It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Advance Bomber Concept- Could it Work?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Long before I started on ATS I used to design military Aircraft as a hobby(No, they were never built!). I wanted to explain a concept of mine and see what people think about it as a viable design. The Point of this thread is to see what people think about concept application, not do you like the way it looks or is it your favorite! ( PLEASE BE HONEST AND OBJECT!!)

Goal/Requirements(Taken from actual origional/an current Requirements for the B-52):

Range: 10'000 NM
Ceiling: 50'000 FT
Payload: 70'000 LSB
Speed:650 miles per hour (Mach 0.86)
Armament: full Range of Convetional, Nuclear, and PGM's

Concept:

The Aircraft I sketched is/was a flying wing design based off of the Northrop X/Y-35 bomber. The plane would use a Fly-By-Light control system adapted from the YF-23 design. The B-35's piston engines would be replaced with 4 Unducted fan engine: UDF Engine. The old Alumin skin would be replaced with the stronger Carbon fiber materials used in the B-2 and YF-23 programs. The Avionics would be design barrowing technology from the Lockheed F-22 program. The cockpit would house a crew of 2 in ACES II ejection seats under a Bubble canopy that Jettisons in an emergency. The aircraft would be equipped with ECM, Chaff, Flares, and a laser self defense systems (For use against electronics).

The Aircraft is intended to Fill the role of the B-52, Fallowing the B-2 into the target area with a larger payload. What do you think, Could it Work?

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance




posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Why would we want another slow bomber?



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
Why would we want another slow bomber?


Speed is NOT what makes a bomber effective, the ability to find and accurately hit the target is! Why does everyone assume that bombers have no place in warfare, they evolve with technology like everything else!

Why dose everyone assume bombers can't have a place in moder warfare? An old F-8 fighter from 1952 would not work well in Air to Air combat today, but noone looks at a futuristic fighter concept and asks: Why would we want another fast fighter? Do they?

Please look at it in its own light, instead of compairing Apples to Oranges!

Fighters are NOT Bombers (and never will be), Just like Bombers are Not Fighters.

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance

[edit on 3-9-2004 by ghost]



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 11:47 AM
link   
I agree. Not to be a jerk or anything, but this doesn't offer anything that our current bomber fleet doesnt already have. The future trend in the US AF is going to be Speed, altitude, and stealth. Especially important is speed, as the US does not want to depend on foriegn bases to fly it's aircraft from. Stealth is clearly an important component, seeing as all of the new AF fighters/bombers are designed with stealth as their biggest priority. Altitude will also be an important factor, because the USAF likes to be able to act with as much impunity as it can, thus the higher a plane can fly, the fewer things can reach it.

Overall, I'd say your bomber is a bad idea for the USAF - it simply doesn't improve on anything. However, as an export bomber it may find some buyers. The key would be to be able to produce them cheaply.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
I agree. Not to be a jerk or anything, but this doesn't offer anything that our current bomber fleet doesnt already have. The future trend in the US AF is going to be Speed, altitude, and stealth. Especially important is speed, as the US does not want to depend on foriegn bases to fly it's aircraft from. Stealth is clearly an important component, seeing as all of the new AF fighters/bombers are designed with stealth as their biggest priority. Altitude will also be an important factor, because the USAF likes to be able to act with as much impunity as it can, thus the higher a plane can fly, the fewer things can reach it.

Overall, I'd say your bomber is a bad idea for the USAF - it simply doesn't improve on anything. However, as an export bomber it may find some buyers. The key would be to be able to produce them cheaply.


Thank you for Giving me some REAL feedback! This is what I was after. I had been thinking of Impoving the range and Payload over the B-1 and B-2. Now I can Improve it!

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorace



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 11:59 AM
link   

The Aircraft is intended to Fill the role of the B-52, Fallowing the B-2 into the target area with a larger payload. What do you think, Could it Work?


Would it work? Likely... Would it be cost-effective? No... I'm sure a B-52 replacement is already in the testing stages at the very least. Using the materials and advanced avionics you're speaking of though, you're talking about a very expensive bomber, to fit a very simple role. I'm sure the current idea for a replacement is emphasizing cost, in replacing an aging bomber fleet, than the latest in materials and avionics....
Remember, the B-52 is used pretty much AFTER establishing air superiority. You can fill this role with a fairly cheap replacement...

Back in my younger days, I too had an avid hobby of designing such things... My favorite? The TRILON, basically a massive carrier that housed attack submarine fighters, advanced VTOL fighters, amphibious landers, and ballistic missiles. TRILON, because it could attack from land, sea, and air. Defense systems included stealth design, cloaking device (using fibre optics to bend light around the ship, coupled with electronic signal dampening) and a force field (generating a dome of ionized air into plasma to serve as a shield). Plenty of anti-submarine defenses as well, and of course standard systems such as Phalanx, SAMs, SSMs, Depth charges, etc. Not quite as realistic as your idea of course, hehe....


