Northrop patents Next Gen bomber configuration, page 1

reply to post by ACEMANN

To get speed, a compromise must be made. Essentially, stealth will have to be reduced, payload will have to be reduced, and range will have to be reduced. Or price will have to be increased. The real question is this; how do we get a platform that can penetrate enemy airspace at minimum monetary and developmental risk while retaining maximum effectiveness? Probably a VLO all aspect stealth flying wing over anything else.

Looks simply to be a jacked up B-1...or should I say...a B-1 on steroids.

Looks more like a B-2; but is smaller and significantly more stealthy.

How much is this one....100 million each?

Probably 185 million, minimum; as a guess. Given the kick down capability it provides, it isn't all that bad. Let's hope it doesn't get bloated to high hell like most other aircraft; it getting to 300 million wouldn't surprise me the slightest.

What happend to the longevity of the B-1 as it was sales pitched back in its heyday?

The DC-3 has also proven to be so; but that doesn't mean we should be procuring new DC-3 aircraft, even though over the years technology and requirements change. The lines for the B-1 and B-2 have been shut down, torn to shreds, the aircraft themselves designed for a different time, and a different need. A 1970's aircraft obviously CANNOT take us to 2030+ where it will be unsurvivable therefore restricted to limited stand-off munitions, like the B-52. This is not what the NGB requirement is for.

If we needed a bomb truck then we would only keep the B-1, or order some modified 737's.

Why do we need a fleet of high speed bombers when those bombs can be launched from orbiting satellite platforms and high altitude carrier aircraft?

Given such a bomb would be ballistic, and newer systems such as the S-400 are anti ballistic Missile shields, tells us that unless the Mach 30 re-entry vehicles are stealthy, any such vehicle would likely be unsurvivable. To get the vehicle to re-enter the atmosphere energy must be taken away, i.e. de-orbit burn. These take large amounts of time, and even then bombing would be constrained to certain orbital planes at certain times of the day. Space based munitions simply cannot make up for a hundred or so bombers carrying 14,000-28,000 lb of weapons; flying multiple sorties a day, on ANY basis. Cost, no. Risk, no. Survivability, no.

If we go into the realm of fantasy we can easily add string theory weapons disintegrating the enemy without physical interaction. Doesn't mean it will happen though.

[edit on 21/3/2009 by C0bzz]