Gates: Funding for new bomber in 2011

"KIRKUK, Iraq (Reuters) - The Pentagon's fiscal 2011 budget and five-year defense plan will probably include funding for a new long-range bomber for the Air Force, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Friday."

"That review, which is now wrapping up, pointed to the need for both manned and unmanned long-range strike capabilities"

www.reuters.com...


You're all smart folks who can find sh*t out on the net, any ideas of what this long range bomber could be?



[edit on 11-12-2009 by Tomis_Nexis]

Originally posted by Tomis_Nexis
"KIRKUK, Iraq (Reuters) - The Pentagon's fiscal 2011 budget and five-year defense plan will probably include funding for a new long-range bomber for the Air Force, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Friday."

"That review, which is now wrapping up, pointed to the need for both manned and unmanned long-range strike capabilities"

www.reuters.com...


You're all smart folks who can find sh*t out on the net, any ideas of what this long range bomber could be?



[edit on 11-12-2009 by Tomis_Nexis]

More from the military industrial complex. The B1 and F117 are both fine as far as stealth goes. Why is there the need to shell out billions when we are still having more B2s produced?

I'm trying to figure out how "long" this long range bomber would have to go. The Ballad AFB is Iraq is the biggest in the world and US ran. So my only thought is for the big war, the real war, WW3 (if i do say so myself), China.

Originally posted by Tomis_Nexis
I'm trying to figure out how "long" this long range bomber would have to go. The Ballad AFB is Iraq is the biggest in the world and US ran. So my only thought is for the big war, the real war, WW3 (if i do say so myself), China.

My guess is Alpha Centauri. Begun, "LocalStarClusterWar I" has.

Realistically speaking though, the B1, F117, and other bombers in use currently are a bit 'aged' in design. Their stealth capabilities aren't so 'stealth' anymore, and they require a very high cost in maintenance and upkeep. My understanding is that the military is investing a lot of time and money into technological improvements with aircraft (and other aspects of technology) that are more reliable and do not require such detailed and constant care/maintenance.

Think of it in terms of your refrigerator. These days, your refrigerator runs from the day you buy it, til the day it dies, and about the only thing you have to do with it is put food in it, and occasionally clean it. Even 50 years ago, refrigerators were far more problematic and required more 'constant' maintenance. Go back 50 more years, to when people were using ice boxes, and it was even more tedious and even more maintenance/work.

It makes sense for the military to be up on the latest technologies, of course, my guess is that whenever Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc, come up with new designs that promise improved performance and reduced maintenance/upkeep costs, the military will look at it seriously.

I'd suspect that this review was not to determine we need a bomber that has 'longer' range than our existing bombers, but rather, it need to still be long range (our current bombers can nuke any country in the world within a few hours tops, we've had that capability for a long time), and it must be able to do everything our current bombers can do, as well as whatever new 'whiz-bang' things that the vendor(s) are promising out of the 'latest' in bomber technology.

I think there's a lot less to this story than people are thinking, quite honestly.

[edit on 11-12-2009 by Ghostt]

reply to post by Ghostt


Oh I'm not thinking this is a conspiracy. This is reality as you said. I was just wondering with all the threads on aircraft here if anyone would have an idea of what the craft is.

Catch my drift?

Edit, prototype, a general idea or opinion.

[edit on 11-12-2009 by Tomis_Nexis]

If I had to venture a guess, it would be that it comes along remarkably quick, as if it already existed in some prototype.

It will be similar to the B-2 but with a more defined deltoid shape, radar stealthy with a visual cloaking system to make it almost invisible to the naked eye. It will come in both piloted and unpiloted versions, be nearly silent while in flight and perhaps even vtol capable.

Just as a guess...

reply to post by redoubt


Sweet, thanks for the reply.

I remember reading somewhere of aircraft with micro cameras (I dont know if it's Nanotech, they didn't divulge into the what is factor) mounted underneath and above the craft, so the belly would reflect the sky and the top would reflect the ground, making it "invisible".

