extra speed.

Airflow shaping can also be used for reduction or shaping of
heat signatures so as to confuse Surface-To-Air or Air-to-Air missiles
by either masking the infrared profile or shaping the heat signature
profile to mimic another type of aircraft.

CONTINUED BELOW:

CONTINUED FROM ABOVE:

Woven Carbon Nanotube structures are a great material to use
when you need to have a light and strong aircraft hull, yet
still need to pass a controlled high-powered electrical current
into specified patterns that allow electromagnetic fields
of varying stengths and shapes to be created at specified
parts of the hull so as to allow the creation and shaping
of a virtual air-foil. The distinct shortage of BOTH
carbon fibre and the machines that allow the spinning,
and creation of composite fibre cloth is but one indicator
of the current Black Budget R&D expenditure increases.

The carbon fibre you see used in tennis rackets, skis or fishing rods is
DIFFERENT than those carbon fibres called Carbon Nanotubes.
Nanotubes are supposed to be the next big thing in aircraft, spacecraft,
car and boat hulls and are supposed to offer a magnitude of improvement
in heat resistance, strength and lightness over standard carbon fibres.
The current problem has been the technology used to create long enough
carbon nanotube structures (Carbon-60 aka Bucky balls) so that
the filaments are able to be woven into a cloth which than be
mixed with resin to allow forming of fibre-glass like hull structures.

One friendly aquaintance of mine in the ski and tennis racket industry
indicated he could NOT buy the machines and carbon fibre cloth he needs
at ANY price because the raw materials and the machinery have been
sent to or bought up by strange companies he's never heard of
located in places that are known hot-beds of Black Budget research.

Another colleague of mine in the sciences indicated one company
he consults to has had their entire production run for the next two years
of Carbon Nanotube production machines Bought-Out, then modified and
sent to certain places in California, Utah and Texas. Since single-walled
Carbon Nanotubes can be used to conduct a current in a controlled manner,
one could use that material to create super-strong hulls that are electrically
conductive for virtual airfoil-shaping purposes AND/OR as a medium
to create an emissive visual display for visual stealth/cammoflauge purpose.
Since current white-world Nantotube production produces Carbon Nanotube
filaments of at most a few millimetres in length, the machine modifications
desired by these companies was "Interesting" to say the least.

My colleague inferred that these mods could conceivably allow
the production of both single-walled and multi-walled carbon nanotube
filaments of up to a few metres in length which means such long filaments
could be woven into a cloth which would allow the manufacture of a
super-strong aircraft (or spaceship) hull that could withstand high heat
and is light and electrically conductive. This type of advancement in
Carbon Nanotube production is NOT anticipated for at least another
10 to 15 years on a large scale commercial basis, so something is
definitely up in the Black Budget World......

Since my interest is MOSTLY in the Black Budget World, I can tell you
that this is NOT a NEW concept aircraft and that from the early to
mid-1980's much research and development into active
and passive audio AND visual stealth has been performed
and applied to much more secretive aircraft programs.

The key to finding more about this underground world
of Black Budget Aircraft and Space Planes is to look
what OTHER manufacturing items or machinery is being
bought and where it is being sent to.

From that you can create an inference as to WHAT is being built
and then from there you can dig a little (or a lot) deeper into
finding the people, places and THINGS that could satisfy your
cat-like curiosity.

CONTINUED BELOW:

CONTINUED FROM ABOVE:

Hopefully, my words have sparked some interest in
this subject of Audio and Visual Stealth capabilities
in secret and public aviation circles.

P.S.

And for those NSA/DIA spooks, Dreamlanders, Skunkworkers,
Pahntomworkers, etc. how about throwing me a bone such as
a doctored photo or 3D rendering of the latest & greatest
in our aircraft arsenal.

And...if you're a Russian & Chinese SkunkWorks-type also throw me
some bones from your side of the secret aircraft hangar.
I collect all sorts of this type of stuff.

Unmarked brown envelopes stuffed under my door
containing JPEG files on DVD-R's are MOST WELCOME !!!!
But a few slyly taken film photos will
also be accepted...VIDEO is even BETTER !!!!!!

And a personal tour of said secret facility would be a dream come true!

Plus flight in said Black Budget Airplane would be ABSOLUTE HEAVEN !!!!

And finally, me taking the controls would just blow my mind !!!!!!!!!!!!

