B-2 Bomber replacement by 2018?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 04:51 AM
link   
Just readed that the pentagon wants a new bomber by 2018.
So the new bomber should already be in the testing phase and highly
classified. It maybe already flies around above the Nevada-Test-Site.
The Groom-Lake facility will not be used for testing i think. Maybe
the Tonopah Test Range because it is much more remote.

Forget the Aurora, lets think about a new bomber and its capabilites
that will replace the B-2 relatively soon.

I think this new bomber will use the most advanced technology that
is available like the B-2 over 20 years ago.

The us strategy loves to have global-strike capabilities and to have a very fast
reaction time. It also should have a huge payload capability.

I imagine a transatmospheric aircraft with hypersonic speed and improved stealth capabilities. It maybe really uses electrogravitic propulsion,
visual stealth technology and also new aircraft defense techniques like
the energy-beam that is used in the "active protection system" also called Trophy that destroys incoming rpg-missiles.

The Trophy-system is maybe already in use in the B-2 bomber. They really
cannot afford to loose a 1-billion $ aircraft that also maybe has nuclear warheads onboard.

I think it will be a bigger one than the b-2 or maybe
an UBAV (unmanned bomber air vehicle). =)

Let me know what do you think and what you imagine about the next generation bomber.




posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by allMIGHTY
The Groom-Lake facility will not be used for testing i think. Maybe
the Tonopah Test Range because it is much more remote.


Groom is much more remote and secure than the TTR.

Besides that point, I agree with most of the things in the post. The bomber will likely have global strike capability. It may also use current RATTLRS research.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 07:24 AM
link   
Hmmm..wonder what the black projects guys have been working on??

My guess is something that will be unmanned but who knows?? Maybe something more mundane that can just loiter like a predator system with a few tactical nukes onboard...small, undetectable, ready to drop munitions at a moments notice!?

Just a thought, very inexpensive as well...relatively speaking of course.

Peace, Mondo



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mondogiwa
Maybe something more mundane that can just loiter like a predator system with a few tactical nukes onboard...small, undetectable, ready to drop munitions at a moments notice!?


yeah, i agree. I think the costs are getting much more important. An UBAV will
be very inexpensive and you save a lot of space in the aircraft that you could use for payload or fuel instead of a cockpit, seat, eject system, oxygen systems and stuff.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by allMIGHTY
Forget the Aurora, lets think about a new bomber and its capabilites
that will replace the B-2 relatively soon.

I think this new bomber will use the most advanced technology that
is available like the B-2 over 20 years ago.


I disagree with this point. The B-2 wont be replaced with the "UBAV" it will be the B-52 that is replaced as I dont see the High speed bomber being able to turn that well I'm sure that it drops it load once where as the B-2 and B-1 will most likely pick up the B-52s role of air support.

Its a weird subject in that the B-2 with its RCS was built to penatrate enemy lines and drop its load so honestly it does it in a different way then the high alt bombers do it so I don't see the USAF limiting there options in 2018 just cause they have a newer bomber.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by allMIGHTY
Just readed that the pentagon wants a new bomber by 2018.
So the new bomber should already be in the testing phase and highly
classified. It maybe already flies around above the Nevada-Test-Site.
The Groom-Lake facility will not be used for testing i think. Maybe
the Tonopah Test Range because it is much more remote.

Forget the Aurora, lets think about a new bomber and its capabilites
that will replace the B-2 relatively soon.

I think this new bomber will use the most advanced technology that
is available like the B-2 over 20 years ago.


Replace the B-2? I doubt it. The B-52 seems a more likely canadate for replacement seeing how it is Much Older. Did you maybe mean B-52?

Your logic in the test site is off! Groom Lake would clearly be the better choice of the two. First of all, Groom Lake is much more remote. Back in the earily 1980's The F-117's at Tonapah were limited toNight Flights Only. If they wanted to do daylight flight, they had to fly from Groom Lake.