[edit on 3-9-2004 by Gazrok]



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Goal/Requirements(Taken from actual origional/an current Requirements for the B-52):

Range: 10'000 NM
Ceiling: 80'000 FT
Payload: 70'000 Lbs
Speed:750 miles per hour (Mach 0.96)
Armament: full Range of Convetional, Nuclear, and PGM's

Concept:

The Aircraft I sketched is/was a flying wing design based off of the Northrop X/Y-35 bomber. The plane would use a Fly-By-Light control system adapted from the YF-23 design. The B-35's piston engines would be replaced with 4 Unducted fan engine: UDF Engine. The old Alumin skin would be replaced with the stronger Carbon fiber materials used in the B-2 and YF-23 programs. The Avionics would be design barrowing technology from the Lockheed F-22 program. The cockpit would house a crew of 2 in ACES II ejection seats under a Bubble canopy that Jettisons in an emergency. The aircraft would be equipped with ECM, Chaff, Flares, and a laser self defense systems (For use against electronics). The Main inprovments are in: avionics/electronice, defensive systems, and Weapons

The Aircraft is intended to Fill the role of the B-52, Fallowing the B-2 into the target area with a larger payload. What do you think, Could it Work?

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 12:34 PM
link   
If this is intended as a B-52 replacement, then it has to justify the R&D of the craft by improving on the B-52 in a significant manner, which means you'll have to best the following specs

Speed: Mach .91
Altitude: 50,000 ft
Mission Radius: 4,480 miles (not sure if this means that the range is 8,960???)
Payload: 10,000lbs (I think this is wrong though, I could have sworn it was like 50,000)
Global Security.org

Anyways, I think the new specs would be just what they are looking for. If you could get that bird to supercruise, then I think you'd have yourself an aircraft.

EDIT: typo

[edit on 3-9-2004 by American Mad Man]



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 12:45 PM
link   
In my opinion it should be smaller (one half of B2 that means eight 2000 lbs bombs) stealth unmanned bomber. And the propulsion should be nuclear - maybe the new quantum hafnium reactor creating power for electric engines that means very low IR signature and unlimited flight endurance. Also 100kw laser turret for self defense.


[edit on 3-9-2004 by longbow]



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Again...cost issues...you could use cheaper materials and avionics, and still have a pretty good replacement for the bird...

Stealth, nuclear engines, and lasers? Really, it isn't needed in this role....

You need:

Good range
Good payload
Flexible payload
High altitude
Fairly fast
Good countermeasures

That's really about it...as it's assumed that you would have already pretty much taken out most of the anti-aircraft defenses, and enemy air force by this time... The modern B-52 role is far different than when bombers were escorted by fighters....



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
Again...cost issues...you could use cheaper materials and avionics, and still have a pretty good replacement for the bird...

Stealth, nuclear engines, and lasers? Really, it isn't needed in this role....

You need:

Good range
Good payload
Flexible payload
High altitude
Fairly fast
Good countermeasures

That's really about it...as it's assumed that you would have already pretty much taken out most of the anti-aircraft defenses, and enemy air force by this time... The modern B-52 role is far different than when bombers were escorted by fighters....


I was not talking about B-52 replacement, I was talking about future advanced bombers. If you want to replace B-52 just make a cargo aircraft that can also carry cruise misiles under wings. It is the same what B-52 is doing today and much cheaper.

to your points:

range?
Yes that is the reason why should it be nuclear.

payload?
nuclear bomber don't need to carry fuel, so it could carry more bombs...

countermeasures?
100kw laser able to shoot down incoming misilles is the best countermeasure.
- and it will not cost too much.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
The Aircraft is intended to Fill the role of the B-52, Fallowing the B-2 into the target area with a larger payload. What do you think, Could it Work?


Yes, the concept would work. The B-52 as it exist now is really only good as a long range jamming platform or Cruise missle platform, or as a UCAV controll hub. This proposed bomber could use stealth to follow on attacks in denied territory after the B-2 has performed a SEAD strike.

I like it! Groom Lake would be an ideal test location for this bomber!!!!!!!!



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 01:57 PM
link   
How about modifying the Boeing Blended Wing Body as a high level conventional bomber. Anything designed as a civilian airliner has definite potential as a heavy bomber? You could break off a transport variant too. It's all basically off the shelf technology, and an established program, too.


Opps, after thinking and writing this up, I look on Boeing site and see this...


www.boeing.com...

spooky...Shows you that with 5 billion people, rarely are ideas new...

Ok, if not the BWB, what abot the Sonic Crusier as a bomber? Nice increase in speed.

www.boeing.com...


[edit on 9/3/2004 by soulforge]

[edit on 9/3/2004 by soulforge]



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Sounds good, but it won't last long, not with technologies evolving.(Please don't take this to offense, I too draw and design aircraft and other things as a hobby.)
A range of 10,000 miles wil be broken in 10 years by a range of 17,000 miles by Pulse Detonation Engines.

Speed will be a factor, but in the long run Stealth and altitude and missile defense systems will be what bombers need not speed. If you have those things then you're set in the long run.

