Future Bomber Options

It cam up in another thread.

Should the US go ahead with plans to develop a follow on to the B-2 or invest in more production of the B-2

I feel that eventually detection technology will catch up with the B-2. It is inevitable. The design is already 23 years old (when full scale production started) and we need to move on to the next bigger and better thing. We eventually have to replace the B-1B and the B-52.

Options being considered include a stretched tailess version of the F-22 as well as concepts such as the B-3
www.globalsecurity.org...

i think the US should invest in a newer design. in fact, i'm sure that we already have. like you said, the plane is over 20 years old.

as for replacing the B-52s? in my opinion, more should be built. those have shown to be the most tenacious long range bomber ever designed. proof of that alone can be seen that the USAF plans on flying them around until they're nearly 100 years old!

Bomber are a critical need in the USA. I think a combination apporach would be the best.
First, adding more B-2's would be a big boost, because it would allow us to retire some of our oldest bombers. But developing new Bombers Needs to be Top Priority. The world is changing rapidly and all of our current bombers (including the B-2) were design primarly for the Cold War and the Nuclear threat we were facing at the time. I looked into this topic and have come up with a list of capibilities I feel that the next bomber will need if the USA wants to maintain a creditable force:

Long Range/Endurance: As Afganastan and Iraq have showen us, we must be able to act quickly and decisively on intelligence, because you might only get one chance to get it right. our Next bomber should be able to get to where ever it is needed with minimal support and be able to loiter untill needed. If you're after a mobil target, you never know when you might get your chance to hit it, and you don't want to loose your chance while your waiting for a plane to launch from a base 15 or 20 miles from the action.

Good Payload: You need to carry a reasonable payload so you don't need to go rearm constantly. More importantly, you need a wide veriety of weapons options from the 5'000 lbs. Bunker busters, to cluster bombs, to stand off and antiradar missiles. There is nothing worse then dropping a bomb on a target and not destroying it because you used the wrong type of warhead. (Example: in the 1991 Gulf War they sent F-117's against a command bunker, but the mission failed because the planes had the wrong bombs on board.) The more types of weapons you can carry with on one mission the lower the chance that you will find yourself with the wrong bomb for the target.

Survivabilty: Simpally put you need to get to the target and Back in one peice for the mission to be sucessful.

Good Sensors and Information Systems: Information is worthless if it's not accurate and reliable. For that the information needs to be up to date.

These are the characteristic we need in our next bomber. What a plane design to meet these needs will look like is anyone's guess. But what is clear is this, The US needs to invest in a new bomber if it wants to hold on to it deterrent and power projection capabilities in the future.

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance

they probably already have another bomber stealth aircraft we just don't know about it and I agree retire the B-52 produce more B-2 then look to produce the B-3.

To my knowledge, the Hyper Soar Program is going to host the B-3. I think the Hyper Soar is an awesome plane IMO, but only to my knowledge will this plane be the B-3, unless someone else has something to say that would help me prove it. heh

Originally posted by WestPoint23
they probably already have another bomber stealth aircraft we just don't know about it and I agree retire the B-52 produce more B-2 then look to produce the B-3.

Actually the B-52 still has a good life left in it esp if the AF would look at replacing the current engines with 4 comercial ones. It would give it better range, more power etc. Maybe use it as a high altitude cruise missile carrier / UCAV controller?????

I personlly think weaponized satellites will gradually replace what we know as 'bombers'. The next 'bomber' will probly be the extreme high altitude hypersonic 'shuttles' the us is now r&d. They will be continued to be manufactured however but at a slower and slower pace. Although the b-2 and b52 still pack a hell of a punch. We are now on the threshold of space.

Originally posted by jrod8900
I personlly think weaponized satellites will gradually replace what we know as 'bombers'. The next 'bomber' will probly be the extreme high altitude hypersonic 'shuttles' the us is now r&d. They will be continued to be manufactured however but at a slower and slower pace. Although the b-2 and b52 still pack a hell of a punch. We are now on the threshold of space.

Good point, but those developments are decades away. We may need solutions for the time being.

Originally posted by FredT

Actually the B-52 still has a good life left in it esp if the AF would look at replacing the current engines with 4 comercial ones. It would give it better range, more power etc. Maybe use it as a high altitude cruise missile carrier / UCAV controller?????

I like this idea, especially with the US trend towards unmanned vehicles this may be the way to go.

Otherwise, I think we should produce more B2's and invest in the FB-22. Why spend billions on developping a new airframe to do basically the same thing that modifying this existing one could do. Hypersoar sounds like a great idea but the problem is that it would not be capable of loitering over an area for a long period of time because of it's high speed. It would basically be a ICBM that drops it's payload and comes back, only capable of pulling a hit-and-run, which isn't great for the current war on terrorism

Originally posted by jrod8900
I personlly think weaponized satellites will gradually replace what we know as 'bombers'.

as great of an idea as that is, it was thought of LONG ago and has been banned by all nations in an UN treaty. i think it was back in the 60s, but probably during the 70s.

On the subject, check out this thread.....Intelgurls post preatty much somes it up.

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

The B-3 is probably in R&D as we speak, it will most likely be stealthy, cruise at Mach 2+ (likely closer to Mach 5), will carry 20,000-40,000 LBS of bombs, and work at high altitude. On a side not, if it is being or has already been developed, it would have heavy influence from the Aurora (if it exists).

cmdrkeenkid- since when has the pentagon cared about some treaty they have broken a lot of them if not all of them do you think we did not have nukes up there during the cold war you are very naive if you think we play by the rules.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
The B-3 is probably in R&D as we speak, it will most likely be stealthy, cruise at Mach 2+ (likely closer to Mach 5),

It may very well be. However most of the open literature I have seen state that it is in the proposal/study page only. Obviously we may not know if they are in the mist of a black project. Based on current technology, a Mach 2-3 is more likely if it is flying already. Note "current". WHo knows if the future is already here

originally posted by: FredT


Actually the B-52 still has a good life left in it esp if the AF would look at replacing the current engines with 4 comercial ones. It would give it better range, more power etc. Maybe use it as a high altitude cruise missile carrier / UCAV controller?????

This thread may be two decades old, but the US Air Force in September 2021 opted to have the B-52H fleet re-engined with eight Rolls-Royce F130 turbofans, deciding that having the engine nacelles reconfigured to house the F130s would be more cost-effective than replacing the TF33s with four engines.