Tim



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 03:11 PM
link   
It's not going to replace the B-2 or B-52, it's only an interim bomber designed to enhance US global strike capabilities, it's probably more similar to a B-1 than a B-52 or B-2. Those aircraft might be replaced by the true next generation bomber scheduled to be fielded in 2037, however the B-52 may very well continue service beyond that.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by allMIGHTY
Just readed that the pentagon wants a new bomber by 2018.
So the new bomber should already be in the testing phase and highly
classified. It maybe already flies around above the Nevada-Test-Site.
The Groom-Lake facility will not be used for testing i think. Maybe
the Tonopah Test Range because it is much more remote.

Tonopah is not more remote than Groom Lake, and in fact I suspect that is where our illustrious FMSE, Intelgurl is right now - because when she's at Creech she is allowed to have internet access and call home at will.


Originally posted by allMIGHTY
Forget the Aurora, lets think about a new bomber and its capabilites
that will replace the B-2 relatively soon.

I think this new bomber will use the most advanced technology that
is available like the B-2 over 20 years ago.

The us strategy loves to have global-strike capabilities and to have a very fast
reaction time. It also should have a huge payload capability.

I imagine a transatmospheric aircraft with hypersonic speed and improved stealth capabilities.

As others have already pointed out, the B-2 is not being replaced, nor is the B-1B or the B-52. The 2018 bomber is not planned to be a replacement but rather an augmenter of the fleet already in place.
(The 2038 bomber will be replacing old iron, though)

The capabilities required are the ability to perform a quick strike and loiter for an extended period of time.

The definitive airframe of such an aircraft has yet to be agreed upon, with some advocating a system of systems meaning a fast delivery vehicle that despenses loitering sub-munitions or smaller strike vehicles; while others are advocating a stealthy air vehicle capable of supersonic dash and then the ability to slow down and loiter over enemy territory.



Originally posted by allMIGHTY
It maybe really uses electrogravitic propulsion,
visual stealth technology and also new aircraft defense techniques like
the energy-beam that is used in the "active protection system" also called Trophy that destroys incoming rpg-missiles.

The Trophy-system is maybe already in use in the B-2 bomber. They really
cannot afford to loose a 1-billion $ aircraft that also maybe has nuclear warheads onboard.


The Trophy System is not a an energy beam, it is a reloadable munition not unlike a shotgun.
You are right in assuming future bombers will have directed energy missile defense - most likely in the form of AESA radar or other microwave or laser based weaponry.

Furthermore an RPG is not going to have the reach required to hit a high flying jet aircraft. They can bring down choppers and punch holes in Tanks, Bradleys and Humvees, but not a bomber flying at 35-50k ft.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Chances are that the replacement for the B-2 is going to focus more on stealth and sheer bomb capacity rather than speed.

I believe the B-1B Lancer is still in service as a strike/penetration bomber. It's made more for speed while hitting prime targets rather than laying waste to swaths of land (which the B-2 Spirit is far more capable of doing). For the record this plane, IMO, needs a replacement sooner than the B-2 does.

But since I'm no expert on bomber aircraft I'll just keep fairly quiet.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Westpoint is right on on this one. None of the current bombers, except on an rare-chance the B-1, will be replaced by this new system. The B-52 is a big- bad bomb truck that has a lot of use left because of its payload and range and the B-2 is still the greatest bomber in the world with its stealth. The problem is the B-52 is vulnerable and the B-2 is too expensive to use as the mainline bomber. I see the greatest factors on this interim bomber being cost and range. I do not see hypersonic as being key to this bomber; I think that will come with the next main bomber which, as westpoint pointed out, is scheduled for 2037. Whether or not they go UAB for this interim bomber, is debatable to me as I think the military still would prefer to have the brains of a pilot on board a bomber that may have to lots of munitions on heavily populated locals. I would be looking for the military to incorporate as much from the B-2, F-22 and F-35 projects as possible to keep development costs down as military does not have much spare money and the situation only looks to get worse as the democrats control congress and will control the whitehouse.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 09:59 PM
link   
I'm back baby!