Wish I remember the site and craft they used.

reply to post by Tomis_Nexis


Some very crude, very basic examples emerged a few years back but then just as quickly went under the radar. Here's a vid on one of them...



EDIT: This may actually be no more than a blue screen effect (sigh)... but the concept of visual cloaking is still relevant research and probably further along that we are allowed to know.

[edit on 11-12-2009 by redoubt]

reply to post by Tomis_Nexis


Yeah I saw something on the military channel about this new bomber a few months ago. It was called the B1-R. A version of the B1. Full stealth, Ramjet that could carry up to 50 cruise missles. The simulation show three of the new B1-R bombers along with three F-35's fifth generation fighters, taking out three full squadrons of russian Migs which didn't even know they were there. It was a wicked simulation. They also showed the new B1-R carrying defensive lasers.

hmmmm..

reply to post by Happyfeet

Wow. This post is just so wrong, in many ways.

Fact 1: The B-1 is not and never was designed as a stealth. It has a reduced RCS, but that isn`t the same thing. Add to that the maintenance issues. It is a bomber that is harder to detect but still detectable far beyond that of a stealth, that isn`t the most reliable.

Fact 2: There are NO F-117s in the inventory. They were placed in non-flyable storage with the wings removed.

Fact 3: The last B-2 was built and delivered 12 years ago. AV-21 "Spirit of Louisianna" was delivered in 1997. That was the last built and there will be no more. The USAF has 20 now, with the crash on Guam.

As to the poster that brought up the B-1R, that`s one possible bomber in the replacement plans.

Here is a web site to possible or future candidates for a new stealth aircraft or bomber.

This is the B-3.

www.globalsecurity.org...

This one is called the Hypersoar.

www.globalsecurity.org...

They have pictures of them and some information on these beasts!

Here is a little more info from Aviation Week.

Next Generation Ultra Stealth Bomber

Concept pix:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4e916cb1fee2.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 12/11/2009 by WhatTheory]

Originally posted by redoubt
reply to post by Tomis_Nexis

 

Some very crude, very basic examples emerged a few years back but then just as quickly went under the radar. Here's a vid on one of them...

EDIT: This may actually be no more than a blue screen effect (sigh)... but the concept of visual cloaking is still relevant research and probably further along that we are allowed to know.

[edit on 11-12-2009 by redoubt]

Greenscreen kiddo, this has been debunked years ago.

Why would they need to make a new stealth bomber.

reply to post by ufo2009

Well let`s see.....The USAF has THREE types of heavy bombers. The B-52, which first flew in 1952 and can only go in after the defenses are almost completely eliminated. The B-1, a semi-stealthy, maintenance intensive bomber that was designed in the 1970s, and delivered in the 80`s. The B-2, which first flew in 1989, and the last one was delivered in 1997. That means our YOUNGEST bomber design is over 20 years old. And we only have 20 of them. If they gave a major war tomorrow, the USAF would barely be able to show up. You don`t even WANT to know the "real" status of their aircraft fleets.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Yeah well thats what happens when it cost 1 to 3 billion for just one bomber. They just cost to much to build. We never used the f-22 raptor cause it was designed for the cold war. The buget was cut for building said jet. So that the F-35 could be built. Which also cost a heck of alot of lettuce for each one jet. Fifth generation fighters and bombers are going to cost in the billions to build and maintain. Courae if one fifth generation fighter or bomber can take out multiple enemy fighters and cities, then there isn't a need for many. Its not like there are many other countries in the world that the USAF couldn't beat in a air war. Anyone in a 3rd or 4th generation fighter is going to lose against the new fifth generation fighters or bombers, no matter how many they put up...

reply to post by Eye of Horus

The problem isn`t the cost of the aircraft, it`s the armchair idiots, I mean generals in the procurement process. The RFP for the B-2 called for over 100 aircraft. If they had bought anywhere near those numbers the cost per airframe would have been in the hundreds of millions, instead of billions. Same for the F-22. And the maintenance problems would be reduced because you would have more people working the problem and figuring out shortcuts.