Hint! Hint! ;-) ;-)

I don't know if it's been said before but since the thread was resurrected, I think it'd be several times more cost effective to let the Army take the long range strike role with projects like the AHW or PGS. Or keep it under the USAF umbrella and give close air support to the army. At anyrate it makes more sense than a manned bomber to fill the role.

reply to post by _Del_


Technically we don't really need a NEW bomber, and as pointed about by
another ATS member, we could retrofit commercial Boeing 777's, or even
747's as high-performance long-range refueling tankers and bombers.

Those two aircraft in their current form, have plenty of horsepower
and carrying capacity as JDAM, Cruise Missile and Bunker Buster
delivery platforms and they're relatively cheap by military standards!

---

For close air support, we have a MUCH greater need for an updated version
of the A10 Thunderbolt (aka Warthog) that has fuel-efficient supersonic
super-cruise capabilities with lots of low-speed, ground-hugging stealth
capabilities that can be used for close air support and high-value target
attack modalities.

en.wikipedia.org...

Since that type of capability is VERY EXPENSIVE, a better short term
solution is that we fit the venerable C130 Hercules with extra titanium
or ceramic armour plating, full IFR and Starlight night vision systems,
extra fuel tanks and JET engines like those used on the F35 Lightning
and then add LOTS of internal cruise missile bays,
JDAM storage bays, Hellfire missiles and of course whole
bucketloads of armour piercing tank & building-buster rounds
which we can use for low-flying ground support.

The C130 design is sound, noted for its survivability and is CHEAP!!!!
Just add JET engines, extra armour and of course lots of bombs
and building-whacker rounds. Why WASTE all that money on
NEW development when we can take something that is a
PROVEN DESIGN and make some relatively MINOR modifications
for close vicinity ground support roles. I say we need about 750 to 1000
of these Warthogged C130's which would make a formidable
anti-bunker and anti-insurgent platform. For the cost of ONE B2 bomber
we could build MORE than a few Warthogged C130
for deployment in Korea, Guam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

That's MY 2 cents

Originally posted by _Del_
I don't know if it's been said before but since the thread was resurrected, I think it'd be several times more cost effective to let the Army take the long range strike role with projects like the AHW or PGS. Or keep it under the USAF umbrella and give close air support to the army. At anyrate it makes more sense than a manned bomber to fill the role.

The global strike initiative will end up being a system of systems just like the missile defense plan. It will be a tiered plan with multiple individually capable systems.

This means there will be a new strategic bomber (formerly known as the "interim bomber") and this new bomber will certainly be one of the many systems in place to accomplish quick strikes globally.

Now I gotta ask - where did you hear of the AHW and PGS projects? I thought those were unacknowledged SAP's.

[edit on 5-8-2008 by intelgurl]

Originally posted by intelgurl
The global strike initiative will end up being a system of systems just like the missile defense plan. It will be a tiered plan with multiple individually capable systems.

This means there will be a new strategic bomber (formerly known as the "interim bomber") and this new bomber will certainly be one of the many systems in place to accomplish quick strikes globally.

Now I gotta ask - where did you hear of the AHW and PGS projects? I thought those were SAP's.

My point was, that the manned bomber will be a waste of money. I assure you I know nothing about the project that is not in the public domain. I venture to say I hold no knowledge about any program that is still/currently classified. In fact Bill Sweetman published an article not so long ago about the projects.

[edit on 8-5-2008 by _Del_]

Originally posted by _Del_

Originally posted by intelgurl
Now I gotta ask - where did you hear of the AHW and PGS projects? I thought those were SAP's.

My point was, that the manned bomber will be a waste of money. I assure you I know nothing about the project that is not in the public domain. I venture to say I hold no knowledge about any program that is still/currently classified. In fact Bill Sweetman published an article not so long ago about the projects.

Nothing accusatory here - Lord knows I get accused of blowing the lid off such things all the time, I just didn't know it was public domain.

Found the Bill Sweetman blog for the reading pleasure of all interested ATSers... Army Wants Long Range Strike Role
Excellent find _Del_ !

Originally posted by intelgurl
Nothing accusatory here - Lord knows I get accused of blowing the lid off such things all the time, I just didn't know it was public domain.

Found the Bill Sweetman blog for the reading pleasure of all interested ATSers... Army Wants Long Range Strike Role
Excellent find _Del_ !

There has been no secret about the projects existing -- they've been discussed for quite some time. Jane's has had a few mentions, as well as a few others. My attitude happens to be that a manned bomber will probably not give any greater ability than a combination of other available/projected systems. Particularly as it relates the the LR strike role. It just happened I saw this thread rise to the top within a week or so of having read Sweetman's thoughts and it was much too coincidental not to post. The army and AF and navy have been fighting over toys since the Key West Agreement; I don't think it would stop now.