I have to believe that the next gen bomber will indeed be a hypersonic airframe, with a human pilot. I am not a supporter of UCAVing every airframe, besides, it takes the fun out of the air force. People join to fly planes, not fly joysticks. That being said, as far as I know, if we were to develop a hypersonic stealth airframe, there would be no country within the near future or beyond that could shoot it down. This bomber would fly too high and too fast, just like the SR used to do. Especially if you could make it stealthy, how in the world would you be able to track it even if u had a missile capable of catching it.

Great idea, I guess we will have to wait and see.

Train



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 11:53 PM
link   
Your talking about the FB-22 bomber.



The Air Force has expressed interest in developing a bomber variant of the F/A-22 Raptor to “bridge the gap” between today’s bombers and a follow-on bomber in 2037.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 113131p://5703pm by semperfoo]


jra

posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfoo
The Air Force has expressed interest in developing a bomber variant of the F/A-22 Raptor to “bridge the gap” between today’s bombers and a follow-on bomber in 2037.


There has also been talk of a possible FB-23 as well.

www.strategypage.com...



EDIT: to add a link to this old thread.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 7-3-2007 by jra]



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 07:19 AM
link   
THe B-2 cost to mush to be put down already plus its not due to be taken off active duty until 2040. Other bombers are due to be taken off by 2010 to 2012 more likely those are being replaced.


Edit for spelling

[edit on 7-3-2007 by 19 Kilo]



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by semperfoo
The Air Force has expressed interest in developing a bomber variant of the F/A-22 Raptor to “bridge the gap” between today’s bombers and a follow-on bomber in 2037.


There has also been talk of a possible FB-23 as well.

www.strategypage.com...



EDIT: to add a link to this old thread.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 7-3-2007 by jra]


I had heard that the project the FB-23 was to be used in was cancelled when they created this new one for the High alt High speed bomber. Think I heard it form Intelgurl before she left. Not 100% on this but I do remeber talkin about FB-23 cancellations.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
I'm back baby!

I have to believe that the next gen bomber will indeed be a hypersonic airframe, with a human pilot. I am not a supporter of UCAVing every airframe, besides, it takes the fun out of the air force. People join to fly planes, not fly joysticks. That being said, as far as I know, if we were to develop a hypersonic stealth airframe, there would be no country within the near future or beyond that could shoot it down. This bomber would fly too high and too fast, just like the SR used to do. Especially if you could make it stealthy, how in the world would you be able to track it even if u had a missile capable of catching it.

Great idea, I guess we will have to wait and see.

Train


lol which is why it wont happen. The USAF hasn't properly supported any of these projects before so it would be a first. Look at how much problems they are having with funding for even norm UCAV projects.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigTrain
I have to believe that the next gen bomber will indeed be a hypersonic airframe, with a human pilot.


The interim bomber (2018) will most likely not be unmanned and it will not be hypersonic (ie. sustained cruise speeds of Mach 5 or above). The technology for both of those systems is not yet mature enough to be fielded in such a short time and on a large production aircraft. And if it is, well, they might not be ready to go public with it yet. The interim bomber might be faster than current US bombers (Mach 2 class) but it still wont be hypersonic. However there is a good chance that the 2037 bomber will be both unmanned and hypersonic with a likely increase in operational altitude and range (out of CONUS range).

But keep in mind that while all of this is happening the FALCON program continues to make progress. Now there's a true rapid response global strike bomber.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 02:59 PM
link   
So you dont think the FB-22 will be the 2018 bomber?



jra

posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH
Think I heard it form Intelgurl before she left. Not 100% on this but I do remeber talkin about FB-23 cancellations.


That's really disappointing if true. I did a brief search, but came up with nothing regarding it being canceled.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfoo
So you dont think the FB-22 will be the 2018 bomber?


Nope. The range and payload would be too limited and what's with this FB nonsense? This "interim" bomber will be around for quite some time and with a production run off nearing 150 units we need something more than a 1,800 mile small payload bomber with two worthless air to air missiles taking up valuable space. I'm not saying the new bomber wont incorporate stealth (RCS + IR) and supersonic dash speeds (perhaps even super cruise) but it wont be a FB anything, 22 or 23,





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join