Speed is important, true, but speed will do more good for fighters than bombers, and if a fighter and bomber was combined together, I think it would be a gunship.

Hope this helps ya, it sounds cool, but I think your aircraft described would be able to do more than you give it credit for, so try thinking a bit harder, increase some things here, decrease others there, make it better balanced.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by soulforge
How about modifying the Boeing Blended Wing Body as a high level conventional bomber. Anything designed as a civilian airliner has definite potential as a heavy bomber? You could break off a transport variant too. It's all basically off the shelf technology, and an established program, too.


Opps, after thinking and writing this up, I look on Boeing site and see this...


www.boeing.com...

spooky...Shows you that with 5 billion people, rarely are ideas new...

Ok, if not the BWB, what abot the Sonic Crusier as a bomber? Nice increase in speed.

www.boeing.com...


[edit on 9/3/2004 by soulforge]

[edit on 9/3/2004 by soulforge]

The Blended Wing Body project was designed for civilian and military cargo, not military bombing. It will not last since when they are modified to be bombers, the B-3 will already be in the prototype stage and 10 years of service for such a massive aircraft?

That would be a waste of money, so I guess people want to see big aircraft be so important, maybe size doesn't matter and speed, stealth, agility, ability to avoid detection or attack is more important that size.

Besides the BWB would be a big target for high altitude fighters, so thats a risk the military won't wanting to take, the BWB would be better served as a transport plane, and most people would agree, cargo and transport is the way for the BWB.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 10:57 PM
link   
I think your plane would indeed work and fly. But I notice you made no mention of stealth anywhere. Where you planning to leave it out for cost reasons as B-2s would hit the hard targets and then your Super Wing would come in and bomb when most radars and SAMs are already been taken out?

If you planned to leave stealth out of this plan it might be better to make a faster plane to make up for a lack of stealth. Im not sure what speeds a flying wing can take but Im sure its well over what the B-2 flies at.

I think new bombers will use both stealth and speed, faster then even that of the famous SR-71. I think plans are already in the works for a Orbital Bomber these types of new bombers will be able to hit any target on earth in less then 2 hours. Something most people in the Military would drool over. I think they will have much smaller payloads then something like the B-52 but will ofcourse use smart weapons to make up for this lack of numbers.


MBF

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Your bomber should work fine, but if all that you want to do is replace the B-52 and what it does now, why not just take a 747 and modify it.



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
Long before I started on ATS I used to design military Aircraft as a hobby(No, they were never built!). I wanted to explain a concept of mine and see what people think about it as a viable design. The Point of this thread is to see what people think about concept application, not do you like the way it looks or is it your favorite! ( PLEASE BE HONEST AND OBJECT!!)

Goal/Requirements(Taken from actual origional/an current Requirements for the B-52):

Range: 10'000 NM
Ceiling: 50'000 FT
Payload: 70'000 LSB
Speed:650 miles per hour (Mach 0.86)
Armament: full Range of Convetional, Nuclear, and PGM's

Concept:

The Aircraft I sketched is/was a flying wing design based off of the Northrop X/Y-35 bomber. The plane would use a Fly-By-Light control system adapted from the YF-23 design. The B-35's piston engines would be replaced with 4 Unducted fan engine: UDF Engine. The old Alumin skin would be replaced with the stronger Carbon fiber materials used in the B-2 and YF-23 programs. The Avionics would be design barrowing technology from the Lockheed F-22 program. The cockpit would house a crew of 2 in ACES II ejection seats under a Bubble canopy that Jettisons in an emergency. The aircraft would be equipped with ECM, Chaff, Flares, and a laser self defense systems (For use against electronics).

The Aircraft is intended to Fill the role of the B-52, Fallowing the B-2 into the target area with a larger payload. What do you think, Could it Work?

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance


Sorry but I have to ask this but what do you hope this desgin will achieve ?
carpet bombing? tactical nuclear strike? I had to ask these questions before I add my 10 cent.
What about anti submarine Capabilities ? (I know the Cold war is over but we dont want to fall behind the 8 ball perhaps your next desgin could be a sub killer.)



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Well, since you mentioned a sub killer here's one I concocted over a couple of spare days.

The idea behind it is for a UK led affordable aircraft to operate from the new Queen Elizabeth class carriers in the ASW, COD/Tanker and AEW roles. It is of course a shortened twin engine carrier capable version of the BAe 146 which I have christened BAe Wyvern MR/A.1, AEW.2 and C(K).3



The twin turbofans are very much more powerful than the four ALF 502's of the original and allow for six underwing pylons on the ASW version. Just a bit of fun mind and I didn't really go into the spec it would have, more just the baseline airframe from which the various subtypes would be developed.



[edit on 4-9-2004 by waynos]



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Dose the BAe Wyvern MR/A.1, AEW.2 and C(K).3 carry any wepons such as depth charges or dose it direct other forces to the "contact" Could it replace the Nimrod?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join